Share your sprint workouts

beerco said:

So do you win sprints or not?

200%FT will not result in significant neuromuscular adaptation. My sprint training hits a peak of over 500% of my FT with an average of around 400% of FT. The thing is that sprint power (when rested) is not related to FT. You've got to get near your max short term power to increase it.

Check out midweekclub.comcoggan.pdfOpen ↗ pages 16 & 17. You'll see that Andy does not use an FT reference for L7. There's a reason for that.

If you want to train your sprint, you've got to sprint. Sprinting is not ramping up the juice to 300% of FTP.

First, I don't think it matters at all whether I win sprints. Second, I can't even come close to 500%FT for 20secs. So, I guess I'm not a sprinter.

postal_bag said:

This is all good stuff. One of my concerns has to do with the force/power relationship. I've seen in other threads that pedaling at (x) cadence, at (x) watts= (x) kg of force per leg, or something to that effect. For interest's sake, what force would be required for 1300 watts at 150 rpm?

I am not sur about force per leg, but My short (200 yards) up hill sprints have yeilded a 1346 max watts 588 inch pounds at 149 max cadence 23.6 mph I forget the gear

RapDaddyo said:

First, I don't think it matters at all whether I win sprints. Second, I can't even come close to 500%FT for 20secs. So, I guess I'm not a sprinter.

I was asking about how you do in sprints to determine if you're a sprinter or not. Non-sprinters have a completely different view of sprinting than sprinters do. I'm guessing you're not a sprinter. If you asked a trackie, I'm not a sprinter either.

I can't hold 500% of FT for 20sec either. The point still is that sprint training is a MAXIMAL sharp burst of all you have, not a ramp up to 300% of FT at the end of a 2x20 session. Doesn't matter if your sprint maxes out at 200% or 2000% of FT so long as its a max effort.

beerco said:

I was asking about how you do in sprints to determine if you're a sprinter or not. Non-sprinters have a completely different view of sprinting than sprinters do. I'm guessing you're not a sprinter. If you asked a trackie, I'm not a sprinter either.

I can't hold 500% of FT for 20sec either. The point still is that sprint training is a MAXIMAL sharp burst of all you have, not a ramp up to 300% of FT at the end of a 2x20 session. Doesn't matter if your sprint maxes out at 200% or 2000% of FT so long as its a max effort.

And I think sprint training is about neuromuscular adaptation, and I'm not sure it takes a maximal effort to attain such adaptation. That is the question you have never answered. Are you saying that neuromuscular adaptation only takes place following maximal efforts? If so, what is your evidence?

My god, what an interesting thread, I read it twice.

Unfortunately, I can't issue strong statements on cycling sprints. I am a triathlon specialist. I know much more about swimming sprints.

Yes neuromuscular adaptation is nice target for sprinting. But come on guys, lactate tolerence, or anaerobic capacity (like they use to call it in the good old days), is also a major issue.

When holding a sprint for 20 seconds or more, lactate buildup becomes very high. Blood PH really really drops low and you start to slow down.

Anaerobic Capacity training is very difficult. Well at least in swimming. Recovery between the sets doesn't have to be complete, as the goal is to deal with blood lactate anyway. When we train anaerobic power (think people now call it neuromuscular power), repeats are short (10 to 25 secs) and the recovery should be complete (1:5 ratio and more).

I kind of agree with every one that expressed an opinion on this thread, cause I think you need to work on all those things to be a good sprinter :

RapDaddyo : Mix of L4-7, Anaerobic capacity, with fatigue pre-existing in the legs
Frenchyge : Anaerobic Power
beerco : LT power, Anaerobic power + a mix with fatigue pre-existing later in the seaso
2006 : Just push hard and don't boder with the numbers (I like this one🙂 )

Take a look at your hr monitor data after the race. If you hit max values, then chances are you where near VO2Max at the end of the sprint. This depends on the last 5 or more minutes prior the sprint. So VO2Max training should also be considered.

