I hope a request for using eFTP as default FTP automatically is not a big effort to enable. So TSS, ATL, CTL should be calculated with eFTP.
For me eFTP is pretty accurate, maybe with some test i can measure bigger FTP, but if i am honest with myself it is always bigger with a few watts that my actual FTP should be. I get used to eFTP, i am not training for any race, with eFTP i dont need to take tests so it is very useful for me.
This has come up a few times and is on the list. Hopefully I can get it done soon.
I thought there is already a request for this, i really searched for it, but could not find. Sorry for duplicate 
Please can this be an opiton and not the default/ change from how it is now. I rely on setting my FTP via formal testing (and so do my athletes) and so eFTP will not be the most accurate way of doing this for others.
Hi everyone,
Maybe another option could be implemented importing Xert metrics (Xert FTP, Xert HIE that could be used to define W’) for each activity. But I guess it would require more time to implement.
Yes, of course. It should be an OPTION only. I know for others it is not reliable and accurate. And others also like testing and use their numbers 
It would first of all require Xert to make them available in some way. API, csv export, FIT file, …
I guess it would only benefit the users that are subscribed to Xert. The API file shows limited information, but the sample data does show the profile signature data.
I agree !
You need a subscription to Xert in order to connect to the API via login/password.
The documentation is not very detailed, but you’re rigth, I can see in the sample response the data that concerns the signature for each importing activity :
"sig": {
"ftp": 250,
"atc": 41139,
"pp": 1447
},
I agree with @Olly_Thomas and @Gergely_Komives, it is very important that if this feature is created, it should be a user-selectable option only, giving the user the choice to either base training loads on the auto-generated eFTP, or the user manually-entered FTP value.
Personally I don’t want TSS/ATL/CTL calculated based on the eFTP value, since I know that my true FTP is (definitely) just a little bit higher than its estimate, even though I do put in hard training efforts and I am aware the algorithm also presumably draws data from sub-maximimal/sub-FTP changes/output in HR/power to derive its estimate. The fact is doing an all-out FTP test is extremely intense, particularly psychologically, and the reality is that training efforts will always be somewhat below true max test efforts.
Let me put it another way. Consider your current best eFTP based on your training so far. Now, imagine that next week, you were invited into a training room with a perfectly calibrated Wattbike (or whatever), and were given an FTP effort/test protocol, but with the watts set a few percentage points higher, say 5W-10W. In front of the test bike is a suitcase filled with ÂŁ10,000,000 in cash, of totally legitimate origin. The cash is yours if you can complete the effort for the new target FTP. (Suppose some stupidly rich person just finds it entertaining to watch some ordinary person do an all-out effort for one hour).
I’m willing to bet that for 99% of you, you’d be able to do it; spittle drooling off your face, in a terrible state, and ready to basically collapse/throw up everywhere immediately afterward. The point is that this is a true 100% FTP effort, and the reality is only under the most extreme motivational conditions (e.g. the scenario described, a TT effort when you know you’re in contention for the win, a race where you’re in a small leading group, a chance of a professional contract with Team Ineos, whatever it is that really would drive you) can you truly do your max effort, because it is nothing except absolute total unmitigated suffering till the very last second.
So I’d rather be able to base training loads on an FTP value that I realistically appraise is my true physiological potential at the time, rather than the eFTP which for me is always just fractionally conservative. This is every more true if you have several years of training under your belt, as you begin to know your own body so well and get pretty good at judging exactly where you are compared against previous best-efforts.
After 2 years now i should be honest with myself and accept that eFTP was always more accurate FOR ME and yes it should be an option only. Maybe because i can perform higher FTP on a ramp test and i don’t want to do any 20 minutes test on the trainer, perhaps a 2x8 minutes test but only outside.
I don’t train for any race, just like training in some structured way and what you mentioned i don’t need that 5% accuracy, i just want to stay on the safe side, i use power meter and structured training because i must take maximum advantage of my limited training time.
In my case i always blew out myself for the end of the winter season, maybe beacuse i used only the ramp test. Last winter i accepted and used lower eFTP and it was perfect.
I agree with @ArenT and @Gergely_Komives…keep eFTP user selectable feature for auto populate vs those that prefer manual FTP populate (I would also advocate manual as default so a user understands the choice before selecting it)
I use sub 20 min eFTP as a helpful potential signal of improvement between more formal FTP tests (if an athlete choses more formal tests). After all, who really likes the longer FTP tests?
TrainingPeaks also allows user selectable auto vs manual update choice for FTP updates…however, I really like that interval.icu tries to incorporate more modern predictive science in its algorithm wrto sub 20 min eFTP.
On a regular basis a 4 minutes All-Out-Test, with starting at maximum effort from the beginning and then reducing wattage constantly, but slowly down, started working for me. Done with the same bike, a stationary spinning bike, by the way.
Therefore I changed the eFTP calculation to 240s, which seems to be quite accurate at the end, still the eFTP numbers are slightly too high. I decided setting the FTP parameter based on my own individual assumptions a bit lower. Both numbers are not too far away from each other, just around a maximum of 4 to 5%.
In general I distinguish into:
Turning this experience now into a better understandable diagram, I developed the following indication tooling:
I
A reliable finding and helper :
Long story, short: I´d love to see this eFTP feature, if certain default behavior chains are reflected and if you could put an individual adjustment parameter a side. I my example it would be: reduce the eFTP by 5%.
Is there any scheduled time for this feature?
I don’t know if this is being tracked anywhere else, but I’d really like to see this implemented (as an optional feature)
would be nice to be able to set outdoor FTP based on outdoor activities eFTP and likewise for indoor from indoor eFTP.
Currently doing it manually…
Has this feature already implemented? Personally l would even like the option of syncing the intervals eftp to Garmin and TPs.
