Which Half is Better

I do not think anyone can argue with the fact that doing 1 hour at X watts is going to be tougher than doing 3x20 at X watts with 5 minute breaks. Yes the 3x20 may not duplicate race conditions as well as a 1 Hour effort but IMHO we are discussing training not racing. Your FTP is based upon ideal conditions and is your BEST effort. Honestly if I had to try and duplicate my FTP day after day, it would not happen and I would be over-trained.

IMHO, the idea of the intervals be it push/pull is to eventually get you in a condition that when you do have to give your BEST effort, it will be better than your last BEST effort. But trying to repeat that on a regular basis is just over-training similar to me trying to deadlift my 1RM in every workout. I am setting myself up for failure.

-js

swampy1970 said:

One hour pace (close to a true 25mile TT effort) over 20 minutes isn't a walk in the park but it's not going to be overly taxing either, especially not mentally.

Following many months of 'getting the quality miles in' I used to find that the 'mental' issue was probably the biggest limiter when it came to early season racing performances, especially in time trials. Physically, 40 minutes at the same pace is going to feel more uncomfortable that just 20. 60 minutes and it's going to let you know that you've be riding hard.

You can split it down all you like and turn a 4 hour ride into 16x20 minutes I guess and stop for lunch and a potty break whilst you're at it, and while it probably does do a good job of helping aerobic development it's not going to get you used to riding for that period of time. Where's your comfy chair, towel and cool water half way through a race?

I mostly train alone - I just get too many questions about the PowerCranks that it gets distracting... besides, this year is just being spent rolling around in 50x16 and 15 getting the miles in and the weight down. That and suffering like a pig in 30x27 and 24. LOL It's another way to ensure that I don't have to presoak the jersey to remove someone elses baked-on nasal expulsions.

If someone could point me in the direction of a couple of studies (all done by different folk) that proves that something like 16x20mins is as good as 4 hours straight at the same power, then I'll be the first to eat humble pie.

swampy1970 said:

.... that proves that something like 16x20mins is as good as 4 hours straight at the same power....

No one here is advocating 20 minute efforts at the same power as a 4 hour effort. And no one is advocating 16 repeats of 20 minute L4 or even SST efforts. The general SST/L4 advice is to accumulate up to 90 minutes or so in a single effort, 2 efforts, maybe even 3 shorter efforts but at a pace that you certainly wouldn't and couldn't sustain for 4 hours continuously. If you want to contrast a 4 hour ride at the best steady sustainable power to 2x30 or 3x20, 2x45 or 1x90 or whatever version of SST/L4 that you like then there is plenty of published work showing better adaptations with the shorter work vs. a 4 hour endurance ride. Start with a Pubmed search if you want to find the original work.

But comparing an isopower 4 hour ride to a large number of moderately long efforts at the same intensity is pointless as no one is recommending that you train in that manner. If you want to ride endurance pace then just ride it, if you want to work Threshold pace then it pays to break it down into blocks that allow you to maintain sufficient focus and to work with available terrain and roads. L4 work even as 20 minute efforts is a long way from comfy but it's manageable. Get a power meter and try some isopower L4 efforts and see just how comfortable those are. Just because you can ride for roughly an hour at a certain power on race day following sufficient rest and with suitable race day motivation (the definition of FTP) doesn't mean it's comfy to hold that same power for 2 or 3 twenty minute efforts during regular weekly training.

-Dave

wiredued said:

Thanks Dave I think I am taking something for granted here so let me ask you this. If I go 2 minutes at 114% then with no break go 16 minutes at 96% avg and then with no break 2 minutes at 114% isn't that going to give me 4 minutes of VO2max targeted training just as if I went 4 minutes straight at 114%?

This has been pretty well answered but I thought I'd throw this link in here for extra info on VO2 training.

peakscoachinggroup.comIntervals for vo2max.htmlOpen ↗

I like the idea of going hard(er) at the end of a 20 minute interval. It's certainly the way you would be riding a TT. I will often (but not always) do it myself.

swampy1970 said:

My coach only wrote papers and gathered data on them back in the early 1970's - heck maybe even back in the 60s....

Which, I will point out, was long before common use of power meters and, I assume, a better understanding of proper pacing. (Though the link you provided does mention power and ergo work, the pacing was done by HR.) A common problem for riders pacing by HR or PE (perceived exertion) is that they will generally start way too hard and their body will naturally cause them to fold back the effort at some point before the end of the interval. I can't speak for everyone but I know that when I used to do this (pre-power meter days), yeah, I often felt pretty ill by the end of the effort. I think that this is what you are referring to with your "you have to feel like death otherwise you didn't go hard enough"* stuff (paraphrasing). The end result of pacing this way is almost always a lower average power and overall slower result than if they had properly paced it with a power meter. There is plenty of anecdotal and research data around to prove that is the case. Edit: I don't feel ill when pacing properly, nor do most people. As evidence, I would show some of the other comments given on this thread.

