Optimizing Base Period

A few comments on your approach. First, by base period training plan I assume you are talking about what I call the early phase of a season, which for me would be from my last target event of one season until about 2 months prior to my first target event in the next season. Note that I ride and train year-round. Yes, I decide how much time to ride per day and per week. In my case, if my schedule permits, that means 6 days/week at 3 hrs/day = 18hrs/week total. And, in the early phase of the season I have only one training objective, to build endurance and FTP. It's almost 100% L4 with two exceptions.One, I have a lot of climbs in my normal outside routes and I climb them at ~90% of my MMP for the climb duration, whatever the duration is. So, I end up with some L5/L6 time not by choice but by virtue of my routes. Two, I ride on Saturday and Sunday with my club and it's impossible to get in quality L4 time on group rides so I end up going at about L5 pace on front and then a lot of time at L3 in back. Due to the problem of getting quality L4 efforts on the weekend, I place a premium on long L4 efforts during the week. By long, I mean >=30mins. My primary fitness metric is actually not FTP. Rather, it's my 120MMP due to the fact that 120min fitness corresponds more closely with my target events and I have found that if I don't specifically train my 120MMP it will be about 90%FTP whereas if I target 120MMP I can get it up to about 95%FTP. So, similar to what you outlined, but not exactly.

RapDaddyo, what you describe sounds quite different than what I have described, but I am reading between the lines a little. What do you do in those 4 weekday L4 workouts? Do you ride at 120MMP for 3 hours on all 4 days? If so, was there a period where you had to adjust volume, intensity, or frequency in order to continue at the same workload? If so, how did you go about making the adjustment?

The protocol I describe above is simple in the fact that only one parameter is variable and that is what I think sets it apart from some others I seen described. The simplistic nature of it makes it easier to optimize. But it is unclear to me if the protocol will result in an optimal training plan in the big picture, e.g. when compared to more complex protocols.

I neglected to add one thing to the protocol. Every so often (e.g. every 4 weeks), a performance metric is measured, e.g. 20MMP. If 20MMP went up, change nothing. If 20MMP stayed the same or went down, consider adjusting the target power. Assuming, you have been going as hard as you can, you would need to adjust the target power downward. One thing interesting about this is that individual workout intensity is not based on a strict percentage of FTP. Instead it is based on sustainable power over an entire microcycle plus a correction factor based on performance measurements. Ideally it would be based entirely on performance measurements, but it is hard to perform them every week with a reasonable degree of accuracy and precision.

I do 120min constant power rides, but not every week. My 4 weekday L4 workouts consist of 20-40min constant power efforts with 5min recovery durations at about 91%FTP. I don't test FTP frequently, but rather just go by how easy or hard it feels at a given power. When it feels easy (relative to prior efforts), I bump up the power a bit and vice versa if it feels hard. I basically don't ever train at 100% of my MMP for a given duration. It's more like 90%MMP across the board, except for <20secs in which case I'll go at 100%. I once rode for about 3 months doing all my L4s at 275W based on an FTP of 300W. When I got around to re-testing FTP, it was 326W. So, toward the end of that period I was doing my L4s at only 85%FTP. You will get good results at that intensity, and of course more tolerable volume. I'll also mention that I do take breaks from time to time during the year. I just don't plan them. I take a break when I am no longer enthusiastic about getting on my bike. Then, I'll take a few days off until I begin to miss it again, typically within about 3 days. The reason it is similar to what you describe is that I train at one basic intensity with the exceptions I noted. It's basically L4 ... L4 and more L4.

You do 20-40 min work intervals at 91% FTP with 5 min rest intervals for 3 hours 4 days/week? That's like 900 TSS for just the work week. I can't do anything near that much volume at that intensity, especially since I bumped my FTP up from 243 to 260 a few weeks ago after a new personal best 20MP. So I have been diluting the volume of the L4 work with L2/L3 work. For example, I will ride for 20 min at 90% FTP and then 20 min at 65% FTP. Optimizing this protocol gets messy and I have started to wonder it more complicated than it needs to be. Rather than balancing L4, L3, and L2 volume, I'm wondering if I can just pick one intensity to do all the time. That intensity will be less than 90% FTP if I maintain 10-16 hours/week.

