2x20?? and other base trainning ideas

[Krazyderek]

I noticed alot of the shorter tranning intervals like 5 mins was 1:1 recovery time by what about when you're doing 2x20min at lvl4?

Also looking for some other ideas on good base trainning to enhance endurance and increase MAP at this point. Just to hold me over till i get and ready thru my all/cog book.

I'm using a power tap.

 

[Spunout]

I noticed alot of the shorter tranning intervals like 5 mins was 1:1 recovery time by what about when you're doing 2x20min at lvl4?

Also looking for some other ideas on good base trainning to enhance endurance and increase MAP at this point. Just to hold me over till i get and ready thru my all/cog book.

I'm using a power tap.

Minimal recovery, say 4:1. So 2x20 has 5 minutes rest. But if you feel recovered after 2, go aheand and start the next.

 

[Krazyderek]

Minimal recovery, say 4:1. So 2x20 has 5 minutes rest. But if you feel recovered after 2, go aheand and start the next.

Is it ok to do 3 and 4 x 20min with the same approach?

 

[WarrenG]

Is it ok to do 3 and 4 x 20min with the same approach?

If you're able to do 4 x 20' then you're likely not doing them as hard as most would intend for 20' intervals. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you may be doing training that is not optimal for your objective(s).

 

[Krazyderek]

If you're able to do 4 x 20' then you're likely not doing them as hard as most would intend for 20' intervals. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you may be doing training that is not optimal for your objective(s).

Well i thought you were supposed to train at lvl 4, ie slightly under your threshold to increase MAP? You may be right though, i did 1x20 at the end of last night's workout and i was starting to break down by the last 2 or 3 mins, but i had also done an hour of other shorter and harder things.

 

[WarrenG]

Well i thought you were supposed to train at lvl 4, ie slightly under your threshold to increase MAP? You may be right though, i did 1x20 at the end of last night's workout and i was starting to break down by the last 2 or 3 mins, but i had also done an hour of other shorter and harder things.

You could do 20' intervals at level 3 or 2, etc. IF you intend to be at the highest intensity that barely allows you to complete your 2 intervals, but you find yourself able to do 3 or 4 then you probably didn't set your target high enough or you're not intending to make a near max effort. So, if you find your HR and perceived exertion a little lower than previously for a certain block of intervals it may be an indication to go harder and/or longer, or progress to a variation of those intervals, or use a more difficult protocol. For example, do the last 2-4 minutes of those 20' intervals at L5 or do 3 x 15' instead of 2 x20'.

 

[scotmart]

If you're able to do 4 x 20' then you're likely not doing them as hard as most would intend for 20' intervals. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you may be doing training that is not optimal for your objective(s).

I dunno about that...

There is a fairly wide range for 'threshold' training. I don't know that any one approach, or intensity, is better than another.

If you use Coggan's range for Z4, 95-105%, that opens up a pretty wide range of how much total time you could do.

Even at 100% of FTP, by definition you should be able to do 3X20, especially with some minimal break.

Drop that down to 95% and you should be able to do 4X20 (and probably 6X20).

Up it to 105% and you probably need a decent sized anaerobic capacity to do 2 of them with minimal rest.

Is any one of these approaches the 'best' way to do it?...shrug. It depends on what you're trying to get out of the workout.

It seems most agree that it helps to spend a 'long' time at threshold. How you define long is the catch. It's probably individual (both in terms of what an individual can handle, how fast they adapt, and what their goals are). Strickly in terms of raising threshold, 2X20 at 105%ftp may be best for one person while 4X20 at 95% may be better for another.

On top of that, you can mix it up to address particular race-specific situations. Up it at the end, criss-cross around FTP, practice breakaways (hard, then threshold), or any number of other variations.

Scott

 

[WarrenG]

I dunno about that...

There is a fairly wide range for 'threshold' training. I don't know that any one approach, or intensity, is better than another.

If you use Coggan's range for Z4, 95-105%, that opens up a pretty wide range of how much total time you could do.

Even at 100% of FTP, by definition you should be able to do 3X20, especially with some minimal break.

Drop that down to 95% and you should be able to do 4X20 (and probably 6X20).

Up it to 105% and you probably need a decent sized anaerobic capacity to do 2 of them with minimal rest.

Is any one of these approaches the 'best' way to do it?...shrug. It depends on what you're trying to get out of the workout.

