Basic errors in Dr. Coggans book?

acoggan said:

I meant in comparison to isopower efforts performed at the same average power.

i'm really not sure what you are asking here.. but because of the very short nature of these intervals i don't think you can make a direct comparison of these type of intervals with longer (30-40s and greater) isopower intervals

acoggan said:

Increasing the rate of force development is not about "technique" (that is, unless you think that there's much technique involved in performing, say, single leg knee extensions).

i think this comment demonstrates what i believe to be a great lack in your understanding of the biomechanics and how to train NMP... you just don't get it. i'm not dissing, i'm really being honest... think a 900W 5s power speaks for it's self... i don't know if it stems from the fact that you really do have a low potential for NMP or for whatever reason (...no study out yet?) you dismiss aspects of NMP training that would allow you to improve it... but i do have a feeling your lack of understanding of how to train for NMP stems from this. and that's unfortunate because i think many riders look to you for advice and they are done a disservice by your lack of knowlege and dismissive attitude in this area

acoggan said:

You didn't say "primarily", you said "pretty much genetically set". To me that implied that you think/thought that maximal power wasn't very trainable, when in fact it is.

oh, ok, sorry, sorry... when does "pretty much" translate to all?

acoggan said:

So what aspect of the classification system that I've put forth do you believe "doesn't fit with reality", and what is your evidence of this fact?

i was not making a comment about your classifcation system... i was making an argument against zealotry.

frenchyge said:

Part of the NMP adaptations involve changing recruitment patterns, which I also understand are different under varying degrees of fatigue. So, maybe there is a sound rationale for pre-fatiguing. I don't know -- that's coachy stuff. 😉

Personally, I prefer to do the bulk of my sprints while fresh, with maybe 2-3 at the end for the fun.

you may have something there... and my longer Endurance/Tempo rides include sprints throughout... but i really do think you get in the groove and are able to really get on top of that gear during those dedicated NMP workouts. if you only do NMP workouts when tired your form is [censored] and you are hard wiring that crappy form. when you are fresh you can perfect form and good form is what gets hard wired and then when fatigued you just fall into the good form that you had during practice... but you may have a point for doing both.

Quadsweep said:

THE DUDE didn't miss it.[img]cyclingforums.comredface.gifOpen ↗[/img] I was referring to the 15 second micro jams with 15 seconds off and for 10 minutes straight. [img]cyclingforums.comcool.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Of course I know that 10 second sprints with at least 2 minutes to rest between are nueromuscular in nature.

Then why do you believe that the workout as a whole shouldn't be discussed under level 7?

doctorSpoc said:

i'm really not sure what you are asking here.. but because of the very short nature of these intervals i don't think you can make a direct comparison of these type of intervals with longer (30-40s and greater) isopower intervals

I was referring to extended periods of microintervals, not what happens when you do two or three 15 s sprints with minimal recovery.

doctorSpoc said:

i think this comment demonstrates what i believe to be a great lack in your understanding of the biomechanics and how to train NMP...you just don't get it.

I'm afraid that the one who is revealing their lack of understanding here is yourself. My point is simply that, compared to isopower intervals performed at the same average power, microintervals are likely to elicit specific neuromuscular adaptations, such as an increase in the rate of force development. As such, they can be considered to be level 7 under my classification system (although I actually prefer to think of them as "level X with a level 7 twist", where X equals the level corresponding to the overall average power). This is not the same as claiming that they are optimal for maximizing neuromuscular power, which is what you keep insisting that this debate is about.

doctorSpoc said:

i'm not dissing, i'm really being honest... think a 900W 5s power speaks for it's self... i don't know if it stems from the fact that you really do have a low potential for NMP or for whatever reason (...no study out yet?)

Being 75-80% type I fibers and having a BMI of only 20 kg/m^2 has a lot to do with it.

doctorSpoc said:

you dismiss aspects of NMP training that would allow you to improve it...

Nowhere in this thread have I ever dismissed any form of level 7 training.

doctorSpoc said:

oh, ok, sorry, sorry... when does "pretty much" translate to all?

