pyramid interval power scheme

[postal_bag]

I tried doing pyramid intervals with power today, for the first time. What would be an effective power scheme for doing pyramid intervals of the
1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1 minute form with recovery intervals equal to the preceding work interval? Currently I do my 4 min. interval sets at 83% of MAP, or 115% of my 1 hr power; but I found that in the context of this workout, that was a bit too much. Thanks for any input.

 

[frenchyge]

All intervals are equal intensity, and just the durations (rest & recovery) vary, right? 115% FT sounds about right, but if that's a bit too much, then why not just drop it to 110% FT and see if it's still challenging enough? As long as you're in the same power zone (L5, in this case) then you should be fine.

 

[postal_bag]

All intervals are equal intensity, and just the durations (rest & recovery) vary, right?.

Actually I was starting at about 145% of FT for the 1 min. and then reducing the intensity with each interval until I got to the 115% on the 4 min. interval. My goal was to get in some super high intensity work since I already do a weekly 5x4 session at 115%.

Not surprisingly, I found that it was not possible to reduce the power by equal amounts for each duration, ie:
1 min @145%, 2 min @135%, 3 min @125% 4 min @115%
The 3 min @125% proved to be the deal breaker. This got me thinking that maybe the power should vary somehow exponentially over the change of duration in the intervals. Obviously I'm no mathematician, or exercise physiologist for that matter. Something like:
1 min @146%, 2 min @130%, 3 min @118%, 4 min @110%?

 

[RapDaddyo]

Actually I was starting at about 145% of FT for the 1 min. and then reducing the intensity with each interval until I got to the 115% on the 4 min. interval. My goal was to get in some super high intensity work since I already do a weekly 5x4 session at 115%.

Not surprisingly, I found that it was not possible to reduce the power by equal amounts for each duration, ie:
1 min @145%, 2 min @135%, 3 min @125% 4 min @115%
The 3 min @125% proved to be the deal breaker. This got me thinking that maybe the power should vary somehow exponentially over the change of duration in the intervals. Obviously I'm no mathematician, or exercise physiologist for that matter. Something like:
1 min @146%, 2 min @130%, 3 min @118%, 4 min @110%?

With recovery duration equal to interval duration, this is a very hard interval set. All of these intervals exceed 15 sec and thus do not qualify for the symmetric push/recovery duration/power concept. Eventually the time at power in excess of sustainable power matched by equal recovery time is going to catch up to you and force you to slow down. Every time you go at an intensity > sustainable power, you're dipping into the well and the well has a limit. If you want to retain the interval intensities, I suggest you increase the recovery durations in accordance with the 4th power lactate/power curve.

 

[frenchyge]

With recovery duration equal to interval duration, this is a very hard interval set. All of these intervals exceed 15 sec and thus do not qualify for the symmetric push/recovery duration/power concept. Eventually the time at power in excess of sustainable power matched by equal recovery time is going to catch up to you and force you to slow down. Every time you go at an intensity > sustainable power, you're dipping into the well and the well has a limit. If you want to retain the interval intensities, I suggest you increase the recovery durations in accordance with the 4th power lactate/power curve.

Postal, I agree if you followed all that. Basically you should look at the IF x duration for each interval:

Interval -- IF x duration
115% FT -- (1.15^4) x 4 min = 6.99
125% FT -- (1.25^4) x 3 min = 7.32
135% FT -- (1.35^4) x 2 min = 6.64
145% FT -- (1.45^4) x 1 min = 4.42

That shows that the 125% x 3 minute interval is indeed the toughest one. Now, compounding the problem for you is the fact that you're trying to only recover for the same time as the duration. But look at the IF x time for each interval and you'll see that they're roughly the same in terms of stress. You can't allow only 1 minute for recovery in one case, and 4 minutes in another.

If you're wanting to vary the power level to get some very high power work, then allow 3-4 minutes rest for each interval. Otherwise, keep the power level for all of them at 115% and use your varying recovery duration method.

 

[postal_bag]

Postal, I agree if you followed all that. Basically you should look at the IF x duration for each interval:

Interval -- IF x duration
115% FT -- (1.15^4) x 4 min = 6.99
125% FT -- (1.25^4) x 3 min = 7.32
135% FT -- (1.35^4) x 2 min = 6.64
145% FT -- (1.45^4) x 1 min = 4.42

That shows that the 125% x 3 minute interval is indeed the toughest one. Now, compounding the problem for you is the fact that you're trying to only recover for the same time as the duration. But look at the IF x time for each interval and you'll see that they're roughly the same in terms of stress. You can't allow only 1 minute for recovery in one case, and 4 minutes in another.