* For a 20-minute effort, in training. I'd say [font=Verdana]in a race situation[/font], you probably should feel like death at the end but only because you "drilled it" for the final 3 minutes or whatever.

swampy1970 said:

If someone could point me in the direction of a couple of studies (all done by different folk) that proves that something like 16x20mins is as good as 4 hours straight at the same power, then I'll be the first to eat humble pie.

<sniff, sniff> Strawman argument.

frenchyge said:

<sniff, sniff> Strawman argument.

Yep, and not even a very good strawman argument at that...

swampy1970 said:

...If someone could point me in the direction of a couple of studies (all done by different folk) that proves that something like 16x20mins is as good as 4 hours straight at the same power, then I'll be the first to eat humble pie...

How many studies do you need to convince you that nearly five and a half hours (16*20 minutes) at a certain power level is better than four hours at the same power level. Add two and a half minutes of easier riding between each of those 16 intervals and you're comparing a 6 hour ride to a 4 hour ride at very similar intensity, hmmmm, which do you suppose results in better training? Even old school folks should be able to buy into that without a lot of fancy terms.

How does that pie taste?

jsirabella said:

But if "on the rivet" means what it sounds like as I have never used that expression

It's an old term that comes from a time when everyone rode Brooks saddles. They have rivets around the edge of the saddle and one right one edge of the nose. Like this. So when you were riding "on the rivet", you were right on the nose, or you were going hard.

That was interesting thank you I guess the 3x4s were better considering rule number 3 if that is a per session minimum.

In short, what are the points to consider when attempting VO2max intervals?
1) Interval duration should be minimally 3 minutes and maximally 10 minutes in length.
2) Intensity of the interval should be minimally 90 % pVO2max and maximally 105% pVO2max.
3) Total interval work time should be minimally 12 minutes and maximally 25 minutes.
4) The rest between interval is generally equal to the work interval itself.

Steve_B said:

This has been pretty well answered but I thought I'd throw this link in here for extra info on VO2 training.

peakscoachinggroup.comIntervals for vo2max.htmlOpen ↗

I like the idea of going hard(er) at the end of a 20 minute interval. It's certainly the way you would be riding a TT. I will often (but not always) do it myself.

wiredued said:

That was interesting thank you I guess the 3x4s were better considering rule number 3 if that is a per session minimum.

In short, what are the points to consider when attempting VO2max intervals?
1) Interval duration should be minimally 3 minutes and maximally 10 minutes in length.
2) Intensity of the interval should be minimally 90 % pVO2max and maximally 105% pVO2max.
3) Total interval work time should be minimally 12 minutes and maximally 25 minutes.
4) The rest between interval is generally equal to the work interval itself.

I don't know exactly where the 12 minutes comes from. I usually do about 15 minutes minimum but I wouldn't stress about it too much.

daveryanwyoming said:

Yep, and not even a very good strawman argument at that...
How many studies do you need to convince you that nearly five and a half hours (16*20 minutes) at a certain power level is better than four hours at the same power level. Add two and a half minutes of easier riding between each of those 16 intervals and you're comparing a 6 hour ride to a 4 hour ride at very similar intensity, hmmmm, which do you suppose results in better training? Even old school folks should be able to buy into that without a lot of fancy terms.

How does that pie taste?

Probably didn't help that my simple math was off - 4 hours = 12*20 minutes. I'm suprised you didn't pick up on that one - that and the fact when using PowerCranks there is no rest time. It all adds upto hip flexor death. 😉 But next time I shall refrain from posting whilst dealing with technical gubbins at work. 🙁

I've not eaten pie in a long time - got a decades worth of beer and food to slowly get rid of. 😠

Working out binary in the noggin' is fun, but figuring that 16*20 minutes = 4hours is rather 😕 . LOL After all, in such matters there's only 10 outcomes, right and wrong.

swampy1970 said:

Probably didn't help that my simple math was off - 4 hours = 12*20 minutes. I'm suprised you didn't pick up on that one.

I think he did pick up on that, he was just subtle about pointing it out.

"How many studies do you need to convince you that nearly five and a half hours (16*20 minutes) at a certain power level is better than four hours at the same power level."

swampy1970 said:

Probably didn't help that my simple math was off....

