You're not telling the whole truth here. Isn't this athlete using Red Shoes (tm)?

No, no, no.... These guys are on Power Cranks! You must use Power Cranks to see the improvement, as demonstrated in studies performed by Dr. Andrew Coggan.

---

2015 USAT Long Course National Champion (M50-54)

You're right, they HAVE to be on PC's!

You know, you might be onto something: they recently changed from Blue Shoes^TM to White Shoes^TM. I'll have to review their records to see whether that was before or during this 4 wk period of time.

I'm told HR is pretty meaningless.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

No Mars...it's not the shoes - MJ

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I don't see error bars... but I'm sure you have them, yes?

OK. It's got to be a trick question...

"I would say that if you can measure power and perceived effort, HR is, at best, of somewhat limited value and at worst, a red herring."

(a quote from "Understanding Heart Rate - 7 Questions with Andy Richard Coggan, PhD" Performance Conditioning Cycling - Vol. 10, No.1)

I think they should randomly change back and forth between Blue Shoes and White Shoes in order to make the tests statistically significant.

I think they ought to get rid of get rid of any measurement tools except a stopwatch.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

the author is being facetious.

Just out of curiosity, what is this athlete's training like the rest of the week? I'm assuming that the 6 intervals are conducted in a single workout. Thanks.

---

-------
Joe

"No Mars...it's not the shoes - MJ "
- - Why you wanna do me that way, Money?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Your assumption is correct. As for the rest of their weekly training, it is a mixture of level 2, 3, and 4 workouts, with ATL running 115-135 TSS/d (and their functional threshold power is up >10% in just 3 mo).

"Ratio of average power to average heart rate during 4 min intervals in an elite athlete doing six such efforts once per week"


Interesting. I have always liked doing 4 minute intervals on the trainer. I'll set the timer for 2 minutes and then I will do 4 minutes hard and then vary the recovery between 2 and 4 minutes depnding on how I feel.

Are the 4 minutes done all out? What would be the best recovery interval?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Or maybe the subject is on an uncalibrated computrainer!

"Or maybe the subject is on an uncalibrated computrainer!"
I think Andy recalibrates between each interval.

I thought you only used the 2x20 ;-)

I wold advocate injecting pedaling efficiency into that analysis:

Cycling Prowess Indicator (CPI) = (Average Power (P) + Spinscan # (SC))/Average HR (AHR)

CPI = (P + SC)/AHR

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Am I missing something?

Ass u ming an average HR of 160 on a short interval

1.85 W/BPM * 160 BPM = 296 W

An "elite" athlete?

---

king of the road says you move too slow
KING OF THE ROAD SAYS YOU MOVE TOO SLOW

Assuming 190

1.85*190=350w

A very good elite triathlete.

Yup.

So in 24 weeks I could increase by 30%?

Awesome.

I do.

I don't get it.

I have big plans for next April . . .

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

They are done at the highest power that allows the athlete to complete all six efforts.



Probably the shortest one that still allows the athlete to complete all six efforts at the highest possible power.

BTW, if you've got a history with 4 min intervals, you might find these studies interesting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...;itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...;itool=pubmed_docsum

Of course!

I think 4 x 6min intervals would be better.

Funny coincidence that I must have like 3-4 athletes today with 8x4min (1min).

Apaprently you didn't read the paper by Steve Seiler that I just cited?

Awesome. I'm starting my training tonight. Please tell the pro tour teams that I'll be considering offers next spring.

Perhaps I'm trying to catch the red herring.

If I average 305 W at a HR of 165 that puts me at the same ratio 1.85. That ratio doesn't make me "elite". (Maybe it does!!!)

If I weighed 140 pounds & could push 350 W intervals that would make me fast, or maybe "elite".

So what's the point of tracking one's W/BPM? Improvements to muscular endurance?

---

king of the road says you move too slow
KING OF THE ROAD SAYS YOU MOVE TOO SLOW

You're starting to get closer ;-)

Their intervals are the same length, but with such a short rest period between them they're a completely different animal.

I have now :-)

So what's the deal with these 2x20min intervals?

I am beginning to wish Paulo was still MIA, and you were with him. You're not doing anyone any favors with the nonsense.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Strenght endurance? :-)

I had noticed, but thanks for the heads-up ;-)

The fact that this is an elite athlete is relevant only in the sense that some would argue that such further improvements are not possible (or at least not without resorting to either EPO or, better still, PowerCranks).


Assuming constant thermodynamic efficiency, VO2 is proportional to power, so power:heart rate is proportional to VO2:heart rate. In turn, VO2:heart rate is proportional to the product of stroke volume and a-vO2 difference (i.e., O2 pulse). Thus, an improvement in power:heart rate is indicative of an increase in stroke volume and/or a-vO2 difference (and/or an increase in thermodynamic efficiency). That's why I've been recording my power:heart rate during ergometer workouts for >20 y.

BTW, if you've got a history with 4 min intervals, you might find these studies interesting:

Dr A,

Interesting, Ironic at the same time.

Back in the 70's my running coach's favourite interval length when doing longer intervals on the track was either 1000m or 1200m which would and we would typically do 5 - 8 of these depending on what we were doing, with about a half a lap jog recovery. This lines up almost exactly with the times in the studies that you just linked.

For years I have been a big fan of the 4 minute intervals on the bike. It seems to be a good length of time that you can go almost all out, settle into a rythmn and then work it right to the end. When I am "On", 2 minutes of recovery is all I typically need, so again that seems to be matching up with what the papers say.

Great stuff. Thanks for the info

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Having troubles keeping up? :-)

So what training effects does that metric leave out?

The fact that this is an elite athlete is relevant only in the sense that some would argue that such further improvements are not possible (or at least not without resorting to either EPO or, better still, PowerCranks).

The implication being that there is a theoretical w/bpm ceiling?

---

king of the road says you move too slow
KING OF THE ROAD SAYS YOU MOVE TOO SLOW

I would say the implication is that this elite athlete is already near "their" w/bpm ceiling.

---

----------------------------------
Justin in Austin, get it? :)

Cool races:
- Redman
- Desoto American Triple T

The most important one for an endurance athlete: an improvement in metabolic fitness, i.e, in LT, will not result in an increase in the power:heart rate ratio.

Of course there is.

But metabolic fitness comprises those effects too.

Not the way that I use the term, i.e., as the logical counterpoint to "cardiovascular fitness", a.k.a., VO2max.

Now if you're saying that as VO2max increases with training so will LT in an absolute sense, then I agree with you (i.e., by "an improvement in metabolic fitness", I meant an increase in LT relative to VO2max).

OK, I got it now.

So how do you account for heart-rate variability when using that metric?

1. Standardize the conditions as much as possible (e.g., I get much more reproducible results when analyzing the results of efforts done on the ergometer in my ~65 deg F basement with a large fan blowing on me than I do when analyzing the results of workouts done on the road).

