Not as simple as adding up TTS?

If one does 3 x 20 mins with 5 mins between each set then the TTS score will be the same as if they are spread throught the day with 4 hours apart. Surely these two workouts will not have the same effect as each other? If I am training for 1hr TT's then the former must be better as it resembles the actual event more.
What are other peoples thoughts?

Remember that the claim about TSS has never been that two workouts with identical TSS scores produce the same effects. Rather, the claim that the TSS "model" makes is that they produce similar amounts of stress on the body, requiring similar recovery. However, they might still produce two different kinds of stress.

Your specific example (2x20 with a really long rest) happens to be something I have some experience with, because 2-a-day workouts work well in my schedule. In my experience with 2-a-days of all sorts, the TSS model as a predictor of fatigue continues to function pretty well.

Now, as to your "specificity" worries: not all workouts aim at race simulation. Many workouts instead are working on remodelling your body, protein-by-protein, to be a more effective endurance engine. L4 work in particular benefits, e.g., criterium riders, whose events look nothing at all like a typical L4 workout, because L4 work powerfully stimulates a bunch of trainable pathways. Especially for a time-trialist, whose success at training will largely be determined by the quantity and quality of L4 work you can do over the years, I think any "trick" that lets you get more TSS points for less perceptual effort is likely to be a trick worth employing.

That said...

A lot of the "room for improvement" individuals have in their FT comes from metabolic adaptations. Undoubtedly, starting that second L4 set 5 minutes after the first will produce a more demanding metabolic situation than starting it 5 hours afterwards; 5 hours later you've replenished some muscle and liver glycogen, have a different hormonal milieu, etc. And, in my N=1, completely bogus experience, I seem to make faster progress doing (20min,5min,20min) than I do at (20min,7hours,20min). More progress for the same amount of fatigue sounds pretty good to me; the downside is the RPE is higher. Still, I seem to bounce back just as quick whether I do the workout in one piece or two... Go figure.

It's not as simple as adding up TSS, by doing it consistantly, thus improving your overall work capacity or chronical training load (CTL), it's already one hell of a good start.

I don't think I would exagerate in stating that it is the biggest part.

That with a little bit of commun sense (specificity) and there you go.

Peter - as was mentioned above here, I also tend to think of TSS as a measure of overall stress. That's rather oversimplified, but we needn't enter into the gritty details to make the point.

IMO, 2 x 20 with say, an hour between the 20's would be vastly different than doing those with 5 minutes between the intervals. The next day though, your body would probably have very similar amounts of fatigue, regardless of how much rest you used between the intervals.

Suppose your FTP is 300 - well you could say, ride at 300 w for 60 minutes - which would be nice preparation for an uphill TT for example. Meanwhile, you could also do 30 seconds of 150w alternated with 30 seconds of 450 watts for an hour and end up with the same average of 300 w. These rides would be targeting and creating different adaptations, despite the 300 w average.

I do my workouts in a manner that mirrors the types of events I am targeting....something about specificity!

So Lucy, when you first came on the forum you talked a lot about increasing your FTP. What kind of events exactly are you prepping for?

Hmmm, well for a smaller metro area we have a nice variety of events here. More specifically, I plan to try the Sandia Crest RR (the climb I posted in another thread), SF hill climb, the crit series, and probably the Oak Flat RR too. Really just getting a taste for different events, though I've got a god idea of what I'll do best in.

There is regular TT series but I'm not sure - I may give one a go just for kicks. We have stage races too but I don't think that would suit me at all. Not now anyway...

Lately I've been thinking I'd like to try the kilo and/or pursuit, but sans velodrome, that's unlikely to happen!

While the 2nd 20min effort would feel marginally easier with an hour recovery, I don't think the adaptation benefit would be much (if any) greater for the 2x20 w/5min recovery versus the 2x20 w/60min recovery. The adaptation is triggered by the 20mins at L4 power and not by the recovery duration. When I tally up my time by level, I pay no attention to the recovery durations between the efforts. And sometimes there is indeed an hour between L4 efforts on long rides (usually with some L5s and L6s during the hour). That being said, one's ability to maintain power in the 2nd 20min L4 with a relatively short recovery duration (e.g., 5mins) serves the 2nd purpose of validating the power target for the L4 efforts. IOW, being unable to maintain power in the 2nd 20 is an indicator that one has targeted L4 power too high (e.g., overestimated FTP). This validation wouldn't be as useful with a 60min recovery duration.

Have a go if you get the chance as they really are part of cycling folklore and in my view they are events every cyclist should attempt at least once in their lives.

These are, however, seriously different beasts of events requiring quite different preparation and ultimately you need to pick one or another. Women on the track don't have a kilo event - it's usually a 500m TT - empahsising the difference between the physiological (and to some extent technique) demands of each event.

