30/60 intervals with NP=FTP

I have done a couple of sessions with 30 s intervals/ 60 s rest for an hour (=40 intervals/30 s). 30 s at FTP 150% and 60 s at "selfselected" power. I have so far ended up with a NP within a few watts of my current FTP (4,35 w/kg). So the stress equals an hour at FTP, so far so good.

But, if I'm able to increase the NP for the hour, have my FTP increased as well?
Or am I "just" getting better using my anaerobic capacity? -Is the "on" part really sufficient to increase anaerobic capacity (30 s at 150 % FTP)?

It is also known that short sprints stimulates mitochondria biogenesis, but is 150% FTP enough to acheive this?

Is this more about of "adopting" than "developing"? /crit training/

Any thoughts/comments/reactions wellcome!

Maybe, maybe not. The NP algorithm is felt to represent phyisological strain within ~5%. So, if you can begin to generate session NPs >1.05*FTP then another FTP test is probably in order.

Also, if you are out of the saddle for your 30s sprints and utilizing greater muscle mass for those brief periods, then it's possible to exceed an FTP which has been determined through sitting alone.

Not sure, but my guess is that it would be, with the rests being as short as they are.


As long as you see better performance in your crits, does it matter?

Trying to sit, ain't trying to make a "NP-buster". My concern is really that they "feel to easy", but, as you say 1,05 is quite much (for me anyway).

That's a legitimate concern when comparing these to more traditional L4 work. There aren't a lot of magic workouts out there. There are some HIT methods like Tabata's that have been shown to provide the benefits of Threshold work in a microinterval format, but I don't know anyone that describes them as "too easy".

Andy's "If it feels hard, it is" statement comes to mind and perhaps the corollary, "if it feels too easy, it is" at least when we're talking about L4 work and above. What is your typical AP for one of these sessions? The NP algorithm attempts to model metabolic stress, but that's not necessarily the same as appropriate training intensity.

Have you tried more conventional HOP style efforts where both the AP and NP fall into appropriate training ranges? That's what I'd suggest for raising FTP while still doing crit style accelerations. Who knows, maybe you stumbled on a great way to do L4 work, but I doubt it. The work to rest ratio seems low and the durations awfully short to really stress sustainable power.

Good luck,
-Dave

Another thought: you're using WKO+ to determine the session NP, right?

Reason I ask is that many people use spreadsheets to calculate NP without applying the 30second smoothing, which could make a difference in this case because of the short efforts.

Using WKO+ and a PowerTap, so numbers ought to be OK.

AP is way below NP, VI is like 1.35-1.40. I have transformed from 2x20-30, to HOP, to 30/60 during the winter. So from low VI to high VI. /Yeah I like RR more than TT

You have pinpointed my "worrie's". Even if the metabolic stress is the same as a L4 effort with even power applied, it seems strange that this kind of microintervals also would increase FTP in the same manner.

But, anyway, NP does increase with a couple af watts for each WO / 3 weeks now/ last one today ended with a NP 5W >FTP, so I will keep doing them for some time. At least they don't hurt my CTL building and I'm able to do my other key workouts as planned. Still, a WO have to be hard, right?!

I don't really think I have found any magic here, probably am I only adopting my current ability to a new stress.

I am curious, though, what others have experienced with this kind of intervals, since there is some findings (Burgomeister) that short intervals stimulate mitochondria biogenesis. But I beleive they where more like "Tabata's", very high intensity stuff.

This is more the other way around, not a few, very hard intervals but a lot of not so hard intervals.

I'm not sure what I'm looking for... Seems like I want someone to say "this is the way to go" so I can keep doing them without feeling I'm not working hard enough...

Anyway - happy racing everybody, that's what's it all about!

From a metabolic perspective, if you change the smoothing interval on the WKO+ graph up to 30-sec that's about what your body saw during the workout. Depending upon your self-selected resting power, it's probably high-L3/low-L4.

Folks that are really trying to create a "threshold with an L7 twist" effect are probably going harder during the on periods and/or using a 1:1 work:rest ratio to keep the average power higher.

What is intriguing me is that I didn't plan to increase my FTP with this WO. As you say AP is low (mid L3). I wanted to have a WO with a high VI in order to prepare for racing.

But the high NP (and the fact that it keeps climbing) of the WO, might suggest that there is something going on that, at least I, didn't expect.

I mean, based on the idea of the NP algoritm it seems like this WO has a positive influence on FTP. And that seems to good to be true. And that's the very reason I brought it to the forum, and you have expressed the same doubts that I have.

I will try it for some time and try to confirm with new FTP test. But as always, it's hard to pinpoint one kind of WO's influence on your fitness at this time of the "traning year". It may very well be the simple fact that I not have been sick this winter as well /or my L5 work/ or my 10 % increase in trainingload (TSS) since last year /or /or...!

Thanks for your time and input!

L3 workouts do have a positive effect on FTP, so maybe that helps explain what you're seeing. Many of the folks here would classify L3 work as "Sweet Spot Training."

Good luck with your test!

So, you don't think that NP is actually reflecting the intensity of this kind of ride?

Well, just to clarify what I'm saying:
1) Dr. Coggan's training levels are based upon avg power, not normalized power. So, if you really wanted to put your workout into a "level" you should look at AP.
2) I don't think you should be surprised if your workouts produce some FTP gains, since even L2 or L3 workouts will contribute towards FTP.

NP is supposed to reflect the stress of a variable ride better than AP, but Dr. Coggan stops short of saying that the training benefit is based upon NP.

Indeed, I've often made the point that training stress score - the calculation of which led to development of the normalized power algorithm - is called that and not training performance score for a very good reason (i.e., not all stress/strain is beneficial).

OK, got it. So I'm back where I began. I wanted a training stress that was more race specific (high VI), and it looks like I have done that, but I will not view it as a progression of my L4 work. If, as you say, I would like to put it "into a level", this ends up in "raceland" AP & NP. It felt to easy - and it was! - My RPE is well calibrated!

SO, no free lunch, and, - Do work, son!

Thank you very much for all your inputs, valueable as always.

interesting thread. For some contrast, my 30-SECOND MMP PB last year was only 170% of FT. I reckon that makes some sort of sad record!

I haven't tried anything like your w/o but I'm pretty sure even a few reps of 30-seconds at 150% FT on 1-min spin/rest would fry 'ma ole legs!

__________________
rmur

I have always been an "on/off guy", so I usually don't do this kind of WOs (I have felt that I "have it"). And at 62 kg the absolute numbers ain't that impressive (FTP 270-275, 150% ~405-415) which might (?) be a factor as well.