RapDaddyo said:

And I think sprint training is about neuromuscular adaptation, and I'm not sure it takes a maximal effort to attain such adaptation. That is the question you have never answered. Are you saying that neuromuscular adaptation only takes place following maximal efforts? If so, what is your evidence?

You may have heard of something called specificity?

I don't have any specific evidence that you need to train at max sprint intensity to improve your max sprint. However, it is intuitive because all training must be near maximal for a given duration for there to be a significant effect. The further away from your maximal effort for a duration, the less training effect there will be*.

Even L2 riding must be a maximal effort in terms of hours/week to get a fitness improvement .

In general my philosophy, is that you must train near the limits of your power/duration curve to see significant improvement at any power or duration. No pain, no gain 😄

Where's your evidence that non-sprint training will improve your sprint?

(* Before you hop all over me, I do realize that all training cannot be maximal, especially L6 and below. When I do my 2x20's, I do them at hour power. When I do my 6x5s, I do them at 115% of FT which is probably my 7 min max power. I do realize that you must balance intensity to be able to achieve a specific volume of training as well. I'd say in general, you've got to be within 10% or perhaps a little less of your power/duration curve to maximize the effects of your training. With sprints though, it's easy to do maximal efforts and they never really hurt your training the next day)

beerco said:

You may have heard of something called specificity?

I don't have any specific evidence that you need to train at max sprint intensity to improve your max sprint. However, it is intuitive because all training must be near maximal for a given duration for there to be a significant effect. The further away from your maximal effort for a duration, the less training effect there will be*.

Even L2 riding must be a maximal effort in terms of hours/week to get a fitness improvement .

In general my philosophy, is that you must train near the limits of your power/duration curve to see significant improvement at any power or duration. No pain, no gain 😄

Where's your evidence that non-sprint training will improve your sprint?

(* Before you hop all over me, I do realize that all training cannot be maximal, especially L6 and below. When I do my 2x20's, I do them at hour power. When I do my 6x5s, I do them at 115% of FT which is probably my 7 min max power. I do realize that you must balance intensity to be able to achieve a specific volume of training as well. I'd say in general, you've got to be within 10% or perhaps a little less of your power/duration curve to maximize the effects of your training. With sprints though, it's easy to do maximal efforts and they never really hurt your training the next day)

There's really no point to continuing this discussion. We are so far apart on our approach to training. For example, I don't do a single interval at my max power for that duration. In fact, I specifically do them at 90%MP for the duration. I'm not saying that you will not realize adaptations at 100%. So, I'm not knocking your approach. You're knocking my approach, and I don't care to waste my time with the discussion.

RapDaddyo said:

First, I don't think it matters at all whether I win sprints. Second, I can't even come close to 500%FT for 20secs. So, I guess I'm not a sprinter.

I think it's pointless to describe sprint workouts in % of FT. Perhaps % of best 5-sec power or something like that?

In my best condition (last spring) I couldn't hold even 250% of FT for 5-seconds!

Anyway, will doing spring workouts help my TT'ng? 🙂

I haven't done any for about 15 yrs - never did feel like I even got a workout doing them. I was doing about 10 reps of 10-15 seconds maximum effort standing or very slow rolling starts.

rmur

rmur17 said:

I haven't done any for about 15 yrs - never did feel like I even got a workout doing them. I was doing about 10 reps of 10-15 seconds maximum effort standing or very slow rolling starts.

True, they're not much of a workout by themselves. I usually do 5-6 reps at the beginning of my long rides (after a warmup, of course), or as a short workout on a day that I hadn't originally planned to ride.

2006 said:

I'am quite sure that all of this information is very accurate. But!!

Like I posted earlier in this thread, just get out and go fast and forget about all of this scientific jargon.

Some many years ago while I was riding in the sprinting Gran Prix's in Europe, I had a 10 day break between GP Copenhagen & GP Arhus.