I don't measure FTP directly either, so even though I say 90% FTP I really mean ~85% 20MP. Both the Monad and the 95% FTP estimators give me the same FTP based on my 20MP tests. However, notice that my proposed protocol does not use FTP or 20MP directly to choose workout intensity. Workout intensity is based on what can be sustained for an entire week.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by gudujarlson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

You do 20-40 min work intervals at 91% FTP with 5 min rest intervals for 3 hours 4 days/week?

I probably have a somewhat higher tolerance for training volume and training stress than most, so I'm not recommending my 18 hrs/wk schedule. In fact, my schedule doesn't always permit this amount of time on the bike. Rather, my main point is that in the early phase of a training cycle I focus almost exclusively on L4 and I do longer efforts at the bottom end of the bracket in order to do the largest L4 volume possible as a percentage of total time on the bike. This is not so different from what you are thinking about, just stated in a different way.

I guess what it all comes down to is the question of whether there is anything magical about the 88-93% FTP SST power range mentioned in Training and Racing with a Power Meter. If I take the book literally, SST is a magical power range that optimizes the volume and intensity of a single workout when the goal is to increase FTP during the base period. However, Dave has pointed out many times that I should not interpret it that way. So if there is nothing magical about it, why should I focus all my training around trying to maximize time at 88-93% FTP and think all other work is just above junk miles. Working at 88-93% FTP all the time might be a good for someone doing 8-10 hours/week, but it doesn't work for me at 10-16 hours/week.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I probably have a somewhat higher tolerance for training volume and training stress than most, so I'm not recommending my 18 hrs/wk schedule. In fact, my schedule doesn't always permit this amount of time on the bike. Rather, my main point is that in the early phase of a training cycle I focus almost exclusively on L4 and I do longer efforts at the bottom end of the bracket in order to do the largest L4 volume possible as a percentage of total time on the bike. This is not so different from what you are thinking about, just stated in a different way.

Maybe the confusion here is the definition of "L4". Training and Racing with a Power Meter defines L4 as 91-105% FTP. It's actually higher than the SST range of 88-93% FTP. Based on that definition "do the largest L4 volume possible as a percentage of total time on the bike" does not seem the same as the protocol I described above, because in the protocol above a) the power range will be at best in the L3 range when volume is 10-16 hours/week and b) 100% of the time will be in that range (disregarding warmup/cooldown, traffic lights, etc).

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by gudujarlson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I guess what it all comes down to is the question of whether there is anything magical about the 88-93% FTP SST power range mentioned in Training and Racing with a Power Meter. If I take the book literally, SST is a magical power range that optimizes the volume and intensity of a single workout when the goal is to increase FTP during the base period. However, Dave has pointed out many times that I should not interpret it that way. So if there is nothing magical about it, why should I focus all my training around trying to maximize time at 88-93% FTP and think all other work is just above junk miles. Working at 88-93% FTP all the time might be a good for someone doing 8-10 hours/week, but it doesn't work for me at 10-16 hours/week.

First, there is nothing "magical" about SST. The reason SST is a good power target in the base period is because it allows one to spend more time at high-intensity per hour on the bike than, say 100%FTP. IOW, it is an "efficient" training intensity for the purpose of increasing FTP. But, I think you are misreading my comment about intensity. I said specifically that I ride all of my early phase L4s at the bottom end of the L4 bracket, or 91%FTP. This happens to be in the middle of SST. So, when you say that L4 is a higher intensity than SST, it's true that the level goes all the way up to 105%FTP. But, I said that I do all of my L4s in the early phase at the very bottom of the bracket. So, I could just as easily say that I do them at the dead center of SST. Just another way of saying it. Another way to view 91%FTP is to look at power at a given duration as a percentage of MMP for that duration. In my case, I almost never exceed 90%MMP for any duration.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

The reason SST is a good power target in the base period is because it allows one to spend more time at high-intensity per hour on the bike than, say 100%FTP. IOW, it is an "efficient" training intensity for the purpose of increasing FTP.