2. Collect lots of data and look for long-term trends (e.g., by regressing power:heart rate on the date across several months of equivalent "benchmark" workouts).

That still leaves out all the factors associated on how short-term effects of training impact on HR for that given day. Are you telling me that's not a significative source of variability in the results?

"Apaprently you didn't read the paper by Steve Seiler that I just cited?"

Or been to Seiler's MAPP web site. I had not been to Steve Seiler's MAPP site in years but your mention and the links to the PubMed studies made me seek it out again. I recall stumbling onto it in the mid 90's. Not much has changed.However, lots' of good takeaway information there with much of it written up in lay terms that pretty much anyone can understand.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Sorry to interrupt your conversation with Paulo, but just clarifying something. Is it fair to say, based on the data you cite and the studies you reference, that 6x4 @ max sustainable with 2 mins recovery will do more for me in terms of increasing FT power than 4x10 at max sustainable with 4 mins recovery or 20x1 at max sustainable with 30 seconds recovery??

I think it depends on the individual, the testing conditions, etc. In a laboratory-type environment/in a research study, for example, the CV of power:heart rate would normally be <5%. In the "real world", though, it's likely to be much more variable.

A couple of other points:

1) because the relationship between heart rate and VO2 isn't strictly linear, and because both the heart rate-VO2 and power-VO2 relationships have positive Y-intercepts, the ratio of power to heart rate is not completely independent of power (i.e., power:heart rate ratio will automatically be higher at higher power outputs).

2) the power:heart rate ratio will be lower the more variable your power tends to be.

No. That conclusion could only be supported by doing a direct comparison of the various interval training protocols (ideally in the same individuals with appropriate counter-balancing of the order in which they are presented and with lengthy "washout" periods in between).

Now if you're asking me which of these three different workouts that I might include in my own training, the answer would be only the first...

All this tells me that it's not a reliable metric to use. Something that might be interesting to track, but not something that you can rely on. Like all things HR-related.

LOL... great, the followers will be prescribing the 6x4min to their IM athletes starting tomorrow!

Hitchhiker: You heard of this thing, the 8-Minute Abs?

Ted: Yeah, sure, 8-Minute Abs. Yeah, the excercise video.

Hitchhiker: Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7... Minute... Abs.

Ted: Right. Yes. OK, all right. I see where you're going.

Hitchhiker: Think about it. You walk into a video store, you see 8-Minute Abs sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Abs right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?

Ted: I would go for the 7.

Hitchhiker: Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Abs. And we guarantee just as good a workout as the 8-minute folk.

Ted: You guarantee it? That's - how do you do that?

Hitchhiker: If you're not happy with the first 7 minutes, we're gonna send you the extra minute free. You see? That's it. That's our motto. That's where we're comin' from. That's from "A" to "B".

Ted: That's right. That's - that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you're in trouble, huh?

[Hitchhiker convulses]

Hitchhiker: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.

Ted: That - good point.

Hitchhiker: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 doors. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

Ted: Why?

Hitchhiker: 'Cause you're fuckin' fired!

well easy would dr heinrich say
some growth hormone ,little epo some teststone and
say thats done by high altitude training

there is your 15%

easy

---

http://www.ada.prorider.org
skype ceesbeers191053

But, but, but what about for those of us who do much of their training in a laboratory-like environment? ;-)

OCD can be treated. Seek professional help ;-)

Hey, I could quit if I wanted to - I just don't want to.

Interesting, and been done, repeatedly:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...;itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...;itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...;itool=pubmed_docsum

And particularly this one: comparing different work:rests in preperation for the ~40km TT (as per all of these) or similar:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...;itool=pubmed_docsum

Of note: week 5 of your data above will be interesting. Most useful info can be gained from the abstracts here, but one thing you won't find is that this group found this type of training showed performance to level off at 4-5 weeks, and started to fall away thereafter, so you might not see that 15%!!!!!!!! Interesting that after 3 weeks the 40k times in these studies always imporved about the same % that you report here at 3 weeks. Surely 5% in 4 weeks is nothing to sneeze at:)

Hey, if you're going to go citing scientific studies of training, at least do me the favor of citing some of mine! ;-)

True! I shouldn't have been so biased to just one groups work, and would imagine you have seen the ones I reported anyway. More for the benefit of others:)

ps, please keep us up to date with week 5 and so on......

There are times that I think you are right! ;-)

Indeed, in this age of fancy and complicated training tools and toys, the old Timex wrist watch is a heavily under appreciated and under utilized training tool.

In the context of the thread, what could be simpler or easier - set the count-down & repeat timer at 2 minutes( so it's beeping every two minutes). Go hard for 4 min. then spin easy for two and repeat six times. This is an indoor trainer workout that I have been doing for years.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I've been a fan of the Timex watch and it's 'countdown/repeat' feature for years. I use it on the track all the time. By setting it at 45sec I can try and pace 6min miles by hitting the 50yd line (most high school running tracks have a football field in the infield) on both sides of the track on the beeps. For shorter interval work, I just try to beat the beep to my mark. 2min markers on the trainer sound like something to try. I often watch TV and spin the program and push hard through the commercials...maybe I should reverse that?

---

________________________________________________________________________
"that which does not destroy me will only make me stronger" Frederick Nietzsche
andrew peabody
http://BREAKAWAYMULTISPORT.COM

Interesting discussion. What is the significance of frequency of these interval sessions? You appear to be using 1 session/week, whereas most of the literature cited in this thread used 1.5-2/week. In general do you find similar results with less frequency?

Also, what do you do when the athlete plateaus with these intervals? Make subtle adjustments to the stimulus (e.g. 8x3min of 5x5min), or change the stimulus substantially for a period of time (e.g. 3x15min)?

re-program the Velodyne for 1W ergo increments ;-)

Right now they're only there for maintenance/variety, i.e., any improvement is a bonus.

What Lydiard would have done: go racing!!

---

In Reply To

---

Is it fair to say, based on the data you cite and the studies you reference, that 6x4 @ max sustainable with 2 mins recovery will do more for me in terms of increasing FT power than 4x10 at max sustainable with 4 mins recovery or 20x1 at max sustainable with 30 seconds recovery??[/reply]

No. That conclusion could only be supported by doing a direct comparison of the various interval training protocols (ideally in the same individuals with appropriate counter-balancing of the order in which they are presented and with lengthy "washout" periods in between).

Now if you're asking me which of these three different workouts that I might include in my own training, the answer would be only the first...
____________________________________________________________________________________________


Andrew, I greatly appreciate the thread you started. I'm a little confused by the above statement (in bold). I'm not sure if that was a joke or in what context you would ONLY do 4 minute intervals....based both on my experience with running and your articles on "sweet spot" training.