Australian world champ John Nicholson lived there. Ever morning 5 or 6 sprinters, which included the likes of Niels Fredborg ( Olympic Kilo champ) Pers Pederson ( World sprint champ) John, and a few of Denmarks best dudes & I, would go out for are daily morning rode ride. It was very lite 42x16 gear, flat terrain, nice weather. But, we would sprint for every village sign, we had an unwritten rule, stay in 42x16.

Well what a great workout, with speeds sure to hit 150 rpm.

We didn't measure heart rates or power percentages, we just tried to beat each other to the sign.

2006

Right on bro'. To sprint faster, you must have leg speed. 42x16 is a great gear for acceleration training. Jump all out, spin it up to your highest rpm and hold for another few seconds or so. If you were born a slow-twitch slogger, learn to find the right wheels and get your timing spot on!

rmur17 said:

I think it's pointless to describe sprint workouts in % of FT. Perhaps % of best 5-sec power or something like that?

Really? It seems to me that the purpose of intervals is to attain a targeted physiological adaptation and the objective in setting a target power is the minimum power sufficient to attain the targeted adaptation. For all other adaptations, target power is less than maximal effort for the duration. In the case of my personal MP/duration curve, it is never greater than 90%MP. So, now when we're talking about an objective of neuromuscular adaptation, we suddenly shift gears to maximal effort? One study of short-term high intensity intervals (characterized as anaerobic "sprint" intervals in the study) used 175% of Peak Power Output (PPO) as target power for 30sec intervals ausport.gov.auLAUR.pdfOpen ↗. PPO is MAP and FT is closely correlated with MAP and hence PPO (I think Ric's research suggests FT is typically ~75%MAP). If FT=75%PPO, then the target power in this study restated in FT terms was ~233%FT. So, maybe my 200%FT 20s L7 intervals are a little "easy," but as I said earlier it's months from when I need a sprint and I will increase the intensity of these intervals as I get closer to mass start races that matter. For now, I don't want to pay the price in terms of recovery time in my rides. Again, I think the question is, "What is the minimum intensity required to induce the targeted physiological adaptation?" Do you have an answer to that question backed up by a credible study?

RapDaddyo said:

Really? It seems to me that the purpose of intervals is to attain a targeted physiological adaptation and the objective in setting a target power is the minimum power sufficient to attain the targeted adaptation. For all other adaptations, target power is less than maximal effort for the duration. In the case of my personal MP/duration curve, it is never greater than 90%MP. So, now when we're talking about an objective of neuromuscular adaptation, we suddenly shift gears to maximal effort? One study of short-term high intensity intervals (characterized as anaerobic "sprint" intervals in the study) used 175% of Peak Power Output (PPO) as target power for 30sec intervals ausport.gov.auLAUR.pdfOpen ↗. PPO is MAP and FT is closely correlated with MAP and hence PPO (I think Ric's research suggests FT is typically ~75%MAP). If FT=75%PPO, then the target power in this study restated in FT terms was ~233%FT. So, maybe my 200%FT 20s L7 intervals are a little "easy," but as I said earlier it's months from when I need a sprint and I will increase the intensity of these intervals as I get closer to mass start races that matter. For now, I don't want to pay the price in terms of recovery time in my rides. Again, I think the question is, "What is the minimum intensity required to induce the targeted physiological adaptation?" Do you have an answer to that question backed up by a credible study?

I'm not sure I followed you intent by referencing that study, but look at the results of the workouts -- better 40k TT power, higher PPO, and higher VO2max -- all aerobic stuff. Compare that with Andy's adaptations chart and it tells me they still weren't working in L7, even at ~233%FT.

frenchyge said:

I'm not sure I followed you intent by referencing that study, but look at the results of the workouts -- better 40k TT power, higher PPO, and higher VO2max -- all aerobic stuff. Compare that with Andy's adaptations chart and it tells me they still weren't working in L7, even at ~233%FT.

