VO2 focus before threshold focus

[Pureshot78]

To be honest- I can't find the study that backs my opinion up but I can say that the powermeter says its true. I posted a link to that study in a post a while back I remember.

I also took a look through my Training Bible (Third Edition 2003) and couldn't find the paragraph i was remembering, but its been so long since i've cracked that book open I might have been putting that statement in the wrong place.

I'd hoped that Ric or Andy would chime in, but another piece of evidence i'd use to support my case would be the way that the PMC uses ATL and CTL. The CTL uses 42 days of data as its default setting for CTL and only 7 for ATL. This seems to speak to the slower decay of "Fitness" although not specifically at any duration.

To restate the issue, I'm making the claim that sustainable Power at longer durations takes longer to increase and longer to decay than sustainable Power at shorter durations.

 

[Alex Simmons]

To restate the issue, I'm making the claim that sustainable Power at longer durations takes longer to increase and longer to decay than sustainable Power at shorter durations.

Interesting - let's see what comes up.

Bit more of my own ramble....
In terms of anecdotal evidence (hence I'm not making a statement one way or another), my personal experience this year saw an unscheduled 3 week break off the bike mid-year. When I got back on my FTP sucked big time but I set new 5/10 sec power PBs by a long way. I suspect however that anything longer than 30 sec would have sucked as well.

But then my FTP came back real fast, setting PBs in a matter of a month or so. Go figure!

I suspect there needs to be definition of what is meant by "fitness". Peak fitness for a long ITT is not the same as peak fitness for a crit, or a track TT. Composition of what goes into gaining CTL/ATL matters.

Also - the reason the time constants can vary is so you can find what best suits each person/event type. Changing CTL TC won't make much difference but the ATL (and hence TSB) will become more or less reactive depending on where you set ATL TC. Maybe something to play with.

Suggest another read through of this:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/performancemanagerscience.asp
Some commentary on TCs is at the end paras 7 & 8 (but not the only place it's discussed).

 

[gvanwagner]

I also took a look through my Training Bible (Third Edition 2003) and couldn't find the paragraph i was remembering, but its been so long since i've cracked that book open I might have been putting that statement in the wrong place.

I'd hoped that Ric or Andy would chime in, but another piece of evidence i'd use to support my case would be the way that the PMC uses ATL and CTL. The CTL uses 42 days of data as its default setting for CTL and only 7 for ATL. This seems to speak to the slower decay of "Fitness" although not specifically at any duration.

To restate the issue, I'm making the claim that sustainable Power at longer durations takes longer to increase and longer to decay than sustainable Power at shorter durations.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-201X.1997.00244.x/abs/

This jives extremely closely with my personal experience, also for knavm would laid out some big time PBs for 1 min after a 2wk layoff but his 20 min was way down. And remember PMC doesn't take into account composition. So if you rack up 1000TSS/wk for a month in L6/7 intervals exclusively your FTP will drop.

 

[SolarEnergy]

Looks good- esp in the first week- the second week is one hell of a taper- 10-15 per wk- assuming a 12 ave going to 2.5 in the week 2 before the event- I get lke 20%.

Well let's not forget the race.

In other words, this rider have been used to train around 5hr during the week, and 4-5 hrs during the week end.

I just turned this 5hrs into 3hrs (roughly) + the weekend mileage (the races).

I think that trying to book let's say the usual 5 hrs of training during the 5 days preceding the saturday's race might have been a bit risky, especially given the first week of taper that was still a bit taxing (although less than usual training protocol).

 

[gvanwagner]

AHH- I wasn't including the race because once you want to fine tune you performance ont he day of not after. But I see how you you did it- weekday hrs only- ok that makes good sense I didn't see that

 

[rmur17]

I also took a look through my Training Bible (Third Edition 2003) and couldn't find the paragraph i was remembering, but its been so long since i've cracked that book open I might have been putting that statement in the wrong place.

I'd hoped that Ric or Andy would chime in, but another piece of evidence i'd use to support my case would be the way that the PMC uses ATL and CTL. The CTL uses 42 days of data as its default setting for CTL and only 7 for ATL. This seems to speak to the slower decay of "Fitness" although not specifically at any duration.

To restate the issue, I'm making the claim that sustainable Power at longer durations takes longer to increase and longer to decay than sustainable Power at shorter durations.

but where do you draw the line or cutoff? What's longer/shorter/neither?

rmur

 

[whoawhoa]

I'd hoped that Ric or Andy would chime in, but another piece of evidence i'd use to support my case would be the way that the PMC uses ATL and CTL. The CTL uses 42 days of data as its default setting for CTL and only 7 for ATL. This seems to speak to the slower decay of "Fitness" although not specifically at any duration.

To restate the issue, I'm making the claim that sustainable Power at longer durations takes longer to increase and longer to decay than sustainable Power at shorter durations.

I don't see your point about the PMC supporting the conclusion. CTL only erodes slowly in relation to ATL, which doesn't represent fitness at any particular duration. CTL actually drops fairly quickly. Also, Andy has said that TSB best represents anaerobic capabilities, and since CTL and TSB are inverses, it would make sense that CTL would represent the other end of the phsyiological spectrum.

 

[Pureshot78]

since CTL and TSB are inverses, it would make sense that CTL would represent the other end of the phsyiological spectrum.

CTL and TSB are not inverses. If this were the case, every time that CTL was high, TSB would be low and vice versa.

 

[whoawhoa]

CTL and TSB are not inverses. If this were the case, every time that CTL was high, TSB would be low and vice versa.

DOH! You're right.

What I should say is this: for TSB to rise (indicating, as Andy has said, potential for high short-duration power outputs) ATL must drop, which will also mean a (smaller) drop in CTL.

 

[acoggan]

Andy has said that TSB best represents anaerobic capabilities

I can see how what's been said could be construed that way, but that's not what I at least really meant. Rather, my observation has simply been that performance at shorter durations seems to be more dependent upon being "fresh" than performance at longer durations. This was borne out by some data that I gathered from 13 riders/over 23 seasons, in which the distribution of TSB at the time a yearly personal best for power was set was centered on 10-15 TSS/d for durations less than or equal to 5 min (including 5 min normalized power), whereas for durations longer than that it was centered on a TSB of 5-10 TSS/d. (All data calculated using the default time constants.)

 

[11ring]

Just an additional question- when do efforts become to short to be effective at raising LT/FT. Do workouts of say only 30 min have much benefit? Also intensity, do workouts at say 120% of sustainable power have much use. I tend to think i ride too fast in training, and not long enough.

Do add some background, most of my trainign consists of 45 min 30 km quick rides after work, with 15 min-20 min extra of broken efforts riding in traffic.