That's exactly what I meant by "magical". So it sounds like you basically agree with the description of SST given in Training and Racing with a Power Meter. I had the same understanding, but Dave has corrected me on a number of occasions.

If I were to implement "do the largest L4 volume possible as a percentage of total time on the bike" to the best of my ability, I would cut down on my weekly volume to something like 8-10 hours/week. In other words, I would vary my volume and frequency instead of my intensity. This is fundamentally different than what I described above. Do you see the difference? Or how am I misunderstanding you? We seem to be talking past each other.

Maybe the example initial target power range I gave above is leading to some confusion. For a 10-16 hours/week schedule, an initial range of 88-93% FTP is a bad guess for me. I would start with 75-80% FTP and go up or down from there.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by gudujarlson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

That's exactly what I meant by "magical". So it sounds like you basically agree with the description of SST given in Training and Racing with a Power Meter. I had the same understanding, but Dave has corrected me on a number of occasions.

If I were to implement "do the largest L4 volume possible as a percentage of total time on the bike" to the best of my ability, I would cut down on my weekly volume to something like 8-10 hours/week. In other words, I would vary my volume and frequency instead of my intensity. This is fundamentally different than what I described above. Do you see the difference? Or how am I misunderstanding you? We seem to be talking past each other.

I'm basically of the view that volume trumps intensity, so if riding 10-16 hrs/wk means that you need to cut down your target power to 75-80%FTP, then that's what I would do rather than riding at SST and cutting down volume. But, the reality is that it's pretty hard to get more than 50% of total time on the bike at L4, taking into consideration warmup, cooldown and recovery efforts. So, even 16 hrs/wk on the bike translates to about 8 hours of L4 max, or slightly more than 1 hr/day. Personally, I would not find that excessive, but everybody's tolerance for training volume and training stress is different. You really have to build a training schedule around your tolerance for training stress, not mine.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by gudujarlson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

That's exactly what I meant by "magical". So it sounds like you basically agree with the description of SST given in Training and Racing with a Power Meter. I had the same understanding, but Dave has corrected me on a number of occasions.

If I were to implement "do the largest L4 volume possible as a percentage of total time on the bike" to the best of my ability, I would cut down on my weekly volume to something like 8-10 hours/week. In other words, I would vary my volume and frequency instead of my intensity. This is fundamentally different than what I described above. Do you see the difference? Or how am I misunderstanding you? We seem to be talking past each other.

This about the 3rd time that I have seen you use Dave's name in what comes off to me as a reader or how I interpret a post like this that seems to misrepresent him or something he contributed to a discussion and then you wonder why you get rebuked.

How this post reads to me is that you agree with the book and RDO, but Dave has some different thoughts that are not in agreement with the book or with the idea of SST, which then leads to speculation that his view point may be wrong. Based on what I have seen from Dave many times in the past concerning SST is that he has interpreted SST the same way Frank Overton conceptualized SST and RDO has also interpreted the same as Frank's article.

I am not sure if you are being intentional with this potential misrepresentation, but as a reader I thought I would just state that this is at least 3 times that I have seen you call him out specifically or at least that is how it hits me as I read these posts. If it is not intentional maybe put a little more thought into it before you hit the submit button.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I'm basically of the view that volume trumps intensity, so if riding 10-16 hrs/wk means that you need to cut down your target power to 75-80%FTP, then that's what I would do rather than riding at SST and cutting down volume.

Ok, cool. That is basically the same as what I am proposing up top. Albeit, I've avoided using the term SST because it seems to have more than one definition. You threw me off when you said all work is in L4.

Quoted post said:

But, the reality is that it's pretty hard to get more than 50% of total time on the bike at L4, taking into consideration warmup, cooldown and recovery efforts. So, even 16 hrs/wk on the bike translates to about 8 hours of L4 max, or slightly more than 1 hr/day. Personally, I would not find that excessive, but everybody's tolerance for training volume and training stress is different. You really have to build a training schedule around your tolerance for training stress, not mine.

My lack of tolerance for 10-16 hours/week of 90%FTP work is what caused me to start this thread.