When it's followed by the words "genetically fixed"? 😄

acoggan said:

...My point is simply that, compared to isopower intervals performed at the same average power, microintervals are likely to elicit specific neuromuscular adaptations, such as an increase in the rate of force development. As such, they can be considered to be level 7 under my classification system (although I actually prefer to think of them as "level X with a level 7 twist", where X equals the level corresponding to the overall average power). This is not the same as claiming that they are optimal for maximizing neuromuscular power, which is what you keep insisting that this debate is about.

i'm speaking from a real, practical point of view of where these intervals should be slotted... i understand what you are saying, there is overpap... but in real, practical terms i can't see why anyone would classify this as L7. just like for example, i can't see why someone would classify an interval at 50% FTP as a V02max interval even though in some small way it may contribute to VO2max... or a 5x30s @ 200% with 3min reovery as endurance workout because it contributes to endurance... this doesn't make any practical sense. at a given training intensity there is overlap, but i would hope that the writers of a book would slot workouts into the levels of primary addaptation... and as a footnote add that in some small way minimal addapation may also occur in x, y or z... or if they would include workouts like this into areas where there are far superior ways to achieve the associated addapation that would be noted as well. or probably best is your suggestion to create a LX for a workout like this with all the applicable notes

i stick by my original statement, in agreement with the OP... this should not be classified as an L7 workout, in the same way that 5x30s @ 200% with 3min reovery should not be classified as an endurance workout..

also coming from someone who likes their workouts "plain vanilla" what is the rationale behind the very short 15s rest periods.. why NOT 30s, 1minute... or 5min?

doctorSpoc said:

i'm speaking from a real, practical point of view of where these intervals should be slotted... i understand what you are saying, there is overpap... but in real, practical terms i can't see why anyone would classify this as L7.

Then what would you classify it as? Microintervals certainly aren't "plain vanilla" training, and they tend to create unique neuromuscular demands that classifying them based on the overall average power would not take into consideration.

doctorSpoc said:

also coming from someone who likes their workouts "plain vanilla" what is the rationale behind the very short 15s rest periods.. why NOT 30s, 1minute... or 5min?

Because 15 s is approximately one-half of the half-life for PCr/VO2 kinetics, such that doing intervals in this manner tends to dissociate the physiological/metabolic and neuromuscular demands (see, e.g., the classic studies by Essen). If you make the recovery periods any longer, then you aren't doing microintervals.

acoggan said:

Then what would you classify it as? Microintervals certainly aren't "plain vanilla" training, and they tend to create unique neuromuscular demands that classifying them based on the overall average power would not take into consideration.

as i said above, IMO your suggestion of level x for this workout is probably the ideal, either that or L4-6, beyond maybe "on" segement 2 or 3 i think that's what we are looking at here.. as described, this workout has sets lasting 10mins..

acoggan said:

Because 15 s is approximately one-half of the half-life for PCr/VO2 kinetics, such that doing intervals in this manner tends to dissociate the physiological/metabolic and neuromuscular demands (see, e.g., the classic studies by Essen). If you make the recovery periods any longer, then you aren't doing microintervals.

wouldn't this tend to limit adapation of PCr and lactate recovery.. a very important addpatation for the intermitent high intensity riding associated with crit riding... this seems to be one of the intended targeted events for this workout?

doctorSpoc said:

as i said above, IMO your suggestion of level x for this workout is probably the ideal, either that or L4-6, beyond maybe "on" segement 2 or 3 i think that's what we are looking at here.. as described, this workout has sets lasting 10mins..

Just for kicks, I looked at a crit file I had from a while back. The race file actually resembled a microinterval workout. Each lap was ~70 seconds, w/ 15 seconds "on," 15 seconds "off," 25 seconds on and 15 seconds off. Throughout the 45 minute race I was consistently hitting 75-80% of my peak power output (and keep in mind I was doing my best to limit surges by riding near the front). I was even able to hit close to 90% of my rested, fresh peak wattage towards the end of the race. So, although I've never done a microinterval workout, I feel like an athlete whose peak power was 400%+ of their FT wouldn't have too much difficulty hitting the percentages prescribed for that workout. That said, I think it would make much more sense to prescribe the goal peak power for each microinterval as a % of peak power, rather than FTP.

doctorSpoc said:

as i said above, IMO your suggestion of level x for this workout is probably the ideal

My suggestion was actually to place them in a special category...but that's too complicated for most to understand.

doctorSpoc said:

wouldn't this tend to limit adapation of PCr and lactate recovery.. a very important addpatation for the intermitent high intensity riding associated with crit riding... this seems to be one of the intended targeted events for this workout?