Personally if training a distance runner who planned to race a distance between 2-10 miles and I had less than 2 or 3 months to get them in shape, I would probably stick to 3-4 minute intervals. However, take that same distance runner and give him 2-3 years....or if the race distance was significantly longer, I'd more likely opt for something similar to your 2x20 workouts (though I would get on my knees and beg whom ever it is only alowing one workout type to please let me change it to the shorter intervals in the month sleading up to the race).

Can you please elaborate and/or comment?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

This is a very interesting thread, but I still have a question, all the values quoted in the OP are rather close together, are they significant?

I know nothing of this field, so I don't have a feel for what typical error looks like. Surely there is an error budget in the measurement of watts if the error in beats and minutes is negligible.

So are these numbers +/- 0.01, 0.02, 0.1, 1.0?

No. That conclusion could only be supported by doing a direct comparison of the various interval training protocols (ideally in the same individuals with appropriate counter-balancing of the order in which they are presented and with lengthy "washout" periods in between).

Now if you're asking me which of these three different workouts that I might include in my own training, the answer would be only the first...
____________________________________________________________________________________________


Andrew, I greatly appreciate the thread you started. I'm a little confused by the above statement (in bold). I'm not sure if that was a joke or in what context you would ONLY do 4 minute intervals....based both on my experience with running and your articles on "sweet spot" training.

Personally if training a distance runner who planned to race a distance between 2-10 miles and I had less than 2 or 3 months to get them in shape, I would probably stick to 3-4 minute intervals. However, take that same distance runner and give him 2-3 years....or if the race distance was significantly longer, I'd more likely opt for something similar to your 2x20 workouts (though I would get on my knees and beg whom ever it is only alowing one workout type to please let me change it to the shorter intervals in the month sleading up to the race).

Can you please elaborate and/or comment?[/reply]
Okay.

1. I used to do a lot of 10 min efforts (w/ 2.5 min recovery), but gave up on 'em after realizing that they weren't as effective at raising my functional threshold power as longer efforts (e.g., 20 min).

2. 20 x 1 min w/ 30 s recovery is one of those "sort of neither here not there, but it hurts so it must be good for me" type of workouts, i.e., one which is undoubtly challenging, but doesn't necessarily target what people think it targets, and which probably isn't the most effective way of achieving the intended goal even if you understand what it actually does for you.

Taking #1 and #2 into consideration, I chose door #3, i.e., 6 x 4 min w/ 2 min recovery (even though it is really a level 5 training session, not a level 4).

Clearer now?



6 x 4 min w/ 2 min recovery is a good level 5 training session, but I personally prefer slightly longer efforts (i.e., 5 min), and the question was about the best way to raise functional threshold power, not VO2max, so I discounted this option as well. The

That would depend on the conditions under which the measurements were made. The good news here is that the weather in St. Louis hasn't been too hot yet, so none of the first four workouts entailed an abnormally high heat stress.

Anyway, to more directly address your question: the SD of power:heart rate across the series of efforts on each day has averaged 0.02, i.e., about one-fifth the total improvement across the four sessions. (Although even that is an underestimate of the statistical certainty of the results, as due to cardiac drift power:heart rate falls w/ each effort, which you'd have to factor into the ANOVA model.)

Well, the weather cooperated, but I had to Velcro the new SRM PCV to the handlebars, and so it wasn't positioned properly to reliably pick up heart rate. Even so, power:heart rate was probably up another ~3%, since power itself was up by that amount and these intervals are done at/near maximal heart rate.

Clearer now?
________________________

Yes. Actually it was my dyslexia that threw me off. I read the 20x1 backward. I thought he meant 20 minute intervals, not 1 minute intervals. So, of course, I was suprised that you didn't pick the 20.

I also especially appreciate the insight on the 10 min on, 2.5 off. Runners have been doing longer steady efforts for years (20-40 minutes straight) and I had always wondered why cyclists would chop them up into shorter chunks.

Thanks again.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Very interesting discussion going on here. What's your opinion on incorporating 6x4 and 2x20 into an alternating periodisation model in a format like this:

Weeks 1-3: 6x4, attempting to maximise average power each session and improve each week
Week 4: Reduce volume/intensity and then test FTP at end of the week
Weeks 5-7: 2x20, attempting to maximise average power each session and improve each week
Week 8: See week 4

The remainder of the training could be a mix of L2 and L3, with some L4 thrown in, but not as maximal effort pieces.

Any thoughts?

Yeah: weeks 4 and 8 seem like a waste of valuable training time to me.

are seeking to primarily maximize FTP or ~5MP? What test (or tests) would you perform to evaluate progress?

Okay then, let's see if I'm catching your drift:

Weeks 1-4: 6x4, attempting to maximise average power each session and improve each week
Weeks 5-8: 2x20, attempting to maximise average power each session and improve each week

The remainder of the training could be a mix of L2 and L3, with some L4 thrown in, but not as maximal effort pieces.

Easy weeks only when power output plateaus significantly. Edit: or for races.

FTP. I was planning to test FTP using a 2x20 or 25 mile TT, but I suppose Andrew's point is that if 6x4 and 2x20 wattages are increasing, FTP must be increasing. Freshening up to test it becomes pointless.

okay then I'm not trying to pin too fine a point but if you look at an eight-week window or even 12-weeks or even 16-weeks, IME you will likely not plateau with focused traditional L4 training. IOW, no need to get even remotely complicated and mix in weeks of L5 work.

I think my longest stretch of continuous (slow but steady) FTP progress was 23wks. This was nearly all L4 & tempo with some recovery. Take away a four-week plateau/stagnation period in mid-March to mid-April and I'm currently finishing my 8th month on the same plan (and still making modest progress).

I'm nothing special so I figure many people could benefit from the same (very simple) approach.

Sounds like your plan has worked well. I was intending for my periodisation structure to be used almost on an indefinite basis, alternating 4-week blocks of L5 and L4. Four weeks is (hopefully) long enough to see some good wattage increments, but not long enough to get bored or for improvement to plateau.

I honestly don't think your L4 blocks are nearly long enough. I've only averaged a 5W FTP increase every 3-4 weeks on my program - or hardly noticeable by some folks.

Yet ... extended turtle-like over several months ... that's +40W.

You're assuming that a 4-week block of 6x4 set on a background of L2/L3/L4 doesn't increase FTP. I disagree.

If I manage to average 5W increase in 4 weeks I'll be pretty happy!

On a focus plan, I'm talking three workouts per week -- more if you can handle it. I've found a nice mix of L4/L3/L1 and a weekly distribution that IME works quite well if one is patient enough.

Now when you talk about 3-4 weeks of 6x4 ... or what we'd call L5 work - then I suggest that it will be difficult to sustain much other quality work that week (mid L3 and up). It's the ole intensity-duration-recovery tradeoff and IME to hit three good L5 workouts per week ... you'll be thinking a lot simply about how to recover on the other days!