Yeah, I was pretty much just yankin' your chain. It seemed obvious you weren't actually arguing that a 6 hour ride was worse training than a 4 hour ride at the same intensity 😄

But I gotta agree with other posts, the Luddite routine is growing a bit old. FWIW, many of us are working on our third decade of serious riding. Ya know that Tollhouse TT I suggested? I first rode that about the time your avatar photo was shot and I promoted it about the time the Olympics were in LA. Lot's of us remember toe straps, Sachs Huret derailleurs, neuvo record, and five speed freewheels. But most here are open to advances in technology and what the sports science world has learned about exercise, training and adaptation and we see analysis as a good thing, not something to be ridiculed or shunned. But it's a public forum and you're entitled to your own opinions about training methods and the results they bring you.

-Dave

daveryanwyoming said:

Yeah, I was pretty much just yankin' your chain. It seemed obvious you weren't actually arguing that a 6 hour ride was worse training than a 4 hour ride at the same intensity 😄

But I gotta agree with other posts, the Luddite routine is growing a bit old. FWIW, many of us are working on our third decade of serious riding. Ya know that Tollhouse TT I suggested? I first rode that about the time your avatar photo was shot and I promoted it about the time the Olympics were in LA. Lot's of us remember toe straps, Sachs Huret derailleurs, neuvo record, and five speed freewheels. But most here are open to advances in technology and what the sports science world has learned about exercise, training and adaptation and we see analysis as a good thing, not something to be ridiculed or shunned. But it's a public forum and you're entitled to your own opinions about training methods and the results they bring you.

-Dave

Hey I resemble those remarks! I still have my set of Campag Super Record cranks, although the freewheels that I still have are Maillard 6 speed, not 5. Cinelli 1A stem and 66/42 bars. Plastic Sachs-Huret rear mech - been there on the old Peugeot...

I didn't post that because I wanted to be arguementative - it's just because I don't believe that 4 hours split into numerous intervals would be as effective as 4 hours done in one chunk given that both were done at the same pace. If you could get the same benefit for less discomfort you could bet that I'd be all over it like flies on the stuff that make your roses bloom....

That said, I can ride 4 hours on the PowerCranks if I take a break every once in a while - still can't ride for 4 hours straight though. Complete muscle "death"...

swampy1970 said:

...I didn't post that because I wanted to be arguementative - it's just because I don't believe that 4 hours split into numerous intervals would be as effective as 4 hours done in one chunk given that both were done at the same pace. ...

Fair enough, that gets back to frenchyge's strawman comment.

No one is suggesting SST/L4 intervals at the same power as a steady 4 hour ride. The idea is to do focused efforts harder than you could manage for a long steady effort but still easy enough that you can accumulate a lot of time at that intensity. It would be really hard to ride at 90-95% of your FTP for 4 straight hours on a regular basis, maybe for a really long time trial when you were highly motivated but not in day to day training. But most folks can manage a few 20-45 minute efforts at that level with some time to regroup mentally and refuel a bit between efforts. That's the whole idea behind blocked SST/L4 training. It's hard enough to stress your systems and encourage training adaptations but easy enough that you can do quite a bit of it.

So the real question is whether something like 60-90 minutes of accumulated time at say 85-95% of your best one hour power is better than a 4 hour ride at say 70-80% of your best one hour power where folks tend to ride those efforts if they stay focused. Or maybe even more relevant to the LSD/high mileage crowd how do those shorter focused efforts hold up to say a 5 to 6 hour ride at 60-75% of your best one hour power which is where a lot of weekend high mileage riders tend to ride.

That question gets debated a lot and is why there are plenty of coaches who are die hard advocates of LSD training, some who favor SST/Lydiard style training and some who value intensity over duration and advocate HIT training with killer 3-6 minute intervals. Kinda cool that the answers aren't that black and white, forces you to choose a horse and ride it for a while. I never got the results I was after with the high mileage lower intensity approach and don't buy into a HIT way of thinking since some duration definitely helps for long road events but have improved a lot in a short time with the mid ground SST/Lydiard approach. That's where I'm putting my efforts and haven't hit my ceiling yet. I'll cook up my own pie if I crash and burn on this plan. But a year and a half into it I'm still improving and have achieved things I only dreamed of 20 years ago when I rode more miles and followed my coach's advice to the letter but rarely got the results I was after.

-Dave

wiredued said:

3x20 is good for me indoors where relief from the saddle is needed but outdoors I don't take breaks unless the people I'm riding with have April legs and I can't see them when I look back. Please don't mention Power Cranks there is no end to that rabbit trail.🙂

You could always put it in the biggest gear and ride out of the saddle for a minute. One has too keep "the boys" happy. 😉

daveryanwyoming said:

Fair enough, that gets back to frenchyge's strawman comment.