If you're wanting to vary the power level to get some very high power work, then allow 3-4 minutes rest for each interval. Otherwise, keep the power level for all of them at 115% and use your varying recovery duration method.

Thanks for the tip. I wasn't familiar with the 4th power lactate/power curve. So when I suggested:
145% FT x 1 min = 4.42
130% FT x 2 min = 5.71
118% FT x 3 min = 5.81
110% FT x 4 min = 5.85
I was on the right track, as far as making more equal the stress level of each interval? If I bump the 1 min interval up to 155% FT, I would get a rating of 5.77 which compares to the other intervals.

So, if I understand this correctly, each interval would require the same recovery time because the perceived stress is equal.

Is it safe to assume that if I can handle 115% FT (1.15^ 4) x 4 min = 6.99, then all efforts could be a % of FT which yields a 6.99 "stress rating"? ie:
162% FT x 1 min = 6.89
136% FT x 2 min = 6.84
123% FT x 3 min = 6.86
115% FT x 4 min = 6.99

Thanks again for this info and the advice.

 

[frenchyge]

So, if I understand this correctly, each interval would require the same recovery time because the perceived stress is equal.

Right, although it's still possible that you're working above what you could sustain for the entire session. In that case you're dipping from your anaerobic capacity as RapDaddyo said, and you might still die before the end.

Is it safe to assume that if I can handle 115% FT (1.15^ 4) x 4 min = 6.99, then all efforts could be a % of FT which yields a 6.99 "stress rating"? ie:
162% FT x 1 min = 6.89
136% FT x 2 min = 6.84
123% FT x 3 min = 6.86
115% FT x 4 min = 6.99

I believe so, assuming that you used the constant rest period and watched out for the anaerobic capacity problem mentioned above. In other words, just because you can do *one* 115% x 4min interval, doesn't mean you can do *eight*.

 

[postal_bag]

Thanks. I think I have a vague handle on this now.

If you want to retain the interval intensities, I suggest you increase the recovery durations in accordance with the 4th power lactate/power curve.

So, how do these values that I come up with translate into actual recovery times? Is there a formula for that as well? For example when I do my 5x4 intervals at 115%, I am comfortable with 4 min recovery (got this down to 2 min a few months ago). How does the 6.99 stress value translate into minutes of recovery time?

 

[frenchyge]

Short answer is: yes, there's a formula. Longer answer is that it's more complicated than just applying a time-weighted averaging of the 4th order power values for the interval and rest periods. Because of the time delays in the physiological response to the interval, Andy Coggan applies a 30-second averaging to the power profile before applying the 4th order formula for normalizing power. Read more about it here (pages 9-11): http://www.peakscoachinggroup.com/PowerTrainingChapter.pdf

You're probably better off judging your recovery periods by feel, starting with 4 minutes and trying to work back down toward 2 minutes like you did before.

 

[beerco]

I tried doing pyramid intervals with power today, for the first time. What would be an effective power scheme for doing pyramid intervals of the
1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1 minute form with recovery intervals equal to the preceding work interval? Currently I do my 4 min. interval sets at 83% of MAP, or 115% of my 1 hr power; but I found that in the context of this workout, that was a bit too much. Thanks for any input.

Something else to look into - check out this spreadsheet I made (you'll need to set up a user account):

http://www.bicyclewattage.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=4

Using this you can calculate normalized power for any interval session with intervals of over 30s. In general, if the normalized power for a session is over what you can accomplish steady state, you won't be able to complete it.

For easy comparison, enter 100w as your threshold power and then you can enter a percentage (e.g. 115 for 115% of threshold) in each segment.

 

[postal_bag]

When I read of TSS, is this calculation of 6.99 for a 4 min interval done at 115% FT considered the TSS? Do I add these up for the entire session? Or do I have to multiply 6.99 by 100 and divide by 60 considering 60 min @ FT is given a score of 100? Did I mention I was no mathematician?

 

[frenchyge]

You did. You're right that TSS needs to be normalized to 1-hr @ FT = 100pts.

I only intended to use those 6.99 (e.g.) numbers as a relative indicator of your different intervals so you could see why the 3-min one felt the hardest, and why your varying recovery times were unrealistic. Anything beyond that is just more math for such a short, varying workout.

FWIW, the Cycling Peaks software will do the TSS, Intensity Factor (IF) and Normalized Power calculations for you for your entire ride or any smaller range (>30seconds) if you're really interested in using those tools. www.cyclingpeaks.com