BOSTON, Month Day, Year — A recent shift in how TrainingPeaks (TR) calculates Functional Threshold Power (FTP) is leaving some cyclists scratching their heads, and questioning whether a number that doesn’t align with traditional testing is actually helpful. One user reported an AI-predicted FTP increase of 12.94%, prompting debate about the new system’s logic.
New FTP Algorithm Prioritizes Workout Productivity
The core of the discussion centers on whether FTP should be a measure of performance, or a tool to optimize training.
- TrainingPeaks has updated its algorithm for determining FTP.
- The new system focuses on setting optimal workouts, potentially diverging from traditional FTP test results.
- Some cyclists prefer the consistency of an FTP value that aligns with testing, while others trust the system to deliver the most productive training.
- The debate highlights the evolving relationship between data, performance, and individual preferences in cycling.
Essentially, the algorithm now aims to provide the “optimum FTP” for TR to prescribe the most effective workouts, even if that number doesn’t reflect what an athlete would achieve in a standard FTP test. Nate, a figure within the TR community, has reportedly made a convincing argument that prioritizing workout productivity is the ultimate goal. However, not everyone is on board.
“The jury is out on this one,” one cyclist commented. Another expressed confusion, noting the oddity of a scenario where FTP is presented as 308 minus 10, effectively lowering progression levels, rather than simply stating an FTP of 298. “There is apparently some ‘good reasoning’ behind this but it escapes me,” they added.
The rationale, as some see it, is to give the TR system more “levers to pull” for fine-tuning workouts. If TR asserts this approach yields the best results, some cyclists are willing to trust the process. However, a desire for consistency with traditional testing remains strong.
One cyclist proposed a hypothetical choice: “A) New AIFTP – This allows the system to give you the best possible workouts…but the FTP value will not align with past values or with external training programs. B) Old AIFTP – Can slightly inhibit the systems ability to select correct workouts…but your FTP will be consistent with past values.” While acknowledging the rational preference for option A, they confessed a personal preference for option B.
“ha. alas we are not rational animals,” another user quipped, suggesting the debate is ripe for a spirited “Would You Rather” game among cyclists. The discussion underscores a broader point: while FTP is a valuable metric for gauging training, personal records (PRs) might be a more relevant measure of actual performance.
“Yeah, I guess I didn’t understand what Nate was saying,” one cyclist admitted. “I thought he was explaining how it had always worked. In any case, you’re right that as much as FTP is valuable as a gauge for training it’s a good metric for comparison. If I understand the counter to that, it would be that your actual PRs should be your comparison measure.”