It seems most agree that it helps to spend a 'long' time at threshold. How you define long is the catch. It's probably individual (both in terms of what an individual can handle, how fast they adapt, and what their goals are). Strickly in terms of raising threshold, 2X20 at 105%ftp may be best for one person while 4X20 at 95% may be better for another.

On top of that, you can mix it up to address particular race-specific situations. Up it at the end, criss-cross around FTP, practice breakaways (hard, then threshold), or any number of other variations.

Scott

We agree, that it depends on what he intends. The road test for FTP is an all-out effort, yes? Do you want your session of 20' intervals to be the same degree of effort as the all-out test, including the amount of rest you'd do before such a test and recovery time allowed for recovery after the test?

Also, I tend to forget that Coggan's L4 is a wide range (like you mentioned) that would allow for a wide range of efforts. The zones I use around threshold are narrower and don't encompass such a wide range of efforts. More precise.

 

[scotmart]

We agree, that it depends on what he intends. The road test for FTP is an all-out effort, yes? Do you want your session of 20' intervals to be the same degree of effort as the all-out test, including the amount of rest you'd do before such a test and recovery time allowed for recovery after the test?

Also, I tend to forget that Coggan's L4 is a wide range (like you mentioned) that would allow for a wide range of efforts. The zones I use around threshold are narrower and don't encompass such a wide range of efforts. More precise.

Coggan's zones aren't a training prescription, they are a general guideline for what aspect of your physiology you are primarily stressing at those intensities.

So, if you do intervals at 95-105% of FTP, for some extended duration, you are primarily stressing your body's ability to work at threshold.

I don't know that being more precise is inherently any better. Which is 'better', 120 minutes at 95% of FTP, 45 minutes at 100% FTP, or 30 minutes at 105% FTP (or even add 60 minutes at 100%, or 105%...)? Of course any answer would be pure speculation as that question has never been studied, and never will (I doubt any scientist would think, going into such a study, they would find a statistically significant difference).

I personally do a mix of long workouts (90-120 minutes) at slightly below threshold and short workouts (30-45 minutes) at slightly above. Why? Why not!

Scott

 

[Krazyderek]

actually i averaged my lv 4 range and found 227 was the number i was try to more or less keep on my display realistically it fluctuated around 221-235w. I find cadence has the most impact on me during these 20 minute 'threshold' workouts. around 85-88 i can really feel the burn in my hamstring muscle's, if i go higher to 90-95 i start to see my HR rise and i get a little more out of breath.

I ended up doing 20 min warm up at around 150w, 2x20 lv 4, with the second 20 min int creeping up to 240W avg. and then 10 min cool down.

I guess i'll just play around with it for a week or two. Then i might redo the MAP test once i get my hands on a resistance traninner, right now i'm just running on rollers. and i did that first map test being in the saddle only 2 weeks after a 4 month break.

My goal is just to increase my max aerobic power for long distance. Then start to work on my anareobic endurance and sprints. But mosty this year i just want to build the best base possible for next year.

 

[Krazyderek]

It's curious, but how come i'm not doing 2x20min at Lvl 6 (or zone6) since that one says "map trainning(vo2max efforts), for me that would be 310w, much higher then 227w i have for the avg of zone 4.

Is zone 5 and 6 only for shorter 5 or 6 min intervals?

 

[Alex Simmons]

It's curious, but how come i'm not doing 2x20min at Lvl 6 (or zone6) since that one says "map trainning(vo2max efforts), for me that would be 310w, much higher then 227w i have for the avg of zone 4.

You couldn't do it.

Is zone 5 and 6 only for shorter 5 or 6 min intervals?

Yes.
MAP is high intensity (something like the power in the final 2 mins of an individual pursuit or maybe the last minute of so of a ramp test) and hence is not sustainable over long periods, you will only last somewhere between 3-8 mins at those levels.

Doing the 2x20s is primarily about lifting your FTP although one consequence is typically an improvement in MAP as well, although specific VO2 Max intervals are better suited to that. Each interval type/intensity level impacts most elements of our "engine" just some have a greater impact on specific elements than others. It's all a continuum. The exception perhaps is sprinting.

The tables in this link explains it all really well:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/levels.html

 

[Spunout]

Even at 100% of FTP, by definition you should be able to do 3X20, especially with some minimal break.

Scott

I'm on the fence about this. If we were to apply a factor to a 20 minute test (ie: 102%) to agree on an FT, then yes.

I use one 20 minute interval test as FT. This is on a rest week after full recovery and careful preparation. I ask that my athletes treat this as a maximal effort and save nothing. They wouldn't be able to do 3x20 at this level, or else I'd have to raise FT.

