Which Half is Better

Originally Posted by frenchyge

<sniff, sniff> Strawman argument.

Originally Posted by swampy1970

...If someone could point me in the direction of a couple of studies (all done by different folk) that proves that something like 16x20mins is as good as 4 hours straight at the same power, then I'll be the first to eat humble pie...

Originally Posted by jsirabella

But if "on the rivet" means what it sounds like as I have never used that expression

Originally Posted by Steve_B

This has been pretty well answered but I thought I'd throw this link in here for extra info on VO2 training.

http://www.peakscoachinggroup.com/f...for_vo2max.html

I like the idea of going hard(er) at the end of a 20 minute interval. It's certainly the way you would be riding a TT. I will often (but not always) do it myself.

Originally Posted by wiredued

That was interesting thank you I guess the 3x4s were better considering rule number 3 if that is a per session minimum.

In short, what are the points to consider when attempting VO2max intervals?
1) Interval duration should be minimally 3 minutes and maximally 10 minutes in length.
2) Intensity of the interval should be minimally 90 % pVO2max and maximally 105% pVO2max.
3) Total interval work time should be minimally 12 minutes and maximally 25 minutes.
4) The rest between interval is generally equal to the work interval itself.

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming

Yep, and not even a very good strawman argument at that...
How many studies do you need to convince you that nearly five and a half hours (16*20 minutes) at a certain power level is better than four hours at the same power level. Add two and a half minutes of easier riding between each of those 16 intervals and you're comparing a 6 hour ride to a 4 hour ride at very similar intensity, hmmmm, which do you suppose results in better training? Even old school folks should be able to buy into that without a lot of fancy terms.

How does that pie taste?

Originally Posted by swampy1970

Probably didn't help that my simple math was off - 4 hours = 12*20 minutes. I'm suprised you didn't pick up on that one.

Originally Posted by swampy1970

Probably didn't help that my simple math was off....

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming

Yeah, I was pretty much just yankin' your chain. It seemed obvious you weren't actually arguing that a 6 hour ride was worse training than a 4 hour ride at the same intensity

But I gotta agree with other posts, the Luddite routine is growing a bit old. FWIW, many of us are working on our third decade of serious riding. Ya know that Tollhouse TT I suggested? I first rode that about the time your avatar photo was shot and I promoted it about the time the Olympics were in LA. Lot's of us remember toe straps, Sachs Huret derailleurs, neuvo record, and five speed freewheels. But most here are open to advances in technology and what the sports science world has learned about exercise, training and adaptation and we see analysis as a good thing, not something to be ridiculed or shunned. But it's a public forum and you're entitled to your own opinions about training methods and the results they bring you.

-Dave

Originally Posted by swampy1970

...I didn't post that because I wanted to be arguementative - it's just because I don't believe that 4 hours split into numerous intervals would be as effective as 4 hours done in one chunk given that both were done at the same pace. ...

Originally Posted by wiredued

3x20 is good for me indoors where relief from the saddle is needed but outdoors I don't take breaks unless the people I'm riding with have April legs and I can't see them when I look back. Please don't mention Power Cranks there is no end to that rabbit trail.

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming

Fair enough, that gets back to frenchyge's strawman comment.

No one is suggesting SST/L4 intervals at the same power as a steady 4 hour ride. The idea is to do focused efforts harder than you could manage for a long steady effort but still easy enough that you can accumulate a lot of time at that intensity. It would be really hard to ride at 90-95% of your FTP for 4 straight hours on a regular basis, maybe for a really long time trial when you were highly motivated but not in day to day training. But most folks can manage a few 20-45 minute efforts at that level with some time to regroup mentally and refuel a bit between efforts. That's the whole idea behind blocked SST/L4 training. It's hard enough to stress your systems and encourage training adaptations but easy enough that you can do quite a bit of it.

So the real question is whether something like 60-90 minutes of accumulated time at say 85-95% of your best one hour power is better than a 4 hour ride at say 70-80% of your best one hour power where folks tend to ride those efforts if they stay focused. Or maybe even more relevant to the LSD/high mileage crowd how do those shorter focused efforts hold up to say a 5 to 6 hour ride at 60-75% of your best one hour power which is where a lot of weekend high mileage riders tend to ride.

That question gets debated a lot and is why there are plenty of coaches who are die hard advocates of LSD training, some who favor SST/Lydiard style training and some who value intensity over duration and advocate HIT training with killer 3-6 minute intervals. Kinda cool that the answers aren't that black and white, forces you to choose a horse and ride it for a while. I never got the results I was after with the high mileage lower intensity approach and don't buy into a HIT way of thinking since some duration definitely helps for long road events but have improved a lot in a short time with the mid ground SST/Lydiard approach. That's where I'm putting my efforts and haven't hit my ceiling yet. I'll cook up my own pie if I crash and burn on this plan. But a year and a half into it I'm still improving and have achieved things I only dreamed of 20 years ago when I rode more miles and followed my coach's advice to the letter but rarely got the results I was after.

-Dave

Originally Posted by swampy1970

Strawman arguement huh? Given that I don't agree with what your stance is on this topic it's more disagreement than Strawman.... but, hey...

I'm hardly dyed-in-the-wool old school. If I was then I wouldn't be riding PowerCranks, nor would I be using 185mm cranks. My 82degree seat angle time trial bike back in the ealry 90's was just 'soooo' traditional, as are the Rotor Q-Rings collecting dust in the garage. Old school wouldn't test as much as I do (that's more down to my auto racing background the past 5 years) nor would old school have spent much time in a lab 14 years ago doing quarterly power monitoring and blood lactate testing. This was at about the same time that I stopped doing the traditional winter "Sunday club run" to do four, or sometimes five, two hour sessions at about 5 to 10bpm less than my best 50 mile pace, which was a big departure from the typical English practise of about 5 to 7 hours on the bike every Sunday following a couple of hours on Saturday.

If I get coloured dyed-in-the-wool for thinking that getting the hours in at a very hard and just sustainable pace for a required period of time to get very aquainted to the effort and build muscular endurance (that feeling of pedaling 'squares' after 3 hours isn't something you want during a long hard time trial or road race) then just get out photoshop and at least paint me something "olde-worlde" English.

I'll take whatever from whereever and if I have reasonable belief that it will help then I'll plan out a schedule and give it a hearty try. Most times that "belief" is gained from someone with a way better background in cycling that I.

Thankfully, I've never been bored, burned out or generally ticked off or mentally challenged with anything cycling related - long, hard training sessions in the snow/slush and freezing winds included, so maybe I don't "get" the benefits of splitting longer sessions into shorter, say 45 minute, blocks. Maybe now that I've been "Californiaised" that may change...

But this "arguement/debate/banter" has strayed somewhat from the original question at hand and the comment I made. If the guy can spend a few minutes at way over his FTP during his 20 minute interval (but spending the rest under his FTP) then chances are he'd be just as well served getting the hour done at a constant pace and not fluff around throwing in harder bits for the heck of it and spending 5 minutes walking around inbetween. At least if he was to do 3x20 at least ride it at a constant effort and get the session done properly and every once in a while stuff it in a big gear so he can get out of the saddle to stop "the wedding tackle" from getting sore/numb.

Originally Posted by swampy1970

Strawman arguement huh? Given that I don't agree with what your stance is on this topic it's more disagreement than Strawman.... but, hey...

Originally Posted by swampy1970

Maybe now that I've been "Californiaised" that may change...