Well, a 20s interval falls into "No Man's Land" in Andy's chart. Shorter than the durations for L6 and longer than the 10sec L7s. But, 20s power is realistic for real-world sprints. The question remains, "What is the minimum intensity required to attain the desired neuromuscular adaptation?" I don't have a problem characterizing the intensity in terms of a percentage of MP for a given duration, especially given the fact that very short term power gets pretty disconnected from FT power. And I don't doubt that one will attain neuromuscular adaptation at 100% of one's MP for a short duration (e.g., 10s). But, is it necessary to ride at MP to attain the desired adaptation? I am focused on the low end of the range, not the upper end of the range. This isn't unique to L7 intervals. That is my focus for all intervals.

RapDaddyo said:

Really? It seems to me that the purpose of intervals is to attain a targeted physiological adaptation and the objective in setting a target power is the minimum power sufficient to attain the targeted adaptation. For all other adaptations, target power is less than maximal effort for the duration. In the case of my personal MP/duration curve, it is never greater than 90%MP. So, now when we're talking about an objective of neuromuscular adaptation, we suddenly shift gears to maximal effort? One study of short-term high intensity intervals (characterized as anaerobic "sprint" intervals in the study) used 175% of Peak Power Output (PPO) as target power for 30sec intervals ausport.gov.auLAUR.pdfOpen ↗. PPO is MAP and FT is closely correlated with MAP and hence PPO (I think Ric's research suggests FT is typically ~75%MAP). If FT=75%PPO, then the target power in this study restated in FT terms was ~233%FT. So, maybe my 200%FT 20s L7 intervals are a little "easy," but as I said earlier it's months from when I need a sprint and I will increase the intensity of these intervals as I get closer to mass start races that matter. For now, I don't want to pay the price in terms of recovery time in my rides. Again, I think the question is, "What is the minimum intensity required to induce the targeted physiological adaptation?" Do you have an answer to that question backed up by a credible study?

could you show me where Dr. Coggan suggests L7 workouts power as a function of FT power? I honestly have not seen that.

rmur

rmur17 said:

could you show me where Dr. Coggan suggests L7 workouts power as a function of FT power? I honestly have not seen that.

rmur

Where did I say he referenced L7 intervals as a function of FT power?

Neuromuscular adaptation, you are probably refering to increase in fiber recruitment, is better acheived when training at maximum intensity, for really short time.

The L7 you are refering to, rely mainly on ATP-CP system, or anaerobic power. I like the term neuromuscular power as well. In cycling as well as in running, that system is better stimulated with intervals that don't exceed 10s, 15s being the longest in my opinon.

When training this system, you don't want lactate buildup. That is the key to maintain a good L7 workout. You want the ATP to be recycled with CP (as much as possible), not by sugar (that explains the short duration of these intervals). Takes between 3 and 5 minutes to fully regenerate CP after it has depleted (Fox and all, 1989).

In order to force that neuromuscular adaptation, the effort must be maximal, I see no point in doing sub-maximal effort that only last 10s anyway. Keep in mind that you want to force new motor units to be fired.

Aside from injuries, I don't see that type of training as being very taxing, especially when we compare with anaerobic capacity (L6).

As I said though, I really don't thing one's ability to finish hard at the final sprint of a race depends mainly on L7 training. One's ability to generate the highest power output possible depends on L7, but to maintain that speed for 20s or 30s or more, you need to increase anaerobic capacity, no doubt about that.

🙂

SolarEnergy said:

Neuromuscular adaptation, you are probably refering to increase in fiber recruitment, is better acheived when training at maximum intensity, for really short time.

The L7 you are refering to, rely mainly on ATP-CP system, or anaerobic power. I like the term neuromuscular power as well. In cycling as well as in running, that system is better stimulated with intervals that don't exceed 10s, 15s being the longest in my opinon.

When training this system, you don't want lactate buildup. That is the key to maintain a good L7 workout. You want the ATP to be recycled with CP (as much as possible), not by sugar (that explains the short duration of these intervals). Takes between 3 and 5 minutes to fully regenerate CP after it has depleted (Fox and all, 1989).

In order to force that neuromuscular adaptation, the effort must be maximal, I see no point in doing sub-maximal effort that only last 10s anyway. Keep in mind that you want to force new motor units to be fired.