Again, you're not getting it: intervals done with such short recovery periods allow one to dissociate, at least to some degree, the physiological/metabolic demands from the neuromuscular demands. You therefore would not be prescribing them with the metabolic responses in mind.

whoawhoa said:

I think it would make much more sense to prescribe the goal peak power for each microinterval as a % of peak power, rather than FTP.

Except that the average power can never be less than 50% of the 'on' power, and with such short recovery periods it is the average power that determines how long you can sustain the effort (since it is the average power that determines your metabolic, cardiovascular, neurohormonal, etc., responses).

doctorSpoc said:

i'm speaking from a real, practical point of view of where these intervals should be slotted... i understand what you are saying, there is overpap... but in real, practical terms i can't see why anyone would classify this as L7. just like for example, i can't see why someone would classify an interval at 50% FTP as a V02max interval even though in some small way it may contribute to VO2max... or a 5x30s @ 200% with 3min reovery as endurance workout because it contributes to endurance... this doesn't make any practical sense. at a given training intensity there is overlap, but i would hope that the writers of a book would slot workouts into the levels of primary addaptation...

Using this same logic, would it really make sense to place this workout in L4? 2x10 minutes @ FT is hardly a very good threshold workout.

acoggan said:

Except that the average power can never be less than 50% of the 'on' power, and with such short recovery periods it is the average power that determines how long you can sustain the effort (since it is the average power that determines your metabolic, cardiovascular, neurohormonal, etc., responses).

I'm not sure I understand...I was saying that the goal peak power within each microinterval (in this workout listed as 300-350% of threshold) should be prescribed as a % of peak power. I would still prescribe the average for the "on" and "off" periods as percentages of FT.

whoawhoa said:

I was saying that the goal peak power within each microinterval (in this workout listed as 300-350% of threshold) should be prescribed as a % of peak power.

The 300-350% of FTP describes the goal of the 10 sprints at the end of the workout, not anything to do with the microinterval sets. The microinterval goal was 150% / 50% FTP for on/off, which I believe was intended to be avg power, rather than peak power.

Taking a step back for a moment: here's what I wrote back in 2001 when I first described my classification system:

"2. Number of levels: A compromise had to be made between defining more levels, to better reflect the continuum of physiological responses, and defining fewer levels, for simplicity. The seven levels specified were considered the minimum needed to adequately describe the different types of training required/used to meet the demands of competitive cycling."

IOW, when I set up the system I intended it to be as "all-encompassing" as possible with respect to how cyclists actually train on their bikes. OTOH, I also wanted to try to keep things as simple as possible. The compromise that I settled on was to define just seven levels, as I didn't think that less than this would adequately accomplish goal #1, whereas more than this would seem to fail to meet goal #2. If, however, you wish to have an approach that is truly all-encompassing, then you need to consider factors other than power when doing so. I felt that this was unnecessary, and as a result certain forms of training (e.g, so-called strength endurance intervals, microintervals) can be difficult to classify under my system. Even so, when push comes to shove and you're forced to do so (e.g., because you're writing a book and you want to present some examples), then I say that microintervals belong under level 7, because the purpose of doing them would be to target specific neuromuscular adaptations (which is not the same as saying that they would increase maximal neuromuscular power). This position is consistent with the fact that the names given to the various levels are generally chosen to reflect the adaptations they are intended to produce. As I said before, however, due to their uniqueness I think the best way to think of them is as a hybrid, i.e., as "level 4 (or whatever) with a level 7 twist".

whoawhoa said:

I'm not sure I understand...I was saying that the goal peak power within each microinterval (in this workout listed as 300-350% of threshold) should be prescribed as a % of peak power. I would still prescribe the average for the "on" and "off" periods as percentages of FT.