Just my opinion - you'll never know until you try and even then ... it's very hard to say what's optimal.

Who's talking about doing 6x4 or 2x20 3 times per week? That's crazy if each session is being done at maximal effort and the athlete's hoping to be able to run as well. I wasn't suggesting a focus plan, but a sustainable plan with balanced run and bike, to be carried out year-round. With that in mind, I'd only do the intervals once per week. I'd also be doing equally difficult run intervals each week. One 2x20 run and one 2x20 bike each week (or 6x4 bike and 6x4 run) at maximum effort would be plenty of intense work for a week. The rest of the programme would could be a mix of steady (L2/L3) and a touch of L4 (maybe 95% FTP for a few 10 minute pieces) to provide volume. That's 2 sessions per week requiring total focus, with the rest being comfortably hard.

my run is a fast walk :-)

But you must be pretty strong on the bike...out of curiosity, what's your FTP?

Currently 4.55 W/kg @ 85-86 kg. The flats are my only friend!

Seriously, your FTP is approaching 400W? That's huge!

no I'm huge ... it's still mostly about w/kg. I positively suck on any short power hill ... longer grades I'm okay ... longer rides I'm more okay (must be my infinite calorie store :0) )

I was going to say see my previous post in this thread about what to expect post 4-5 weeks (ie level out or drop off this upward performance curve), however based on your final word the results are not conclusive. Any plans to repeat under standardised conditions (ie as per 1-4) for week 6?

FWIW, such a leveling off after only 4-5 wk does not fit w/ my personal experience, or what I've seen in training subjects in laboratory studies. Assuming the weather holds, yes.

I'm showing similar increases this year by doing a similar routine.

Don, for what it's worth, runners will typically do L4 work consistently 8-10 months out of the year.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Okay, but how does this help us in programming for duathlon/triathlon?

Is the point you're making that:
a) It's okay to do some intense work virtually year-round
b) It's best not to do very intense work (i.e. L5) as often as I'm proposing, which is in every second 4-week period (~5-6 months/year)
c) both a and c?

What's your take on the alternating model I've proposed?

The model you proposed isn't too dissimilar from what Greg Watson used. Keep in mind, however, that the 8 week cycles *should* set yourself up to peak at races and it is up to you to figure out if you need 4 weeks of L5 of 4 weeks of L4 just before your race.

Also make sure you schedule in good rest periods. Greg raced about every 2-3 months and would begin with 2 weeks completely off, and then build back up with L4, hills, and then L5 work.....though I don't know the specifics. It is quite possible that for a long course event he may have focused more on L4 in the month before his race.

Personally I've always been more of a 6 month plan person. 3 months to recover and then build base, gradually phasing in L4 training, and then 2-3 months to sharpen up with L5 and L6 training.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I'd be very interested to see week 6. It appears that the athlete lost all of the gained fitness in week 5. (Probably just a temporary set back?) The heat in the velodrome should not explain the decrease as rolling resistance decreases when it is hotter at the same wattage. So I would think that the heat would make it easier for him and decrease his heart rate.

sounds like runners (or coaches thereof) got this right some time ago!

At the same power output, heart rate will tend to be higher when 1) it's hot (due to greater thermal stress), and 2) when cadence is high(er). Both of these conditions existed during the last workout, which likely explains why their power:heart rate ratio was lower (see the discussion Paulo and I had earlier in this thread about the limitations of power:heart rate ratio). As for rolling resistance (and aerodynamic drag), it's a non-issue, since power (and not speed) was measured.

Thanks Barry - I hadn't necessarily intended the 8 week cycles to be timed to peak for a race, though they could be used for that as well. My intention was that, by alternating L5 and L4 focus, the cycles could be used pretty much year-round to keep performance improving perpetually. Maybe once or twice per year, a 2-3 week period away from the intervals could be used to "freshen up" - maybe after the year's A-race. What do you think?

It's not necessarily the way *I* like to do things, but it seems pretty reasonable and has worked well for others.


Personally I like a rotation of base build, L4, L5, race......more or less. However, some have argued that after a while, the base building is really uneccesary. Other's can make the case that you never really have the available time to base build in multisport training.....ie, a real base build might be 25-30 hours a week. Are you willing to spend that time training, or just get rid of the whole phase and make the best of 10-15 hour weeks with L4 or L5 training in it?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

That's exactly my line of thinking...I can't train 20+ hours per week, so I have to make the most of the time I have. Doing 10h per week of easy base training isn't going to do much for my fitness, so why not leave it out and throw in the occasional rest week as necessary.

At this point in my understanding of the sport I am in agreement. That being said, however, I still have a lot to gain from 11 hours a week of cycling. In a couple of years I won't be surprised if I will need more intensity to get something out of that.

*Most* triathletes don't get in enough running and never get around to building their base. They spend 2-3 hours a week running too fast when they'd be better off running 5-6 hours a week. You, on the other hand, may be beyond that point.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I would probably benefit from running 5-6 hours per week, and some weeks I manage to, but I don't have enough time available to do that consistently and still fit in enough hours on the bike. It would be nice, but it's not on the cards at the moment! I can get by with less and still improve, so that's what I'm going with for now.

Can anyone hypothesise if there is a greater benefit by increasing the frequency of this session and doing it twice a week providing suitable recovery is available ? I get the impression that people are only doing this once and using their other sessions to train their other systems...........

You can also consider periods of time in the off season where you can ramp up the mileage in one and cut it in the other. For example, you can do 2 months of 8-9 hours of cycling and 1-2 hours of running. That may give you the added stimulus needed to get to the next level on the bike. During that period you'd probably make most of the running at tempo pace (1hr race pace).

Just as an example.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Here's a similar question given the discussion of 6x4min... I've been doing 3x4min at ~305W, which is about 17% above my estimated 260W FTP. It's a fairly typical L5 VO2Max interval, and I could easily change that to 6x4 min probably at about 285-290W (10-12% over FTP). Either one is possible but I'm sure I couldn't do 6x8 min at 290W right now.

So here's the question...how much recovery time in between them is too much? My favorite (and almost only spot) anywhere near my house is a 1.5mi uphill rise at about 2%. There aren't any other roads within any reasonable distance of my house that have no lights and a slight uphill to keep my speed down. I average about 22mph when doing these, and if I did them on a flat road I'd be cruising at over 27mph and would run out of road too fast. So my tactic has been to hammer up the hill then cruise down at ~150-180W and 25-27mph which gets me back to the bottom at about 3.5mins ready for another one. Is this much recovery time likely to affect the training effect? I feel I could probably be ready for another interval at about 1-2mins.

---

---

Any update for recent weeks?

---

-------
Joe

I enjoyed your discussions through teh various forums here an in the wattage forum. Being new to cycling I am using one of the training plans from cycling peaks with Hunter Allen. I was wondering if you would be drawing up a few plans with your new intervals from the research or passing this information to Hunter for new plans that included the 4min and 30sec intervals ?