Aside from injuries, I don't see that type of training as being very taxing, especially when we compare with anaerobic capacity (L6).

As I said though, I really don't thing one's ability to finish hard at the final sprint of a race depends mainly on L7 training. One's ability to generate the highest power output possible depends on L7, but to maintain that speed for 20s or 30s or more, you need to increase anaerobic capacity, no doubt about that.

🙂

That's a helpful, informative response. And, after experimentation and after looking at the progression of sprints I have been part of, I agree with you that L7 power is not the only determinant (maybe not even the main determinant) of sprint success. That's in part why I settled on year-round inclusion of 20s intervals in my rides. While the rollup varies all over the map, the actual sprints seem to be concluded in ~15-20secs. I often choose to do these at the end of another interval (e.g., L4), to closely approximate the fatigue that would be present in an actual sprint finish. What I am doing, in effect, is making sprints routine, just another day on the bike. What I will do with this input is to include 10s intervals as well, at MP, to attain the full benefits of neuromuscular adaptation.

RapDaddyo said:

That's in part why I settled on year-round inclusion of 20s intervals in my rides. While the rollup varies all over the map, the actual sprints seem to be concluded in ~15-20secs. I often choose to do these at the end of another interval (e.g., L4), to closely approximate the fatigue that would be present in an actual sprint finish...

IMO, that is the best way to improve sprint finishes.

A 2 or 3 hour long race, OR a tough L4 training session causes some damage to many muscle cells. Sprint finishes actually occur under these conditions, not under fresh legs conditions.

In other words, sprinting with fresh legs may not be as specific to road bike, as sprinting with fatigue would be.

🙂

RapDaddyo said:

Really? It seems to me that the purpose of intervals is to attain a targeted physiological adaptation and the objective in setting a target power is the minimum power sufficient to attain the targeted adaptation. For all other adaptations, target power is less than maximal effort for the duration. In the case of my personal MP/duration curve, it is never greater than 90%MP. So, now when we're talking about an objective of neuromuscular adaptation, we suddenly shift gears to maximal effort? One study of short-term high intensity intervals (characterized as anaerobic "sprint" intervals in the study) used 175% of Peak Power Output (PPO) as target power for 30sec intervals ausport.gov.auLAUR.pdfOpen ↗. PPO is MAP and FT is closely correlated with MAP and hence PPO (I think Ric's research suggests FT is typically ~75%MAP). If FT=75%PPO, then the target power in this study restated in FT terms was ~233%FT. So, maybe my 200%FT 20s L7 intervals are a little "easy," but as I said earlier it's months from when I need a sprint and I will increase the intensity of these intervals as I get closer to mass start races that matter. For now, I don't want to pay the price in terms of recovery time in my rides. Again, I think the question is, "What is the minimum intensity required to induce the targeted physiological adaptation?" Do you have an answer to that question backed up by a credible study?

I don't think he's saying to do them at a max effort, he's saying to do them at a percentage of 5 second power. If you do all your other intervals at 90% of max power for duration, then why don't you do your sprints that way? Or does 200% of ft correspond with 90% of your 20 second power.

Also, it seems to me that there are many ways to train for sprinting. 20 second sprints probably aren't the whole answer to developing an excellent sprint. However, if your goal races will include mostly long drawn out sprints (like are common at the end of road races) then that is what you should do. If you are training for races that involve sprints with corners 200 meters from the finish then you will probably train peak power more.

YMCA said:

Right on bro'. To sprint faster, you must have leg speed. 42x16 is a great gear for acceleration training. Jump all out, spin it up to your highest rpm and hold for another few seconds or so. If you were born a slow-twitch slogger, learn to find the right wheels and get your timing spot on!

I can spin a 42x16 to 170+ 35 mph. Problem is that doesnt give me a huge amount of mph in a larger gear. Leg speed workouts are the most fun to do , but you still need power to go fast in bigger gears. I cant make enough power in a larger gear to add more than a few mph past 35. I have only been at it for less than a year. Any suggetions?? I am 44