No one is suggesting SST/L4 intervals at the same power as a steady 4 hour ride. The idea is to do focused efforts harder than you could manage for a long steady effort but still easy enough that you can accumulate a lot of time at that intensity. It would be really hard to ride at 90-95% of your FTP for 4 straight hours on a regular basis, maybe for a really long time trial when you were highly motivated but not in day to day training. But most folks can manage a few 20-45 minute efforts at that level with some time to regroup mentally and refuel a bit between efforts. That's the whole idea behind blocked SST/L4 training. It's hard enough to stress your systems and encourage training adaptations but easy enough that you can do quite a bit of it.

So the real question is whether something like 60-90 minutes of accumulated time at say 85-95% of your best one hour power is better than a 4 hour ride at say 70-80% of your best one hour power where folks tend to ride those efforts if they stay focused. Or maybe even more relevant to the LSD/high mileage crowd how do those shorter focused efforts hold up to say a 5 to 6 hour ride at 60-75% of your best one hour power which is where a lot of weekend high mileage riders tend to ride.

That question gets debated a lot and is why there are plenty of coaches who are die hard advocates of LSD training, some who favor SST/Lydiard style training and some who value intensity over duration and advocate HIT training with killer 3-6 minute intervals. Kinda cool that the answers aren't that black and white, forces you to choose a horse and ride it for a while. I never got the results I was after with the high mileage lower intensity approach and don't buy into a HIT way of thinking since some duration definitely helps for long road events but have improved a lot in a short time with the mid ground SST/Lydiard approach. That's where I'm putting my efforts and haven't hit my ceiling yet. I'll cook up my own pie if I crash and burn on this plan. But a year and a half into it I'm still improving and have achieved things I only dreamed of 20 years ago when I rode more miles and followed my coach's advice to the letter but rarely got the results I was after.

-Dave

Strawman arguement huh? Given that I don't agree with what your stance is on this topic it's more disagreement than Strawman.... but, hey...

I'm hardly dyed-in-the-wool old school. If I was then I wouldn't be riding PowerCranks, nor would I be using 185mm cranks. My 82degree seat angle time trial bike back in the ealry 90's was just 'soooo' traditional, as are the Rotor Q-Rings collecting dust in the garage. Old school wouldn't test as much as I do (that's more down to my auto racing background the past 5 years) nor would old school have spent much time in a lab 14 years ago doing quarterly power monitoring and blood lactate testing. This was at about the same time that I stopped doing the traditional winter "Sunday club run" to do four, or sometimes five, two hour sessions at about 5 to 10bpm less than my best 50 mile pace, which was a big departure from the typical English practise of about 5 to 7 hours on the bike every Sunday following a couple of hours on Saturday.

If I get coloured dyed-in-the-wool for thinking that getting the hours in at a very hard and just sustainable pace for a required period of time to get very aquainted to the effort and build muscular endurance (that feeling of pedaling 'squares' after 3 hours isn't something you want during a long hard time trial or road race) then just get out photoshop and at least paint me something "olde-worlde" English. 😉

I'll take whatever from whereever and if I have reasonable belief that it will help then I'll plan out a schedule and give it a hearty try. Most times that "belief" is gained from someone with a way better background in cycling that I.

Thankfully, I've never been bored, burned out or generally ticked off or mentally challenged with anything cycling related - long, hard training sessions in the snow/slush and freezing winds included, so maybe I don't "get" the benefits of splitting longer sessions into shorter, say 45 minute, blocks. Maybe now that I've been "Californiaised" that may change...

But this "arguement/debate/banter" has strayed somewhat from the original question at hand and the comment I made. If the guy can spend a few minutes at way over his FTP during his 20 minute interval (but spending the rest under his FTP) then chances are he'd be just as well served getting the hour done at a constant pace and not fluff around throwing in harder bits for the heck of it and spending 5 minutes walking around inbetween. At least if he was to do 3x20 at least ride it at a constant effort and get the session done properly and every once in a while stuff it in a big gear so he can get out of the saddle to stop "the wedding tackle" from getting sore/numb.

Way too many british expressions for me...I better sit down I feel dizzy.

I am way too lost but it seems you are guys are debating two different points and not looking at each others point meaning I believe X hours at X watts is harder than X hours divide into 20 minute intervals with X 5 minute breaks vs. (LSD vs. SST/L4 training). Both are right IMHO....

I think we need to stick to one scenario and than argue it as opposed to multiple scenarios and no one arguing them. swamps are you arguing in favor of LSD training vs. SST/L4 training or are you saying what I wrote above about not taking 5 minute breaks?

