1x60 sounds awful. Definitely more mentally challenging; that's all the feedback I have though.

Fifteen minutes rest seems like a lot. My all time favorite Sweet Spot piece is 3 X 20 minutes with 2 minutes easy between work intervals and use that time to catch a drink or stretch a bit while continuing to pedal at a reduced power level.

YMMV,

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

It does but that’s what the plan called for (Fascat Coacing). Just trying a canned plan...

I think it depends a lot on where in the sweet spot continuum you are working, assuming you consider anything in 85%-95% of FTP to be sweet spot. 85% for a full hour isn't too bad, where I would find 95% for a hour to be quite difficult and would probably need to be having a good day to be successful. Working at 95% FTP I would much rather have intervals in the 15-20 minute range with maybe 3-5 minutes of rest in between.

Assuming you can do 60 minutes any way you slice it at say 85-90% does it matter is what I’m wondering.

I use similar short periods of rest for SS intervals

So your body “knows” that you rested and adapts less? I doubt it.

If you sit on the bike longer because of the longer rest (and pedaled easier...say 70%) you might get a better work out (increased volume). I would say continuous SS is better (more stress) but if you go longer then it balances out (increased instensity vs. volume).

In the end it’s a crap shoot, do what you enjoy more. Seriously that is huge with training.

Finally the point of SS is time efficient and repeatibilty, test yourself and see. Try both, eat/sleep equally well after each and see which one effects you more 24 hours later. Then you will have an actual answer not a guess from strangers.

The first minute or two of an interval after warm up or a recovery period when you're settling into your rhythm you'll have a rising HR and lactate will likely be low (if your recovery was long enough). So putting it all into one block eliminates all but the first start-up period. Is that a good or a bad thing? Total output might be identical but you'll spend more time in steady state with a single big block. Still I'd rather do 2x30min blocks than 1x55min block for example. I also suspect the quality of the session (consistency and form) will be better if you divide it up, and don't underestimate the impact on your attitude and willingness to do it again within a day or three.

I wouldn't divide 60mins of sweetspot into 2 minute slices with lots of recovery, but likewise I wouldn't do it all in one.
I'd typically divide it up according to intensity
85-90%FTP: 4x15min, 3x20min or perhaps 2x30min (2-5min recoveries)
90-93%FTP: I'd lean towards 4x15min or 3x20min (3-6min recoveries)
93-95%FTP: I generally don't do as much as 60mins this close to FTP. Normally I'd do 2x20mins or 3x15mins (4-8min recoveries)

2x20min@100%FTP with a 4-5 minute recovery is about my limit. Even if my mind seems okay, my legs start making their own decisions towards the end!

One of the default SST programs on Zwift is alternating 5min intervals at 80% and 95% which is interrupted every 30min by a 5min period at 65%. Percentages are of FTP. What are your thoughts on that?

---

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm

Sounds okay to me but haven't tried it. I generally like varying the intensity a bit rather than sticking at fixed intensity for long periods. Especially if the fixed intensity is high. 20mins is okay. More than that isn't my thing unless it's a race. You're getting a decent amount of time near FTP at 95% but it's in 5min chunks which makes it very manageable. However the regular "recoveries" are at low sweetspot of 80% so still keeping the HR up a bit and keeping you working. The 65% recoveries aren't generous either buit that's okay since you have had some 80% time. When I'm doing 90%+ intervals I usually recover at ~50%

I can't give an authoritative opinion on the training advantages/disadvantages versus stuff like the classic 2x20min session. There are more knowledgeable guys for that.

I think it will also depend somewhat on the individual and what they're trying to improve.

Me personally, my "functional" threshold is substantially higher that what I would guess my MLSS is (haven't been lab-tested). I'm more of an all-rounder than a diesel, and so even on a 20minute effort there's pretty substantial anaerobic contribution for me. I'll get my highest avg power by using more of an over/under approach to pacing rather than a perfectly steady pace. So even a relatively short rest between SST intervals allows my anaerobic capacity to recharge to the point that I'm not forced to use my aerobic capacity to the fullest. In a way it's 'cheating' if the goal is to improve my time/power at threshold.

As a result of this tendency, my biggest issue in 40K TT's is that I will often struggle/fade in the last third, so it's something I wanted to work on this year. The way I've done that is with sweetspot intervals that have gotten progressively longer. Started out with 2x20's, working up to 2x30-35' and yesterday I stretched my last interval out to 53' (ran out of road or might have gone a little longer). As a result of this type of training I've not only increased my FTP but also my TTE. (Modeled TTE in WKO4 has gone from 36' to 58' despite mFTP going up 15W).

So yeah I think there can be value in fewer, longer intervals as opposed to more short ones. How much will depend on the athlete's physiology and strengths/weaknesses as well as the type of events targeted (I won't pretend to know what's best for Ironman bike legs, 40K ITT is my limit). I will say these longer intervals can take more out of you, I usually schedule them with a rest day after. But for me they've been very effective.

QFT.

Lots of difference between 85% and 95%.

Mathematically......10%. Lol.