training from biketechreview.com

bor1234 said:

...Thoughts or experience???

Nothing wrong with BTR's approach, basically it's shades of gray you're talking about. You can baseline on FTP, 30 minute power, 20 minute power or other benchmarks and the workouts you describe are very similar to what the SST/Coggan/Lydiard folks advocate.

Remember Andy's second best way to estimate FTP is to track your regular, repeatable long interval power during training. IOW, it's not all that different than your regular 20 minute power. Sure the VO2 max definition changes a bit, but in practice you're going to do 3 to 5 minute efforts totalling near 25 minutes roughly as hard as you can manage and still complete the session. Pretty similar to what you describe.

I think there is a place for longer rides although I agree with the good Mr. Willett that it doesn't provide the most focused stress for mitochondrial growth. But it does bolster overall training load or CTL in powerspeak. I don't know that I agree that you have to train a certain number of KJ, but if you're gonna ride or race long events you at least need to get used to being in the saddle, feeding yourself, pacing for a long day, etc.

Anyway, his plans are sound and a good approach. Just one that uses a slightly different reference point but the training methods and the stress on metabolic fitness adaptations with near maximal 20 minute repeats and VO2 max work is pretty similar.

Good luck,
-Dave

The (loose) analogy is the various versions of heat rate zones that exist.

As Dave said, anchoring training around 20 MP or FTP (or MAP) really doesn't matter, provided the training that results from using such an anchor as guide post is appropriate to elicit the desired physiological adaptations.

So whatever anchor point you choose, it makes good sense to know the others anyway, since the ratios between each tell you something about your current physiology and what training emphasis should be (e.g. the shorter the duration we choose, the further away from LT we get and there is an increase in contribution of AWC).

Choosing an anchor point implies a reliable and repeatable method of determining it.

Knowing FTP has the advantage of a pool of data around the use of TSS. That is not to say TSS is the only way to quantify training loads/stresses.

I would say however that not all kJ are created equally. Neither are TSS but at least TSS takes into account the nature of how we produce power whereas kJ does not. But debating that point with Kraig is old news, I'm sure there are plenty of archived posts at wattage forum on the topic. Can't say if they still exist on BTR.

I have integrated parts of the Kirk and Kraig's stuff into what I do. It made me realize how little time above threshold (above my 20 MP) I was getting outside of racing and, when I shifted focus, what my maximum tolerance level over a period of time is for it. I do "chunk rides" (for me, really just unstructured L5/6) periodically and it has been quite helpful to do this. I know of some coaches that have adopted some of their ideas.

I don't know if I'm totally on board with the "fill the right" kJ-fest stuff.. I think everybody acknowledges that if you do x amount of kJ in y amount of time, that equals z average power. That is perhaps more relevant to something like triathlon or long TT's but obvioulsy you have get your body ready for the demands of the event. If yau are planning on doing well in a race with 10 ascents of a 2-km hill and 5000 kJ, you had better have an idea of what you are getting into.

http://cycle-smart.com/articles/find.php?search=36

(Unfortunately the screen dump image didn't survive the transfer from bike.com)

thanks for your posts,
I am always drawn toward training plans, that advocate less riding time!!! I will always be drawn toward this type of training due to the limited time I have to train. This is more of a (pull up) approach of FTP, I am going to give it a shot after a couple months of steady sst and L4. My MTB and cyclocross seasons are coming up, so its time to turn it up any way.

Thanks Again

It must be noted that Kraig and Kirk are primarily training for 1hr events. But like Alex said shades of grey. Whether its 20min, 30min or 60min or even MAP (3-5min power) that you base your training on or measure your progress. Whatever it is the positive is that you will be doing more quality training.

fergie said:

It must be noted that Kraig and Kirk are primarily training for 1hr events.

Well, I think that's where the "fill the right with kJ" comes in, for longer events.

Let me ask you Fergie, let's say one was preparing for 3-4 hour road races rather than 1-2 hour races. So you would be more likely to have the focal point of training on a longer metric, like 60MP rather than 20MP? I realize that the trianing would be different, but does the focal point need to change?

Steve_B said:

Well, I think that's where the "fill the right with kJ" comes in, for longer events.

Let me ask you Fergie, let's say one was preparing for 3-4 hour road races rather than 1-2 hour races. So you would be more likely to have the focal point of training on a longer metric, like 60MP rather than 20MP? I realize that the trianing would be different, but does the focal point need to change?

Personally I think no. But then you may argue that one can pack a bit of anaerobic contribution into a 20min effort. With a track background I certainly can so any testing would have to account for that.

But I am training for a 3000m pursuit so 20min is an ideal base figure for me.

In racing I think while it is an aerobic sport the better one manages their anaerobic capacity (burning their matches with care) the better they go so 20min is a good test figure for me. Also easier to measure cause there is no way i'm doing a 60min TT. Any other method of determining 60min power puts my training zones out of whack.

fergie said:

Personally I think no. But then you may argue that one can pack a bit of anaerobic contribution into a 20min effort. With a track background I certainly can so any testing would have to account for that.

But I am training for a 3000m pursuit so 20min is an ideal base figure for me.

In racing I think while it is an aerobic sport the better one manages their anaerobic capacity (burning their matches with care) the better they go so 20min is a good test figure for me. Also easier to measure cause there is no way i'm doing a 60min TT. Any other method of determining 60min power puts my training zones out of whack.

Let me change the question then: what would you change about their "plan" then, especially if you were focusing on longer events, like 5-6 hours, but even in general? What would you change about it?

Steve_B said:

Let me change the question then: what would you change about their "plan" then, especially if you were focusing on longer events, like 5-6 hours, but even in general? What would you change about it?

My 2 cents, they say on their website, that as long as you raise your 20 min power, that it translates to higher power duration for longer events (higher L4 equals higher and less energy fatigue at L2,L3 for 5-6 hours). That coupled with time on the bike meeting KJ marks (or even better TSS) values for that particular event.

bor1234 said:

My 2 cents, they say on their website, that as long as you raise your 20 min power, that it translates to higher power duration for longer events (higher L4 equals higher and less energy fatigue at L2,L3 for 5-6 hours). That coupled with time on the bike meeting KJ marks (or even better TSS) values for that particular event.

A maximal 20min effort can have a significant anaerobic contribution which could lead one to overestimate their capacity for longer duration efforts.

This is where FTP could be a better metric as anaerobic contribution is minimal.

As for 5-6 hour races it would depend on the the number of 5-6 hour events I was doing. If was 2-3 rides a year I would stick to shorter efforts and wing it on. If doing them on a regular basis I would get regular longer training efforts in. I would still keep things more quality focused.