Pretty interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. Well worth reading through all the posts.

What is the intensity of the interval?

Hi UKGM, didn't see your post here until Dr C's thread made it back to front page. Somewhere in the middle of this thread I listed some ref's of a well controlled series of studies by a group from in South Africa / Australia. The reason I listed these specific studies was that in addition to simply "training hard" as AC suggests, their interval training program was practically the same as AC's (in terms of intensity and duration), except that they always had their subjects do 2x sessions/week, for ~3-4 weeks. The % improvement in performance was about the same as AC shows, albeit with more direct/important performance measures and more subjects (absolute and relative threshold power, 40km TT, etc, etc). It could be surmised that, if we take ACs data on face value, that 1x/wk is enough and 2x is overkill, given that the SA studies show similar improvements, but that they are not sustainable, and fall away after 4-5 weeks.

Note: I know one prominent and very good quality IM athlete/cyclist does this session religiously 3 weeks before important races (ironman included), and does 1x/wk.

Week #7: ?.?? W/(beat/min) (+?.?%) (intervals not performed as the subject raced instead)
Week #8: 1.96 W/beat/min) (+11.4%)

Back on the road at 90-95 rpm again, but in warmer weather similar to that encountered on week #5. The only other point worthy of mentioning is that the values for power and power:heart rate are approaching the highest this former national champion has ever achieved...and the real work hasn't even begun just yet.

No. I'm not a coach, have no desire to be one, and anything that Hunter might have been able to learn from me he undoubtly learned a long time ago.

    I am sorry, I thought you guys work in cooperation as you published the Power book together and I thought you run cyclingpeaks together. I am misinformed, sorry. Is there anywhere that this new data is incorporated into coaching plans that you know of ? Thanks

Oh, Hunter and I are definitely in constant touch - in fact, I just got an email from his Blackberry today (seems that he's on the road again, this time visiting somebody famous). My only point was that he's the coach, not me, and nothing I've presented in this thread would be news to him (or to any other coach, probably).

Just thought I'd update this (analysis restricted to outdoor workouts on a road bike, i.e., indoor ergometer sessions and higher cadence track workouts excluded):

Ratio of average power to average heart rate during 4 min intervals in an elite athlete doing five to six such efforts once per week:

Week #1: 1.76 W/(beat/min)
Week #2: 1.79 W/(beat/min) (+1.7%)
Week #3: 1.81 W/(beat/min) (+2.8%)
Week #4: 1.85 W/(beat/min) (+4.8%)
.
.
.
Week #8: 1.96 W/(beat/min) (+11.4%)
.
Week #10 1.87 W/(beat/min) (+6.2%)
Week #11: 1.89 W/(beat/min) (+7.4%)
.
.
.
.
Week #15: 1.94 W/(beat/min) (+10.2%)

Viewed this way, week #8 appears to be a bit of an anomaly. It was the result of an exceptionally high power output, not a suppressed heart rate, so is unlikely to be due to overreaching. It did, however, occur the first time the athlete performed these intervals when their TSB was 'neutral', i.e., > -10 TSS/d.

In any case, 10% in 15 wk is not 15% in 12 wk, but it's pretty close, and makes this individual as aerobically fit as they've ever been.

How much did their average power increase from Week 1 to Week 15?

10% - heart rate was essentially constant.

Did their weight remain constant as well?

Yes.

what is the rest interval ?

---

---

"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." Oscar Wilde

Did metabolic fitness show improvement as well?

Sorry to pepper you with questions.

What was her TSB when she did the 56:xx?

It's self-selected, but generally around 4-6 min.

Yes: their 4 min power and their 20 min power have essentially moved in parallel.

On the day before the TT, her CTL was 107 TSS/d and her ATL was 91 TSS/d, making her TSB on the day of the TT +16 TSS/d.

Wow, way to make me feel like a slacker! My CTL tends to cap out at about 71 TSS/d. Pesky things like work and swimming take up the rest of my time!

---

**************
Too f@ckin depressed from various injuries to care about having a signature line.

Sponsored by Blue Shield PPO.

Can you clarify your answer given the response to Paulo below from earlier in the thread.


In Reply To

---

But metabolic fitness comprises those effects too.[/reply]
Not the way that I use the term, i.e., as the logical counterpoint to "cardiovascular fitness", a.k.a., VO2max.

Now if you're saying that as VO2max increases with training so will LT in an absolute sense, then I agree with you (i.e., by "an improvement in metabolic fitness", I meant an increase in LT relative to VO2max).

AC thinks that by using that metric (watts/weight/hr), he can differentiate between changes in cardiovascular fitness and metabolic fitness.

AC thinks that by using that metric (watts/weight/hr), he can differentiate between changes in cardiovascular fitness and metabolic fitness.
-
Paulo Sousa

pstriathlon.com

---

Weight?

ok, not weight, but the question isn't on weight.

I didn't think so. I was just making sure I didn't miss something. Perhaps I'm missing a lot of things, but at least this isn't one of them.

Now, if a subject did 12 weeks of 2 x 20' intervals and their FTP went up 12%, but 4 x 6 minute average power went up only 9%. That would be very useful information. For me at least.

I don't think so, I know so, at least provided the changes are of sufficient magnitude.

EDIT: Ignoring Paulo's mistaken inclusion of weight, of course.

I'm sure you can explain the fallacies of the use of your metric much better than me.

You think 107 TSS/d is a lot? Back when this subject was a full-time bike racer their CTL peaked out at 145 TSS/d.

1. There are no fallacies involved.

2. It's not my metric: people have been calculating O2 pulse (which is essentially the same thing) for probably close to a century.

1. That's funny. You're correlating HR with VO2 here, I would say that's a pretty big fallacy.
2. I'm sure O2 pulse for close to a century. Lung capacity too and it's pretty much worthless.

1. You seem to be confused, as I'm actually correlating (equating) power with VO2, not heart rate.

2. What does lung capacity have to do with it?

1. Since the start of this thread I always thought that the confusion was always coming from you. Using HR to account for cardiovascular fitness from week to week is not as accurate as you would like to see it.
2. It was an analogy. If you don't get it, I'll refrain to use them in the future and not even attempt on using sarcasm with you.

1. Just because something isn't as accurate as you'd like it to be doesn't make it a 'fallacy' (see my prior post about the need to standardize conditions and track long-term trends if you even hope to be able to extract useful information).

2. It seemed more like a non-sequitur to me, and since you'd previously introduced weight into the discussion for reasons that I cannot fathom, I assumed it was just further evidence of your confusion.

1. You're right, it's not as accurate as I would like it to be. It seems to be good enough for you, but I would never use it for the reasons you know. And again, you know way better than me why.
2. I'm not Frank Day, so stop with the debate tactics. I have no patience for that.