They are fun to do though (sort of)

I mentioned what I did, mainly because I feel doing those 20 minutes L4 sessions with a short recovery is a useful check on the validity of one's stated FTP. Not merely physically, but also mentally, in being able to hold that intensity and focus with just a short break.

Which I think you are in agreement with from the latter half of your post.

Hey Alex

I'm sure they really are different events, and I can at least infer some of those differences at a glance.

I'm surprised women don't have a kilo event - given there are longer and shorter distances.

Anyway....

What's your take on the kilo vs. pursuit from a physiological perspective and just in practice, from having done both?

I know what you mean, when i decided to move to SCAL i had no idea that the company i took a job with put me about 15 miles from the Encino Velodrome. I plan to check it out sometime.

Back when I was living in Las Cruces I thought I heard some rumblings about a velodrome being built in Albq, have you heard anything about that?

It is so ironic you mention SCAL (as well as in that other thread!) because I came close to moving out there in 2004. The caveats you mentioned more or less compelled me to stay away.

Anyway, I've heard nothing about a velodrome here, but then I'm hardly connected. Maybe Tony or John can chime in if they see this, as they're much better connected with the local racing scene and such than I am.

I think so. Last winter I used a 3x20 routine with 5-min breaks to set my FT estimate. I would attempt to hold FTP or higher for all three intervals, and make sure I was giving it my all on the last one. When the average power of the 3 intervals became 5w higher than my FTP, I would increase my FT estimate, and that became the new interval target.

Well in simple terms (I'm a simple guy), the kilo is an all out explosive event requiring great NMP and AWC (and the underpinning energy systems ATP-PCr & Glycolosis) to get out of the blocks fast, accelerate to maximum speed quickly and then hang onto to it through to the end - you wouldn't believe something so short could hurt so much. There ain't much "pacing" involved. There is a close correlation between Kilo winners and 1st lap times. Of course there is still a significant aerobic contribution to total energy requirement but much less than for the pursuit. Kilo riders are a special breed (of what I'm not sure ).

BTW - at Masters level from MMAS 3+ the distances drop to 750m and then 500m for 5+. The track TT was only introduced for women at the Olympics inside the last decade and has been 500m. The track TT has now been dropped by the Olympics for Beijing (well, technically dropped by the UCI). An absolute travesty but that's a large aside (since we're way off topic anyway). It's like removing the 400m from the track and field events....

The pursuit is much more dominated by the aerobic energy system but AWC still plays a crucial role and is an event where pacing strategy is absolutely vital to success (as opposed to the all out approach of a kilo). NMP and speed out of the blocks is far less important and careful pacing of first 1.5 laps is most often the determining factor in the outcome (i.e. don't go out too hard).

Now I don't remember the exact ratios of aerobic:anaerobic energy sources for each but it is something like:
80:20 for pursuit and
50:50 for the kilo.

For a 500m TT, it probably goes down to around 33:67.

The other aspect to consider why pacing strategies are so different for each is that while overcoming air resistance is the biggest "obstacle" in each event, the proportion of total energy expenditure overcoming air resistance is less in a kilo than in a pursuit (and even less in a 500m TT). There is a higher proportion of energy expended in attaining kinetic energy, hence the high power and longer acceleration phase has greater influence on the outcome in a kilo.

Now it is certainly possible to do well in both if you possess the necessary attributes but at championship/national/world class levels these events are poles apart and require quite different training strategies. Typically we fall into one or the other (or choose to at least). Often it's hard to know until you have a go (hence my encouragement) unless of course you have a power meter since you can then break down the various components are know where you sit with each. Since you have a PM, you're in a good position to learn lots about it.

The kilo is a once off TT. The pursuit is a qualifying TT, followed by a ride off in the final if you make top 4 in qualifying. So pursuiters also need to be able to back up and repeat the effort on the same day (often only a couple of hours later).

The other factor to consider is that at Championships, the scheduling of these events means riding one can be detrimental to performance of the other (but not necessarily).

For such short events, they are actually quite technically complex beasts.

Now if you're really interested, Andy Coggan posted a presentation on the demands of the indivudual pursuit on the FGF forum here:
http://www.fixedgearfever.com/module...name=Downloads

There's also another one there discussing track applications for a power meter.

Tonight when I get home I'll post to my blog a short article I wrote earlier this year about pursuit pacing - in it I show 3 charts with power & speed v time from real pursuit efforts which highlights the impact of pacing on the final outcome....

I have chosen to concentrate on pursuit/points racing and leave the TT/sprints alone although I did ride them for several years. I was pretty crummy doing everything so decided to focus more.

Indeed I have a trial pursuit effort coming up in a fortnight's time. It's gunna be real interesting to see where I'm at. What chance a PB since I've set a few of those in aerobic rides lately? Our track championships are in March.