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?