-js

swampy1970 said:

Strawman arguement huh? Given that I don't agree with what your stance is on this topic it's more disagreement than Strawman.... but, hey...

I'm hardly dyed-in-the-wool old school. If I was then I wouldn't be riding PowerCranks, nor would I be using 185mm cranks. My 82degree seat angle time trial bike back in the ealry 90's was just 'soooo' traditional, as are the Rotor Q-Rings collecting dust in the garage. Old school wouldn't test as much as I do (that's more down to my auto racing background the past 5 years) nor would old school have spent much time in a lab 14 years ago doing quarterly power monitoring and blood lactate testing. This was at about the same time that I stopped doing the traditional winter "Sunday club run" to do four, or sometimes five, two hour sessions at about 5 to 10bpm less than my best 50 mile pace, which was a big departure from the typical English practise of about 5 to 7 hours on the bike every Sunday following a couple of hours on Saturday.

If I get coloured dyed-in-the-wool for thinking that getting the hours in at a very hard and just sustainable pace for a required period of time to get very aquainted to the effort and build muscular endurance (that feeling of pedaling 'squares' after 3 hours isn't something you want during a long hard time trial or road race) then just get out photoshop and at least paint me something "olde-worlde" English. 😉

I'll take whatever from whereever and if I have reasonable belief that it will help then I'll plan out a schedule and give it a hearty try. Most times that "belief" is gained from someone with a way better background in cycling that I.

Thankfully, I've never been bored, burned out or generally ticked off or mentally challenged with anything cycling related - long, hard training sessions in the snow/slush and freezing winds included, so maybe I don't "get" the benefits of splitting longer sessions into shorter, say 45 minute, blocks. Maybe now that I've been "Californiaised" that may change...

But this "arguement/debate/banter" has strayed somewhat from the original question at hand and the comment I made. If the guy can spend a few minutes at way over his FTP during his 20 minute interval (but spending the rest under his FTP) then chances are he'd be just as well served getting the hour done at a constant pace and not fluff around throwing in harder bits for the heck of it and spending 5 minutes walking around inbetween. At least if he was to do 3x20 at least ride it at a constant effort and get the session done properly and every once in a while stuff it in a big gear so he can get out of the saddle to stop "the wedding tackle" from getting sore/numb.

swampy1970 said:

Strawman arguement huh? Given that I don't agree with what your stance is on this topic it's more disagreement than Strawman.... but, hey...

If you read the definition and examples in the link I posted then maybe you'll understand the difference better. To be exact, the OP presented a scenario where he does three 20 minute intervals at 96% of his absolute best-day, max effort, 1hr power (scenario A). You then disagreed with the silly notion of someone doing sixteen (or even twelve) 20 minute intervals rather than just riding 4 hours at a steady power (scenario B). IOW, you presented a different scenario that was much easier to refute (ie, a strawman) and then attempted to attribute it to the OP as if he'd said it. That's the very definition of the logical fallacy commonly referred to as a strawman argument.

Now, if we'd like to discuss ideas on their own merits instead of trying to twist things around to make others look foolish, then I'd be all up for that.

swampy1970 said:

Maybe now that I've been "Californiaised" that may change...

I believe the correct term is "Californicated".

jsirabella said:

Way too many british expressions for me...I better sit down I feel dizzy.

I am way too lost but it seems you are guys are debating two different points and not looking at each others point meaning I believe X hours at X watts is harder than X hours divide into 20 minute intervals with X 5 minute breaks vs. (LSD vs. SST/L4 training). Both are right IMHO....

I think we need to stick to one scenario and than argue it as opposed to multiple scenarios and no one arguing them. swamps are you arguing in favor of LSD training vs. SST/L4 training or are you saying what I wrote above about not taking 5 minute breaks?

-js

I'm arguring in favour of what gets the job done, in the shortest period of time and offers the greatest benefits. 😄

I don't see the point in riding at below your 1 hour functional threshold for intervals chopped into a 1/3 of an hour. Compound that with throwing in an effort at 117% for some reason that I can't fathom - maybe just to make the legs hurt. 96% of FTP for 1 hour will be challenging BUT do that enough and that challenge will be less daunting. I though that mental training was part of the big picture. That said, 4% less than FTP should make things considerably less difficult than the full monty 100%.

Maybe wiredude just had the best interests of his "wedding tackle" (nads) at heart which is why suggested riding out of the saddle in a big gear for a minute or two :eek:

I do see a point in riding above your FTP for 20 minutes, recovering and repeating several more times.