Figuring out 2x20 wattage
- Thread starter gregkeller
- Start date
That's slightly complicated. Firstly, I haven't done a full 60-min test this winter. Secondly, 3x20 @ FT with 5-min rests at .5FT yields 70 minutes total at a NP of .96FT so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison with 1x60 @ FT. Thirdly, it's tough to separate the mental effects from the physical, which makes it tough to really say how much benefit that 5-min rest really provides.SolarEnergy said:
Aside from that, I'm 100% confident that I could ride 60-min at .96FT without any problem whatsoever. Just to be sure, I'll try it next Wed and report back.
Again, you can narrow my argument down to this. The second (or third) 20min of a 40min (or a 60min) duration, being more exposed to threshold stresses, I simply expect the resulting adaptation to be greater.
IOW, I don't thing you improve 60min TT as much, if you just do 3X20 (with virtually unlimited rest) every single L4 workout. To improve 60min optimal way, you must test 60min once in a while no?
Gee, I am learning something new tonight, and I am open to learn at anytime.
IOW, I don't thing you improve 60min TT as much, if you just do 3X20 (with virtually unlimited rest) every single L4 workout. To improve 60min optimal way, you must test 60min once in a while no?
Gee, I am learning something new tonight, and I am open to learn at anytime.
Not really, other than to recalibrate your interval intensity levels (which can be done in many other ways than just riding a 60min MP). You can just go along merrily never doing more than 20mins at 91+%FT and then go ride a 60min test and, lo and behold, MP has increased. I know -- I've done exactly that. In fact, it really screwed me up once because I had to ratchet up all my intervals. And, I don't mean an itsy, bitsy increase. More like 40w.SolarEnergy said:
Well, I personally do threshold intervals, rather than continuous efforts, because I can do higher intensity efforts than I would sustain, not necessarily higher than I could sustain. Efforts above threshold, this isn't necessarily true.frenchyge said:
I'll try to answer this with an analogy, and hope it's not flawed. Would you have to ride continuous 2.5 hr sessions to improve at 2.5 hour RR's? The purpose of intervals is to let you get into the beneficial zone, and be able to do more volume there, with less stress than a continuous bout would provide. Also consider that 5-min VO2 intervals will help your 60-min TT's. The purpose of the workouts is to grow mitochondria, not practice TT-ing.SolarEnergy said:
I like 30s (more than 20s) for now. Lately, I have been doing 30min 88%FT and 60min 92%FT. The latter is sometimes challanging. That workouts may feel like your sweet spot training, although I am still not even sure what sweet spot training is.frenchyge said:
I have been having good time with you guys tonight.
My "housewive" is somehow a bit "desperate" though. I'll come back tomorrow to see if someone finally explains me what sweet spot is.
Well, if you don't know, it's no wonder she's desperate.SolarEnergy said:
IMO, this article: http://pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=2852 illustrates it better than
this article: http://pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3232
Oops! Here's a chart: http://www.rongilcreast.com/ACoggan_New_Training_Levels_chart.htmSolarEnergy said:
Sweet spot training is simply the idea that there is an optimal point in the intensity/duration tradeoff when training between levels 2 and 4, or where the goal is to raise functional threshold.
I just think the concept of training, repeatedly, any ol' way, makes sense.frenchyge said:Sweet spot training strikes me as being a somewhat feminine approach anyway, ie. the concept that there's a 'just right' way to do it, when faster and more often seems to work just as well.
Yep. It takes 90min to find sweet spot, pretty much the same time to find g-spot.frenchyge said:
RapDaddyo said:
I see where you want to bring me, and to a certain extent, I'll go with you.frenchyge said:
I am aware of the value of Interval training. 2X20 at a intensity that is a bit higher, will be just as good, if not better than 40 at a lower intensity.
But I am not sure, that 2X20 and 40 (Level 4) at the exact same intensity (e.g. 275w) will result into the same adaptation.
Anyway, we have been ridden that horse quite a lot now (I feel he is getting kind of tired). I am suprised by the lack of valid documentation available through google on this subject. I will spend more time finding documentation and will continue that discussion with more meaningful data to provide.
Thank you so much
Back on topic, there is an important point in this thread that can easily get overlooked. Of the important training levels (L4-L7), L4 is perhaps the most important training level for most cyclists and is the one where they will accumulate the most time (with L5 right behind). But, the power range for L4 (and L5) is huge (14% x FT). There is a direct correlation between power and endurance and we are all limited in availability of training time (even if some of us have more than others). At the lower end of the range, one can spend more time actually training and less time recovering or whatever you want to call it. Macrostructure focus says, "Just do them, at whatever intensity." But, microstructure focus says, "Hold on now. Intensity has a direct effect on total training volume." This is what drives me to do all my intervals at the very lowest level that will deliver the desired adaptation and not one watt more. Because I also want the volume.SolarEnergy said:Oupss... sorry whoawhoa. I forgot.
(thought : "maybe this guy's a real kid after all"
Listen RapDaddyo. This is a great comment, in fact one that is going to help me make my point.RapDaddyo said:
First, I will remind readers that the origin of the argument about 2X20 vs 1X40, comes from a question gregkeller asked. That question was : can I do 2X20 more than once a week. My answer was you can do L4 more than once a week, but you should vary interval duration. Twice 2X20 at 100FT, would be a bit too narrow in my mind. What I actually had in mind, is that greg should do more volume, during the second wkout.
As you say, the whole L4 spectrum is 14% FT wide. That is a lot of ground to cover. Some have been claiming that interval as short as 10min, are all you need.
But take a look at the neighboor level (L3). Does anyone on this site do L3 in intervals? Interval durations are not even mentionned in Coggan's chart. Can we assume that continuous work is better for training L3? I would say so.
Then if L3 (up to .90 FT) gets better trained continuous, why would lower limit L4 (starting .91 FT) would suddenly get better trained intervals?
It is a continuum, interval durations, or prefered method of training should reflect that as well. No?
IOW, I don't believe that 10min (or 20min) long interval, will be best suited for the whole 14% wide L4 spectrum.
