A couple of thingsjlok wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:09 amFTP = 20mins steady maximal work * 0.95. The problem of FTP is that it has an assumption of the same capability/capacity to work above FTP (i.e. FRC or HIE, or W' capacity, similar ideas) among all riders. If two riders have the same FTP, would they necessarily sprint the same?cheapvega wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 6:02 pmI guess I will pose my skepticism over TR's "AI" addition as a series of questions:
- Are FTP tests better than real world power curve data for determining training intensity?
- Is there value in individualizing interval length/intensity to a rider's specific strengths and goals?
- Can adjusting training intensity more frequently yield faster adaptations?
Basically my feeling is this is still a missed opportunity. For $20/mo I want customized workouts built around my individual strengths/weaknesses, goals and rides, as well as intensity determined from training data (so I never have to do an FTP test again). From what I'm seeing this still requires regular FTP testing and only provides suggestions to canned workouts. Maybe their workout library is extensive enough to not need to build things from scratch. Maybe they are really wed to that IP. IDK. Either way I'm skeptical.
If TR "AI" workouts are based on FTP, it is flawed fundamentally, or the "AI" is not I enough to understand different riders and prescribe more appropriate workouts based on rider's goal (to sprint better or to climb better).
FTP is not and never has been, 20mins steady maximal work x 0.95
That is nothing more than a crude approximation because a true FTP test (maximal steady state "for around an hour") hurts a lot if done right so the 20 minute approximation came about to encourage people to test more often
For some people, it maybe 0.96 or even 0.97 (those with low aneraerobic power contributing to FTP)
For others (like me), its more like 0.93 or 0.94
0.95 was settled on because for most people, its "close enough"
If you are already highly trained, then the outcome will be less than optimal
There is nothing wrong with basing workouts on FTP.....provided they are workouts aimed at raising FTP
But yes, I agree that using FTP as a base for sprint training is flawed
A model, any model, is only as good as the data that it is based on.
If you feed the model garbage data (ie sub maximal efforts), then expect garbage to be spewed out by that model
So it is of critical importance regardless of the model used that you feed it good data, and that means testing.
Must be maximal (or very close to it) and it must be constantly tested and retested otherwise the model quickly loses its validity
This is the issue with any program that is AI or ML based.
Becuase it isnt being overseen by an experienced coach, you probably wont know that the workouts it has given you are sub-optimal (or worse, cause you to lose fitness)
If you do know that they wont work, then you probably have enough experience and knowledge to self coach anyway
There have been a lot of very intelligent people trying to crack this nut and I dont think its been done yet
If TR has come up with a half decent algorithym and can modify it based on the feedback data they receive, then they may be the first to do it
As it stands, it doesnt appear that they have done anything more than developed a model giving cookie cutter workouts based on set parameters of the "average" athlete
Obviously, no one knows yet and Im willing to give them the benefit of the doubt....but they wont be receiving any of my hard earned cash until they can prove they can do what they actually claim