So how long can you maintain 150-175% of your functional threshold power? 😉

(Less cryptically: even if you don't pedal at all during the rest periods, the highest "on" power you can sustain for any significant length of time is ~200% of your functional threshold power.)

Hey, nobody(Dr. Coggan)[img]cyclingforums.combiggrin.gifOpen ↗[/img] replied to my post below from this thread and how it relates to my original post on this thread. I still think short rest periods between L6 workouts are a poor way to train AWC.

I was gathering information on short AWC intervals and VO2 max intervals with the question below.

"The above are examples of efforts of 45 sec-2 minutes, except for sprinting. What I want to know is what the physiological purpose is in doing intervals of this duration. What do they do that a longer interval doesn't do?" ME


"When short intervals are used, such as the range you are asking about, the logistics of the workout will completely alter the emphasis on energy systems and the power produced. However, when performed from a relatively recovered state, short, all-out intervals will develop the anaerobic glycolytic energy system. When not performed from a relatively recovered state they become much more VO2 in nature. This is a main reason why we do VO2 intervals with a 1:1 work to rest ratio and anaerobic intervals with longer periods of recover and typically a 1:3 work to rest ratio. This certainly has applications to road cylcing that you won't find in 5k+ running races, but as others in this forum would submit, it's not as critical as many make it out to be." __________________
[font=Palatino Linotype]Smartty[/font]

acoggan said:

Again, you're not getting it: intervals done with such short recovery periods allow one to dissociate, at least to some degree, the physiological/metabolic demands from the neuromuscular demands. You therefore would not be prescribing them with the metabolic responses in mind.

ok, the light bulb just went on, i think i know what you are saying... it's not about the addapation of the overall set, it's about the addapation that occurrs from the micro intervals themselves? still i'm still very sceptical of the claimed addapation... it just doesn't seem reasonable, especially for those with high AC and high peak power in relation to FTP with the "on" intervals being such a small percentage of peak power... is there any evidence that supports that the claimed neuromuscular power addapations actually occur? and if so, is there any evidence that these are better than traditional NMP intervals? like is said i'm very sceptical.

whoawhoa said:

Using this same logic, would it really make sense to place this workout in L4? 2x10 minutes @ FT is hardly a very good threshold workout.

yes, probably a [censored] poor Threshold workout.. but ave power IS 100% FTP.. Normalized Power? so i think over the course of 10min i think you would probably go though L4-L6... but Dr. Coggan's claim is that this is not what this workout is about... i need to see some proof though before i can accept the addapation he claims because on the face of it, it just doesn't seem to be reasonable.

doctorSpoc said:

ok, the light bulb just went on, i think i know what you are saying...

It appears to be flickering at least. 😉

doctorSpoc said:

it's not about the addapation of the overall set, it's about the addapation that occurrs from the micro intervals themselves?

Now we're getting somewhere...

doctorSpoc said:

still i'm still very sceptical of the claimed addapation... it just doesn't seem reasonable, especially for those with high AC and high peak power in relation to FTP with the "on" intervals being such a small percentage of peak power... is there any evidence that supports that the claimed neuromuscular power addapations actually occur? and if so, is there any evidence that these are better than traditional NMP intervals? like is said i'm very sceptical.

...but here we drift off course once more.

Again, there is a difference between attempting to induce neuromuscular adaptations and attempting to increase maximal neuromuscular power. Given the fact that the power during the work period is capped at twice the average power, I agree that in most situations (i.e., individuals and interval formats) you wouldn't expect microintervals to result in much, if any, increase in the latter. However, they would still be expected to result in the former, which is why they should be considered level 7 efforts. Are they better than other approaches? I don't think anybody knows, but since nobody has made that claim, it's a moot point anyway.

BTW, if it helps you understand this workout better, if only on a visceral level, the one case where I know that Hunter has used them was for a RAAM rider who wished to make the switch to mass start bike racing...