What else are we to suggest when athletes are (tacitly or otherwise) saying that the number AI FTP Detection is serving up to them is “wrong” - or at least they’re not confident it’s “right”?
If they’re not going to test (or verify, if people prefer that term) empirically then what’s left? Find another algorithm and feed their ride data into it and see what comes out? Not sure that moves us forward.
If we’re really at the point where a 2 × 20 at an appropriate RPE isn’t a good idea to verify a number with “FTP” in its name … I may just have to give up.
Now this is a good question. My follow-up would be “… and if it is dynamic, what sort of changes would we expect at population-level and at athlete-level and how would they interact?”
Yes, this is a really good question! If it is AI, then surely it is constantly changing, thus, to say we haven’t radically altered anything about AIFTP wouldn’t be relevant as, surely, the system alters itself?
For whom is this true? Me, at a measly 3.5wkg? Maybe. A brand new athlete at 1.7wkh? Almost certainly. Someone with 5 years of training history at 4.5wkg? Probably not.
Love it when people say what is isn’t without telling you what it is.
So what is your definition of progressive overload? Here’s what I found: “Progressive overload is gradually increasing exercise intensity, duration, or frequency.”
lol love it i forgot all about this, thanks for tracking. and if i’m following prior comments, the progressive overload is partially having an increased wattage target. well, to debunk that, I’ve also increased my wattage target on sweet spot stuff when I’ve felt good, as well increased my weekly hours from 10-12 to 14-16, and it certainly didn’t manifest in higher ftp lol. and going back to that ss level 10 thread I think that’s where TR and their stans get things wrong, you can’t just kind of will higher ftp into existence by just increasing wattage on workout
It seems like slowootwitch might be saying that a couple workouts isn’t going to be progressive overload, and then he shows a graph of increasing fitness over 5-6 months to reach success. It’d be nice if they could just say that, if it’s the intention.
Hey @ZackeryWeimer - it’s interesting you point out that workout. I did Mount Hayes +2 as the last threshold workout of my build block, which is 5x12-min intervals at a higher percentage (except the first one). I even exceeded the wattage targets on some of them. Marked it as hard - saw zero increase in FTP. Now, one workout does not an FTP increase make. But, this was part of a block of consistent training. I’m already having a chat with support about this btw.
Much like ChatGPT, TR may not precisely know why AIFTP gives the results it does. It sets a model and parameters, but doesn’t see it exact reasoning.
Doing the following may or may not increase FTP, and we have nothing to improve or work on if expectations don’t meet results, because the results and methods are unknown.
Looking back at your training history I can see that you’ve been bouncing around this same FTP since around early 2022. The last time you had a higher FTP than you have right now was at the end of August right before your offseason, and you’re already fitter than you were at this point last year.
My point is that while you feel like you should get an increase in FTP due to the work you’ve been doing, fitness gains aren’t tightly tied to that work (they aren’t immediate). They take time to become realized, and as long as you’re consistent, they will come.
You have a high w/kg, so those gains are harder to find and often come a bit slower, but you’ve proven over the past few years that by spring/summer, you’ll be in great shape. By the looks of things, this could be your best year yet.