1. So, make up your mind: is your objection to the underlying logic (as suggested by your calling it a 'fallacy'), or simply to the practical implementation (as suggested by your sudden emphasis on accuracy)?

2. You've got that right: you're no Frank Day.

"sudden emphasis on accuracy"

Hardly sudden. Go read the thread and you'll see it was my first objection.

1. Butter

2. Green peppers

Oh, sorry, that's just my shopping list, but I wanted to get in on the whole 1. 2. act.

Carry on.

I meant in reference to your posts of today.

The objections I had on May 21st are the same I have today. There's no "flavor of the day" going with me ;-)

Is it reasonable to conclude that the training could have been structured differently with a mixture of 2 x 20' and 6 x 4' and 1 hr. TT efforts and the results would be the same. A 10% increase in FTP and 4 x 6' minute power.

I don't believe that there is any such thing as the perfect training program, if that's what you mean.

BTW, up until recently this athlete's training program was essentially as you describe, i.e., a mix of level 4 and 5 structured intervals combined with unstructured level 2 and 3 training sessions. No 1 h TT efforts, however...she's 3 min 7 s faster than that. ;-)

I'm not looking for a perfect training plan. Well, I am, but I'm not expecting to find it solely on this thread...

It seems as though you're saying there are protocols for improving cardiovascular fitness and protocols for improving metabolic fitness, and these protocols are different.

But, if you would expect the same results from a structured program of 12 weeks of 6 x 4' minute intervals as you would from 12 weeks of a mix of level 4 and 5 training then I'm left wondering what's so special about the average maximal power:hr metric you've been tracking.

Are you implying that in the weeks leading up to the 12 weeks of intervals maximized the improvements in metabolic fitness and the 12 weeks of intervals then maximized the improvements in cardiovascular fitness?

I am, but said training programs would also have a lot of overlap as well (i.e., it would be difficult, although probably not impossible, to demonstrate a difference with an appropriate experimental design).


Based on both scientific research as well as personal experience, I wouldn't.


I'm not clear on how this question flows from the above...but really, I've been tracking the metric just to see if it changes. Any decisions on how to tweak the training program have to start w/ collection of data...


I wouldn't structure someone's training quite that way, but I agree with the general progression/concepts you present (as would Lydiard).

That is one serious recovery machine that can handle that. To think I'm hoping to reach maybe 80/day by mid next season... yikes.

And I saw the comment about 3:XX faster than that. I assume you are referring to 40K TT. What kinda wattage does she require to just nip the hour? I appear to need right around 255w (SRM) to do that. A little higher than I thought.

---

**************
Too f@ckin depressed from various injuries to care about having a signature line.

Sponsored by Blue Shield PPO.

Best laugh of the day. And I just watched 42 minutes of standup.

Well done.

So there was roughly a 10% improvement from week 1 to week 15. What is the difference between their current fitness level compared to their previous best from past seasons?

If it is negligible, it seems to show they can go from 90% to 100% in about 3-4 months.

[reply]
Week #1: 1.76 W/(beat/min)
Week #8: 1.96 W/(beat/min) (+11.4%)
Week #15: 1.94 W/(beat/min) (+10.2%)

In any case, 10% in 15 wk is not 15% in 12 wk, but it's pretty close, and makes this individual as aerobically fit as they've ever been.[/reply]

Dr. C - thanks for sharing the data and for the discussion, much appreciated. I was wondering why you didn't opt to say "~11% increase in 8 weeks" instead of "10% improvement over 15weeks". Although there are data points missing, the last 7 weeks seem to show a slight decline and then a return to (similar) values achieved in week 8. Maybe I'm cherrypicking the data here, but if HR remained relatively constant across the 15 weeks, the bulk of the training adaptation seemed to occur in the first 8 weeks.

thanks

CT

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=1438642#1438642

see this post from Monday. Week #8 is viewed as an outlier ...

As I indicated, they are as aerobically fit as they've ever been.


Sounds easy, doesn't it? ;-)

saw it, thanks - that's where I edited the info from, in my post. my point being that HR was consistent with previous weeks, and power higher in week 8....a training effect. the 'exceptionally high power output' was apparently due to the 'neutral TSB'.

Maybe a better question would be: was the athlete in a similar state (wrt TSB) in the weeks 9-15, or was week 8 the only 'fresh' test?

thanks

Maybe an even better answer is: in analyzing larger data sets collected under somewhat more controlled conditions, I've found a modest-but-statistically-significant correlation between TSB and power:heart rate ratio. Of course, to some extent that's what one would expect, since we all know that overreaching tends to suppress heart rate and tapering tends to increase it. Still, it's nice to see theory matching up with experience...

How do you define fit or fitness as used here? How did you determine that this athletes fitness, as you define it, had not changed during this period?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Ability to generate power over durations long enough that the contribution from anaerobic capacity is minimal.


Uh, their aerobic fitness has improved - that's the point.

I'm going to attempt a thread jack here to ask a question.

I bought your book on training with power. I was looking at the options for calculating power and none of them work for me.

Something that might work for me but is not listed in your book is the computrainer. I have one of these.

Why did this not make your list? I think it predates most of the other methods you discussed.

Thanks.

Maybe I misread what you said earlier when sojourner asked you "What is the difference between their current fitness level compared to their previous best from past seasons?" and you responded: "As I indicated, they are as aerobically fit as they've ever been." Such an answer certainly implies that the improvement is due to something other than training effect resulting in improved fitness. Yet, now you are saying their fitness has improved. Or, if their fitness has not improved then this data simply means the athlete is back to the level of prior seasons ("they are as fit as they have ever been"). If that is the case then what was the purpose of posting this?

What bothers me about this is the data is too sparse to make any real conclusions as to what is really going on. There is no prior baseline. Are they better than in years past or are they just back to years past peak? Has positioning changed to allow more cardiovascular fitness? If so, has this changed aerodynamics and what will this mean for racing? Has VO2 uptake changed (are they using more muscle mass) or is it similar (improved efficiency) or some combination? This person trained and seemingly got better (we don't have any long term data to suggest that this person has not been at this level before nor do we have any data to suggest that this person could not have seen this improvement (or even greater improvement) using another training regimen). Anyhow, while it is possible that n=1 trials can be helpful in formulating theories, they are pretty useless in proving cause and effect and the data here is so sparse I don't believe any conclusion can be drawn from this data other than: athlete trained and athlete got better.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Hey, glad someone enjoyed it! Just trying to lighten the mood...

Where's a federal air marshall when you need one? ;-)


1. There's no reason you can't apply the concepts and tools described in the book to your CompuTrainer training.

2. That said, you might also want to look at Richard Wharton's book, which is directed specifically at CompuTrainer users.

3. If you're asking why the CompuTrainer wasn't discussed along with other hardware, that's because the book is aimed at those who use on-bike powermeters...if you open the topic up to include every device that provides power data, then there would literally be hundreds of brands of ergometers to evaluate.

