Increase power or duration?

ric_stern/RST

i think Andy would say that the "93%" value is not fixed - it varies from person to person and at different points in training for that person. currently, my estimated difference is 5%.



to clarify my schema the incremental rate of change in a MAP test is dependent upon a broad base of fitness (elite or non-elite) and gender. In other words there are there are three different rates to be used depending on who you are

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

ric_stern/RST

MAP can't be held for this long. Data that i have on a wide range of abilities (world pursuit champion to 4th cats) shows that ~ 88 - 91% of MAP can be held for ~ 3.5 to 5 minutes. MAP needs to be tested in a incremental, continuous test to exhaustion.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

ric_stern/RST

You may be alone in this! Both myself and Andy suggest minimum time periods in certain zones to get a training effect, i *think* both Andy and I suggest 15-mins as a minimum to get full effect from zone 4/level 4 work or alternatively you could do shorter intervals (5-mins) with very short recoveries between intervals (30 - 60 secs) which 'fool' the body into thinking they are one continuous effort.

For zone 5/6 MAP work i'd suggest a continuous effort of 3 - 5 mins, with 3 mins being the minimum required to fully elicit VO2max

in other words it's important to look at the whole picture -- that is, number of intervals and total volume, as well as recovery periods (as this may effect where the energy is drawn from), and length of intervals.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

ric_stern/RST

I wonder if all this is connected -- you don't know your 'correct' zones (you've been estimating) and have injured yourself from riding too intensely? I know with hindsight things can often be easier, but would it not have been better to define your zones/levels in the first place and ridden more moderately thus saving yourself from injury? Could this have led to greater improvements than what you've currently seen as you may have been more consistent in your training not having to deal with an injury?

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

frenchyge

Hey RD, how do you like *them* apples?

RapDaddyo

Well, this may be a moot point. There's no reason to do L4 intervals shorter than ~15 mins because it's just not an efficient use of training time. And, I can understand that doing 2x15 L4s would result in more training benefit than 4x8 L4s, but are you saying that the 4x8 L4s would result in no training benefit? Anyway, as I said, it's simply logical to do an interval for a longer duration if you can because it's a more efficient use of training time. I imagine there would be great training benefit if I could do L6 intervals for 20 minutes, but it's irrelevant because I can't.

RapDaddyo

I stand corrected.

RapDaddyo

Actually, I don't think it would have made any difference. I think I would have injured my glutes at any power output >200w during the first three months. Even in late May when I started doing intervals (after 2 months of riding at 75%MHR), I'm sure my 1 hr MP would have been at least 175w. That would have resulted in intervals >200w (zones 5 & 6). In retrospect, I think I should have followed a max power rule for ~3 months, just like breaking in a car engine. In my case (with perfect hindsight), I think that max power rule should have been 200w. When I did start with the intervals, I think I should have done nothing greater than L4s for at least a month. Is that in anybody's protocol? I think anything beyond that would have resulted in sore glutes. As to the effect on my training and development in the last 3 months, I don't think it was very significant. I kept riding 14-20 hrs/wk and I kept doing intervals. I was just limited to shorter durations because I had to do all high-intensity work off the saddle. Would I be further ahead now if my training plan wasn't compromised? Probably, but I'm not sure it would be a difference of significance. Again, this is all speculation. But, there's no doubt that I have increased my power a lot in the last 2 1/2 months, maybe as much as 100w. And, that was without being able to do any seated efforts >200w and therefore no long intervals.

ric_stern/RST

Iirc, in Andy's schema no one would be able to intervals in L6 continuously for 20-mins. if you could you'd have set the levels incorrectly.

No of course i'm not say there's no benefit to 4 x 8 (or any other combination you want to throw out). The issue is that if you do 8-min intervals with say several mins rest between them it's likely that you're going to be going at too high a power output (> 1-hr TTpower). However, the interval may also be too long that it doesn't specifically target VO2max/MAP (3 - 5 mins) so you end up in a bit of a "no man's land". In other words too high for 1-hr power, and too low for MAP.

Of course, and unlike other coaches, i would never say not to go that power output, it just may not be an efficient use of training and training time.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

RapDaddyo

Well, I think that's one of the key points and, I might add, value to using a coach. It comes down to allocation of a scarce resource (training time) for maximum training benefit. I absolutely buy into the argument that some interval protocols (as part of an overall training plan) are a more "efficient" use of training time than other protocols, especially when one is targeting specific adaptations. My point here and in other threads is that when one is not very far up one's personal power improvement curve I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference to try and fine tune an interval plan. I think there's some merit to an interval plan as simple as, "Twice a week, go out and do some intervals for an hour or so."

postal_bag

Thanks to everone for all the feedback.

I did test my MAP today, using the 5 watts/12 sec. protocol, and achieved 10 watts greater than my last test, on June 6. (50 watts greater than my test on Apr. 4, and 70 watts greater than my test on Jan. 31). My heart rate was three bpm higher as well (highest I've seen to date).

I had to take 3 weeks off completely at the beginning of July due to injuries sustained in a crash, which may partially explain the drop in my rate of progress.

Is a 10 watt gain in MAP is enough to warrant increasing the power of my 4 min. intervals? I have been doing 5 reps at 83% of my previously determined MAP. Should I stick with 83% of the new MAP?

frenchyge

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Your intervals were 115% of FT, right? How did you determine FT power? Was it based on the same MAP protocol that you just re-performed?

If your interval target was 83% of MAP, then a 10W rise in MAP means a ~10W rise in your interval power. That should fix the "5 intervals is too easy" problem, and answer the question of whether to increase the interval power or do more reps, no?

postal_bag

Yes, the intervals were at 115% of what I believed was my FT power, which was the same as 83% of my MAP. I was estimating FT as a percentage of what I could manage in my 2x20 min workouts, ie: 10 watts less than 20 min power, which corresponded to 72% of my MAP. I believe this is the low end of the normal range according to Ric's research.

And yes, I will up the wattage on the 4 min intervals. I'm looking forward to that workout (he he). Also, I think I will try a 1 hour effort later in the week to find my current FT.

Thanks, again.

frenchyge

Ok, I gotcha. If you're more comfortable with Ric's MAP protocol, then you can always just use his zones. Sounds like there's still a little guesswork in your power levels, so it'd be interesting to see how your 1 hr test compares to your currently estimated FT power.