Huhhh??? how do you read that into what I've posted?Originally Posted by gudujarlson .
...have had the understanding that SST is training at X% of my estimated fitness, but you seem to be suggesting that it is training at X% of my perceived form. In my scheme, I push through days where I am fatigued and hold back on days when I am strong. In your scheme, I adjust my intensity to maintain a constant amount of suffering in each workout; or at least that is what it sounds like. ...
Did you read Frank Overton's thoughts on SST, given that he coined the term it's probably worth a read.
In no way am I suggesting you need to suffer daily or ignore how you're feeling on a given day. The only point is that SST is more of a concept that revolves around balancing time and effort than a pure workout training 'zone'. You trade workout intensity for workout duration on days when you do SST work and that may be a little less intensity for a longer ride or a bit more intensity for a shorter ride all within a range that provides substantial aerobic (metabolic) fitness benefits and FTP progress. But there's no need or even desire to do SST rides every day to ignore your fatigue or maintain 'constant suffering', if anything SST work is a way to focus efforts on FTP progress with a lot less suffering as it's a whole lot easier mentally and physically than pure Threshold work like a hard 2x20 set.
The real point is not to take training so literally down to the percentage point or watt. Physiological stress works on a continuum and the boundaries aren't as crisp as many folks seem to think. You'd be hard pressed to prove that working at 88% for a given time is substantially different than 90% or 85% yet folks hang onto these crisp boundaries as if they're gospel. Yes, broad ranges of intensity coupled with sustained durations focus our efforts on different systems but these workout levels aren't all that discrete and shouldn't be taken quite so literally.
Again, forest vs trees, think big picture.
-Dave