I guess neither of us are wrong. We're just placing the same measuring stick in a different (5%) position. Note, because this gives a higher FT value than a 1 hour effort (especially indoors on the trainer) I prescribe workouts (to begin with anyways) in the lower-end of Coggan's zones.

 

[frenchyge]

I noticed alot of the shorter tranning intervals like 5 mins was 1:1 recovery time by what about when you're doing 2x20min at lvl4?

From an aerobic standpoint, 5 minutes is probably enough recovery for an interval of *any* duration.

 

[doctorSpoc]

i think upper part of l4 is good because it forces you be be more efficient.. lower part is good because you can do the workout longer and IMO get more of a physiological benefit... i'd say do both... i tend to ramp my intervals so the get more intense at the end and intervals 2 is on average more intense than 1...helps you to find your limits and know your body a bit better, control and dole out your efforts... and metally, it's good 'cause you finish on an up note and have confidence that you can go faster... plus doing steady intervals is really boring and put you in a bit of a funk

 

[scotmart]

I'm on the fence about this. If we were to apply a factor to a 20 minute test (ie: 102%) to agree on an FT, then yes.

I use one 20 minute interval test as FT. This is on a rest week after full recovery and careful preparation. I ask that my athletes treat this as a maximal effort and save nothing. They wouldn't be able to do 3x20 at this level, or else I'd have to raise FT.

I guess neither of us are wrong. We're just placing the same measuring stick in a different (5%) position. Note, because this gives a higher FT value than a 1 hour effort (especially indoors on the trainer) I prescribe workouts (to begin with anyways) in the lower-end of Coggan's zones.

As you said, it's just semantics. Since I was using coggan's zones in my post, I used his definition of FTP, which is 60 minute power.

As you said, you can use whatever surrogate you want for 'threshold'. The only problem with using shorter durations is there is a fair bit of variation in the conversion factor when getting to 60 minute power.

Using your test, a result may be 102-108% of 60 minute power (maybe even a larger range) depending on what their anaerobic capacity is.

In practicality it probably doesn't matter as regardless of what ranges you use, most coaches use a wide enough range to accomodate a 3-4% error in figuring 60 minute power.

And most importantly, it's not as if you do the test then stop thinking about the numbers. Using any method of setting 'threshold', it only takes a few workouts to see if your estimate is significantly off.

Scott

 

[acoggan]

Also, I tend to forget that Coggan's L4 is a wide range (like you mentioned) that would allow for a wide range of efforts.

It's even worse than you think: level 4 is defined as 91-105% of functional threshold power. Typically, that yields an IF of 0.95-1.05, but not always, as it depends on the variability in your power during the effort.

The zones I use around threshold are narrower and don't encompass such a wide range of efforts. More precise.

More pseudoscience: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/thermo/thermo.htm

 

[WarrenG]

It's even worse than you think: level 4 is defined as 91-105% of functional threshold power. Typically, that yields an IF of 0.95-1.05, but not always, as it depends on the variability in your power during the effort.

Then how come people aren't more specific when they say they did x minutes at L4? They should be saying they did x minutes at hi L4 or low L4 or mid L4 because the number of minutes would/could vary widely for those different levels of effort/intensity. Such mediocre precision is not optimal for planning training, doing the training, nor evaluating training.

More pseudoscience: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/thermo/thermo.htm

Andy and his "Pubmed-based training", when good enough is good enough. Fortunately, there are riders and coaches who go beyond that restriction.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Andy and his "Pubmed-based training", when good enough is good enough. Fortunately, there are riders and coaches who go beyond that restriction.

Did you read the quoted article?

As far as i'm aware Andy, doesn't actually offer training, but i'm sure if he did it would be evidence based (rather than calling it Pub Med based), which is how we work too.

Ric

 

[acoggan]

Then how come people aren't more specific when they say they did x minutes at L4? They should be saying they did x minutes at hi L4 or low L4 or mid L4 because the number of minutes would/could vary widely for those different levels of effort/intensity.

Don't ask me, ask them.

Such mediocre precision is not optimal for planning training, doing the training, nor evaluating training.

Too bad you're not as smart as Scott Martin...then you'd "get it".

Andy and his "Pubmed-based training", when good enough is good enough. Fortunately, there are riders and coaches who go beyond that restriction.

Who, like the coach of one of the best international teams that called me yesterday asking for my opinion on how to best prepare for a particular event?