One thing that bugs me about my proposed training protocol is that none of the workouts are based on %FTP and thus it seems to contradict the teachings in Training and Racing with a Power Meter.

If I am reading your post #6 correctly, your latest 20MP was 305W. Here's how I arrived at that number. You said that you don't directly measure FTP, and that your FTP is ~85% of your 20MP. So, doing the math (260/0.85) I get 305W for your 20MP. Is that right? If so, was that a constant power 20min ride at 305W? Or was it a best 20min NP in a variable power ride? But, let's say it is a true 20MP. IOW, you can warm up and then ride at a constant 305W for 20min. If that's true, then if you used my 91%FTP protocol and if you did sets of 20min efforts with 5min recovery segments you would ride your early phase (aka base-building) efforts at ~237W, or 77%MMP. Even 4x20 at 237W should be a tolerable training stress on a daily basis if you want to ride 10-16 hrs/wk. If you have too much residual fatigue doing 4x20s at 237W every day, then I'd say you need to build your endurance with lots of 2-3 hr rides at whatever intensity you can manage without needing a recovery day.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

If I am reading your post #6 correctly, your latest 20MP was 305W. Here's how I arrived at that number. You said that you don't directly measure FTP, and that your FTP is ~85% of your 20MP. So, doing the math (260/0.85) I get 305W for your 20MP. Is that right? If so, was that a constant power 20min ride at 305W? Or was it a best 20min NP in a variable power ride? But, let's say it is a true 20MP. IOW, you can warm up and then ride at a constant 305W for 20min. If that's true, then if you used my 91%FTP protocol and if you did sets of 20min efforts with 5min recovery segments you would ride your early phase (aka base-building) efforts at ~237W, or 77%MMP. Even 4x20 at 237W should be a tolerable training stress on a daily basis if you want to ride 10-16 hrs/wk. If you have too much residual fatigue doing 4x20s at 237W every day, then I'd say you need to build your endurance with lots of 2-3 hr rides at whatever intensity you can manage without needing a recovery day.

You misunderstood me. I said that for me 90% FTP = %85 20MP. So 20MP = 273, FTP = 260, and 90% FTP = 234. My 20MP is based off a 20 min test done on a standard course. I surprised myself a few weeks ago by setting a new personal best during a 20 min test that was 6% above the last. I attributed the gains to a change in training and better pacing.

Off the bike I don't feel any unusual amount of fatigue, but when I try to repeat these efforts 2 or 3 days in a row (2 per day) I find that I cannot maintain the range over the entire duration or I can but it requires a what seems like a 100% record breaking effort (not a 90% effort). I did not notice the same problem earlier in the year when weeks consisted on a mix of L2-L7 work where the same workout was not done on back-to-back days (e.g. M L7, T L4, W L6). During such mixed work I rarely didn't meet power goals and was able to maintain a higher CTL.

I begin to wonder if my last 20MP test was a fluke. The thing is, if I go with the protocol I proposed above, I don't need to worry if my FTP is set right because none of the workouts are based on a percentage of FTP. It really all hinges and whether there is anything magical about the 88-93% FTP power range. There certainly seems to be some evidence that there is nothing magical and I think you have stated the same thing as well, but how do I reconcile that with Training and Racing with a Power Meter which bases everything off percentages of FTP?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
the same way Frank Overton conceptualized SST

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but if it helps clarify matters: I, and I alone, am responsible for the idea that there is a "sweet spot"* - Frank only named it.

*Ignoring, of course, the fact that Lydiard basically arrived at the same conclusion long before I did.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by gudujarlson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

One thing that bugs me about my proposed training protocol is that none of the workouts are based on %FTP and thus it seems to contradict the teachings in Training and Racing with a Power Meter.

"The training levels are descriptive, not prescriptive." - A. Coggan

Or to be a bit more explicit:

"[FONT= Geneva]as with all systems, exercise prescriptions should be individualized, in this case taking into account the power the athlete has generated in previous similar or identical workouts...the primary reference, therefore, is not to the system itself, but to the athlete's own unique (and current) ability."[/FONT]

[FONT= Geneva]From the original description of the training levels in 2001:[/FONT]

lists.topica.commessage.htmlOpen ↗