90 watts in 22 weeks



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. ...
Huhhh??? how do you read that into what I've posted?

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
 
I think you understood the exact opposite of what I was trying say. Maybe "suffer" was the wrong verb. By maintaining a constant suffering I basically meant training by RPE. In the end, I think possibly the only difference in our definitions of SST is that to me is is strictly ~90% of FTP for durations of 10+ min, whereas you have extended the definition to include working at ~90% of any max power for that duration. At least I think that's what you mean when you say it is a "concept" instead of a "training zone". And actually, I think that is what many of the workouts in Allen and Coggan's book are modeled after even though they don't say it explicitly. Many of the power goals are ~90% of the max power for that duration. Previous to reading the book I did all my intervals at 100%. In any case, it's confusing when a term has more than one definition.

Yes, I read the page you linked, but I honestly didn't get much from it. He seemed to be all over the place with his definitions.
 
Originally Posted by Freddy Merxury .

Background in collegiate track and field. Ran a sub 1:50 800m. Here is my power profile all done in the last year

5s: 1333w
1m: 782w
5m: 403w
20m: 303w
1h: 261w

Weight fluctuates between 157-170
Wow 1:50 is borderline world class. with that time you should have the endurance of a tour de france rider. probably just a little specific strength lacking.
 
Originally Posted by gudujarlson .

I think you understood the exact opposite of what I was trying say. Maybe "suffer" was the wrong verb. By maintaining a constant suffering I basically meant training by RPE. In the end, I think possibly the only difference in our definitions of SST is that to me is is strictly ~90% of FTP for durations of 10+ min, whereas you have extended the definition to include working at ~90% of any max power for that duration. At least I think that's what you mean when you say it is a "concept" instead of a "training zone". And actually, I think that is what many of the workouts in Allen and Coggan's book are modeled after even though they don't say it explicitly. Many of the power goals are ~90% of the max power for that duration. Previous to reading the book I did all my intervals at 100%. In any case, it's confusing when a term has more than one definition.

Yes, I read the page you linked, but I honestly didn't get much from it. He seemed to be all over the place with his definitions.
Regardless of the specific terminology used, this is one of the most important concepts to understand about training and adaptations. It may seem illogical that you can increase your max performance at any duration without ever training at or above your max performance for that duration. So, looking at FTP, one might think that it is not possible to increase FTP without ever training at or above FTP. It's not only true, but it's what most of us do. There is a tradeoff between volume and intensity. If you train at 100% of your max power at a given duration, you need more and longer recovery durations. The effect is to decrease the training volume in exchange for an increase in intensity. Often, that is a poor tradeoff. You would make more progress with more volume and less intensity, down to about 90% of your MMP for a given duration. I once trained for about 3 months doing all of my L4s at about 275W based on an FTP of 300W. I did not do a single L4 segment above 300W. When I finally re-tested my FTP, it was 326W.
 
Originally Posted by dominikk85 .

Wow 1:50 is borderline world class. with that time you should have the endurance of a tour de france rider. probably just a little specific strength lacking.
I'd rather say very high aerobic and anaerobic capacity and "just a l little" endurance lacking /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif
 
Originally Posted by gudujarlson .

<snip>
In the end, I think possibly the only difference in our definitions of SST is that to me is is strictly ~90% of FTP for durations of 10+ min, whereas you have extended the definition to include working at ~90% of any max power for that duration.
<snip>
If you take a look at the picture behind the Dave's link that is also highlighting that it is not about the exact wattage or percentage but the combination of duration and intensity (of course do not take numbers or curves in the picture too literally)
 
Riding in Austin and did a 5 minute climb at 377w. It had very steep sections and some flat parts so the NP was 400w. Right on my best for the year.
 
So, what is your predicted FTP using the Monod Critical Power Model and based on your recent benchmarks?
 
That's probably a pretty good number. Without the 20min data point, it might be high-biased, but with those data points it should be pretty accurate. If you can't sustain 305W for a full hour now, it would be accounted for by a lack of endurance.
 
You might also try replacing one of your 2-3x20 workouts with continuous 1x40-60min, with intensity just a notch down. It's tough in the beginning but at least in my experience well worth it.
 
My goal is to increase my power at threshold from 250 to 340 in 22 weeks. I've based my 340 watt goal on 85% of my best 5 minute effort from this year.
G'day Freddy,

I would focus on going longer. Look at where you are at and build on what it is you can do first, then go longer. You goal is to hit 340watt and your currently at 250watts.

Aim for something in the middle eg 290-300watt, and see how long you can hold a one off interval for. Aim for the lower range eg 290watts as the benchmark and if you can hold that for 10min, then start doing 10min repeats. Once your RPE drops, which it will then move the length of the interval out further. You only need 2-3 x XX of this intervals in a single sessions, as you primary focus is raising your power profile and focusing on getting yourself to 340watts. Once there then extend and extend.

If you extend to soon ,you wont have the adaptations in the muscles to hold power, and you'll just end up dial it back to lower number, which appears to be a pattern developing with you....Your going long too soon. Let the body grow first.

Paul
 
This is an interesting thread, Freddy. Your 5s, 1min, and 5min powers are way above mine, but your 20 and 60 are in my league. I guess it confirms that central adaptations (cardiac output) from running transfer quite well to cycling but the peripheral adaptations (legs) don't as well. You have a lot of room to grow your legs. Good luck.

Personally, I just recently reached increased my 20MP/5MP from 80% to 86% in 3 weeks by following a very similar plan that you are following.
 
I started my regimen of SST training. I'm just gonna do most of my work indoors on my rollers. I'm doing 1 x 50 min or 2 x 25 min SST - 5-6 days/week. I'm gonna see how this helps/hurts me.
 
UPDATE:

Got off work early so I decided to do another hour long threshold test. The route starts on a bike path which is not terribly conducive to a threshold but after a few minutes I get out onto a loop around a damn. It's mostly flat with a quarter mile hill at 7%. There are two spots in each lap that I have to stop pedaling for a few seconds which sucks but otherwise it's a good circuit.

I did 295w for the full hour. Pretty stoked! Huge jump from 275w last time and it puts me way ahead of schedule. My original goal was to get to 300w by the end of the year. It's looking like I should be able to do that.
 
Nice work, congrats. You've likely got some more fairly rapid progress coming seeing as this is still less than 75% of your 5 minute power. Keep up the Threshold sessions and the longer steady intervals.

-Dave
 
Wow, I had to go back to see where you started from. That's really great progress! Now be careful not to burn yourself out. Especially if you have racing in mind for the next summer, not just power number goals, stop for a sec and think about the overall plan.