I think I see the source of your confusion: what I meant was that they are NOW (i.e., after 3-4 mo of training) as aerobically fit as they have ever been (in prior years).


But that's the point, isn't it? Training works...

Why not post the actual Power numbers? W/(beat/min) doesn't mean that much IMO.

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

AC posted that HR remained constant. I think that's meaningful.

missed that piece of info, thanks. In that case it's not an issue, but still, why convert it to W/(beat/min) ?

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

Because it can provide an indication as to whether the improvements are in cardiovascular fitness or metabolic fitness. Specifically, if power:heart rate ratio goes up, it implies that the increase in power is due, at least in part, to an increase in cardiovascular fitness. On the other hand, if power:heart rate ratio does not change, it suggests that any improvements in performance are due to increases in metabolic (muscular) fitness.

(Or, it could be that I just don't want to say how much power this individual can produce for 4 min... <g>)

I don't understand why you're using HR, as it can be variable each day, and in my understanding, even at a given workload (other factors that influence the heart - caffeine, stress, sleep, etc)
Why not put the subject in a lab, hook them up to a metabolic cart a couple/once each week, and look at power/given VO2 value?

all you're really showing here is what actually happens during training, which if you think is news, i'm surprised. You get fitter and therefore faster at the same HR. Faster at the same HR implies more power. I don't believe that's rocket science.

Ground breaking would be to show that you can improve power at a given O2 utilization, and not just through pedaling efficiency.

In terms of speed of progression, how many subjects are in your study? and what's the inter-subject variability in terms of fitness increase over 8 weeks? If you're looking to develop an optimal protocol, it would be interesting to see the individuality results for EACH subject.

---

---

"Anyone can work hard when they want to; Champions do it when they don't."

Mostly 'cause I happen to have the data.


Been there, done that, serves no useful purpose in the present context (i.e., the training of an elite athlete).


No, it's definitely not...and yet, there are some here who claim that after you've been training for a while, the only way to achieve further improvements in performance is by increasing efficiency.


Why would you consider this to be "ground breaking"?


From your comment I take it you haven't read the whole thread? We're talking about some incidental observations about the response of one individual, not any sort of formal study.

no, i read page 1, some of page 3, and page 4. i tried to wean out all the bullshit name calling, but got bored.

so, in the present context, you're trying to imply that even an elite athlete can see huge gains (>10%) using a more optimal training routine?
You are still assuming that they are capped at some point, at which point, only gains in efficiency/using PED's would allow further improvement?

Finally, IIRC, you're looking at 4 minute interval power, have you extrapolated this, or measured performance over an actual race (since no tri I know is 4 minutes long)
My thoughts being that you can improve the short-duration fitness all you want, but over the course of a race, it may have little effect on actual performance, since substrate utilization is going to be different for different distances.

are the gains that you're showing here, actually meaningful from a performance standpoint? or is it merely that they haven't trained this duration significantly before, and in training now, are becoming fitter/better at riding at a higher intensity for that duration?
i.e. marathoner - great marathon pace, would get smoked at the 800m event. train more 800 repeats, they get faster at the 800m event, but overall marathon time may have zero improvement.


as for ground breaking, because if you could show that at linear progression of O2 vs. VO2 does not occur (which I think you actually stated on page 1 that it does) that would be pretty huge.

cheers,

---

---

"Anyone can work hard when they want to; Champions do it when they don't."

No, I'm demonstrating that even an elite athlete can make significant gains with a progressive overload.


You seem to be leaving out the most important factor of all: metabolic fitness. In any case, though, at some point there is going to be a limit to the extent to which the human body can adapt (if only because the training load required to induce further adaptation is too great to tolerate).


Yes.


That's certainly quite possible, but in this case increases in sustained power have paralleled increases in 4 min power.


Oh yeah!


That's not the explanation.

I am sorry, perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see you making that argument at all. In your earlier reply to me you stated ""I think I see the source of your confusion: what I meant was that they are NOW (i.e., after 3-4 mo of training) as aerobically fit as they have ever been (in prior years)." And by your earlier definition of fitness this means that this period has simply taken them back to their prior level. You are not making any claims that I see that this person has seen a 10% overall gain from prior years, only from where they were 12 weeks ago. So, in this instance it seems you are saying is that progressive overload training is able to maintain (or return) an elite athlete at an elite level.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

You think that they weren't training at all 3-4 mo ago??

I thought that data was from your wife???

This is interesting. It's turning into a showdown between this thread and the Liar, Liar Pants on Fire Thread :-). You've got your subject and AC's got his...

Don't you mean "if power:heart rate ratio goes up"?...or am I confused?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Except one of the subjects doesn't forget/fail to save key pieces of data.

Speaking of Joaquin, wasn't he going to bust out a file sometime this summer to "prove" his claims? We're still waiting.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You're right, I did - I'll go edit my post now so as to now confuse anyone else.

No, of course not, but there is a difference between peaking and maintenance, even in the elite, maybe especially in the elite. If one wants to show improvement one should be comparing equivalent points in the training spectrum. You have defined fitness here as "Ability to generate power over durations long enough that the contribution from anaerobic capacity is minimal." You have said the fitness is the same which, to me, means there has been no incremental improvement from prior equivalent periods. You numbers show an improvement but it seems they only represent a transition between different periods in the training spectrum.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

You don't think that being national champion qualifies as 'elite'?

Yeah, but my subject is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better looking! :-)

Yeah, but my subject is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better looking! :-)

---

Pics or it didn't happen. :-P.

We'll probably be waiting a little while before you post the data too, right...

You seem to be assuming that I'm not comparing "...equivalent points in the training spectrum...". Moreover, you seem to be assuming that no further improvement will be forthcoming (circular logic, that).

Masters? No.

My wife won the pursuit at elite nationals in 2002, in the process defeating Erin Mirabella, who at the time was leading the UCI rankings.

(You can go wipe that egg off your face now...we'll wait.)

I love it when you come out to play :-)

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

I am not assuming anything. I am simply saying that the data presented shows no such improvement, especially in view of your statements that the "fitness" of this athlete remains the same and I asked you for your definition of fitness. The point of the training spectrum after a 12 week period of progressive overload work is unlikely to considered the same I suspect by most here as it was at the start of this period. If you have the data to show this incremental improvement for equivalent periods of the training spectrum as you seemingly claim then you should present it. You were the one who defined fitness. You were the one who said the fitness was the same. And, now you are saying the data shows improved cardiovascular fitness. What other kind of fitness is there? Is there improved fitness or not?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Elite is not a permanent status, that is achieved and then you stay there.

(Now look what you've done, you got egg all over the wall.)

So, how do these numbers compare to that period in her life. Are they 15% better? Are they any better? Or, does that data not exist or has it been lost? :-)

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

:-)

What does that have to do with your mistaken assumption that my wife had only won a masters fatty jersey?

What national title did she win last year? This year?

Let me put it this way: she only did one VO2max-type workout in 2002 where her power and power:heart rate were comparable to what she rather routinely puts up these days. (She did, however, do one.)

In my book? Wife and mother of the year. ;-)


Nationals aren't until October (and who says that you have to win to be considered "elite"?).

OK...now we have clear proof that Mrs. Coggan also peruses Slowtwitch-land.

Should we bet on her "screen name"?

Suckup.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Not that I know of...but I'm not taking any chances! ;-)

I rest my case.

Yep...when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

AC still needs to come here and wipe the egg on my wall... it's starting to get dry.

"Or, it could be that I just don't want to say how much power this individual can produce for 4 min... <g>) "

I think that's more like it :)

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

I am not sure what to make from this response. Again you say as little as possible leaving us to guess what you are really trying to say.

Am I to take it she was only tested once in 2002 around this time and she tested about where she is "routinely" testing now? Or, are you implying that she tested once in 2002 at this level and many other times at a lower lever such that you consider that test to be an outlier and that you consider her to be much better today than she was in 2002, in which case we can expect her to better her 2002 performance when she beat Mirabella?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

DING DING DING DING! I KNEW you could do it, Frank!

As he said earlier in the thread, the "hard" stuff hasn't even started yet...although that may not be the case anymore ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Knew I could do what?

I am just trying to figure out the point he is trying to make and what the evidence is for that point.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Comprehend.



And you did it! I'm so proud of you....

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I'll get back to you later today with an answer...assuming, of course, that the subject doesn't somehow "lose" their most recent powermeter files! ;-)

Nah - said data have been publically presented a number of times, and can be obtained from several sources on the web (e.g., http://www.fixedgearfever.com/downloads/PASO.ppt , http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/wko/samples/Angie.wko).

'Andy Coggan demonstrates proper time trial pacing '

---

Are you a robot?

No, but I had decades of experience riding flat TTs even before I started using a powermeter.

I was just going to cut-and-paste in their entire power-duration curve from WKO+, but that proved harder than I expected because it's running on another computer. In some regards, though, this bit of new info might be more telling:

Week #16: 2.04 W/(beat/min) (+15.9%)

By comparison, the highest value from 2002 was 1.95 W/(beat/min), with most level 5 sessions resulting in an average of ~1.85.

EDIT: So, why the big jump in just 1 wk? Well, today's TSB was +16 TSS/d, which is the first time in ~6 mo that it's really been "positive" (i.e., > +10 TSS/d).

sounds good. But I was happy with 15% improvement over the last year until I read this thread! Still in the training dungeon for these?

No, all level 5, 6, and 7 sessions have been outdoors.

So between 2002 and now her HR profile remained the same?

I can't say - she didn't do any comparable workouts between fall of 2002 and spring of this year (in fact, she did very little cycling at all).

EDIT: Actually, I jumped the gun a bit there: after ~3 mo of training in the 'sweet spot', in December of 2003 she did a workout that included 4 x 5 min at a similar power. Her power:heart rate ratio was 1.83 W/(beat/min), but 1) it was quite cold (thus minimzing thermal stress), and 2) she was unknowingly ~2 wk pregnant at the time, and struggling to complete workouts as a result. I'm therefore not sure how to interpret the data. :-)

So comparing your metric results now with results from 2002 is pretty much meaningless. Why mention it at all?

Because Frank asked how the data compared to prior results.

Just thought it would be interesting to have all of the #s in one place...

Okay, it took 16 wk instead of 12 wk to achieve a 15% gain, but my thread title wasn't so far off the mark, now was it? ;-)

"Okay, it took 16 wk instead of 12 wk to achieve a 15% gain, but my thread title wasn't so far off the mark, now was it? ;-) "

---

Well if the point was to peak for a race in week 13...then yes, that would be far off. The TSS was probably higher in week 12 than week 16 and so on, but it is, after all, 33% longer.

Thanks for the thread. I enjoyed it.

Would you be happier if I had just said "how to increase your maximal power:heart rate ratio by 15% in just a few months"? ;-)

It would be interesting to see the corresponding TSB numbers side-by-side with the W/HR metrics. If achievement of the 15% result required "freshening" to a positive TSB, could it then have been achieved earlier by, say, tapering at week 12? (The previous "outlier" -- which, IIRC, was also associated with an improved TSB -- would seem to bear this out.)

Of course, I'm not sure that reveals any great mystery, other than stress + recovery = improved fitness. :)

cramer

Ask and ye shall receive:

Week #1: 1.76 W/(beat/min) (+0.0%) TSB = -21 TSS/d
Week #2: 1.79 W/(beat/min) (+1.7%) TSB = -23 TSS/d
Week #3: 1.81 W/(beat/min) (+2.8%) TSB = -16 TSS/d
Week #4: 1.85 W/(beat/min) (+4.8%) TSB = -16 TSS/d
.
.
.
Week #8: 1.96 W/(beat/min) (+11.4%) TSB = -4 TSS/d
.
Week #10 1.87 W/(beat/min) (+6.2%) TSB = 3 TSS/d
Week #11: 1.89 W/(beat/min) (+7.4%) TSB = 3 TSS/d
.
.
.
.
Week #15: 1.94 W/(beat/min) (+10.2%) TSB = 11 TSS/d
Week #16: 2.04 W/(beat/min) (+15.9%) TSS = 15 TSS/d


Or form = fitness + freshness.

One (make that two) general questions I have (for anyone):

Given the units used here to determine the progress are W/beat, how is the HR maintained the same in all sessions? From reps 1 down to 6, surely mean HR must rise. So HR varies between reps, so having the same average HR in different session must sometimes be difficult to achieve, eg when the athlete has extra stress etc, motivation dips at the wrong time. Or is this why the W/beat metric is used?

Also, what sort of %HR would an elite athlete maintain in this sort of session? Just out of interest, to compare to what I do! Is it right to assume that an athlete is well trained for short hard (L5) efforts would maintain a higher %HR (relative to MLSS LT) than one who isn't? Just wondering.

It isn't, it just turns out to be fairly consistent.


The athlete isn't really responding to heart rate or even power in real time. That is, they're pacing themselves primarily based upon perceived effort.


In this case, ~90% of maximal heart rate. That's based on the average heart rate during all efforts...after the first one (or two), heart rate is peaking at ~95% of maximal heart rate.


Not really. If you've got the anaerobic capacity to go really, really hard for a few minutes at a time, then your power will be higher during a single all-out effort, but your heart rate won't, since everybody should be able to push their heart rate to maximum under such conditions. Conversely, having a high anaerobic capacity doesn't really help you much in achieving a higher power, and hence heart rate, during a series of such efforts (unless you recover for a very long time between them), because that supply of energy will be depleted very quickly.