2x20min or 3x20min?

peterpike said:

I've been doing 2x20min at 295w for a few weeks now but today I did 3x20min at 280w, if my FT is about 285w at the moment which workout is best for improving my FT?

Hey peter, I am interested in this also. Just posted the same question in thread - is this an hour of L4?

S

I made a better adaptation when I adopted higher volume work - ie - 3x20's.

I would also try lowering power a bit more and trying 4x20 or 3x30.
The bottom line is that you spend more time at the level you're training.

It's probably worth doing both the 2x20's at high L4, and 3-4x20 at low L4 for max gains if you can fit it into you're routine.

peterpike said:

I've been doing 2x20min at 295w for a few weeks now but today I did 3x20min at 280w, if my FT is about 285w at the moment which workout is best for improving my FT?

Peter - if your FTP is truly 285w, then to me it is a no-brainer: do the 3 x 20's @ 280w.

Why? Because your total L4 time is 20 more minutes.

Though it may seem counter-intuitive, you needn't do your L4 work at 100% of FTP, much less 105%.

Psychological strain does not follow a linear relationship with physical effort, rather it increases at a higher rate. So by doing these at 295w, you make them harder than they need be - which might be a useful boost in some circumstances - but for simply raising FTP, it seems unnecessary.

peterpike said:

I've been doing 2x20min at 295w for a few weeks now but today I did 3x20min at 280w, if my FT is about 285w at the moment which workout is best for improving my FT?

Let's see what TSS says!

(295 / 285) ^ 2 * (40/60) = 0.71
(280 / 285) ^ 2 = 0.97

The former gets you 71 TSS points, while the latter nets you 97. So, the latter is almost 30% more training stress. This strongly agrees with most folks' on this list's experience, by the way, that it's easier to rack up stress in the lower end of L4 than the higher end.

Thanks for the replies. Lucy I know exactly what you are saying - its just that whatever length of interval I have done i've always tried to give it my max power for that length of time so that at the end it is getting very hard - its difficult to believe that I could get the same benefit for less effort!

peterpike said:

Thanks for the replies. Lucy I know exactly what you are saying - its just that whatever length of interval I have done i've always tried to give it my max power for that length of time so that at the end it is getting very hard - its difficult to believe that I could get the same benefit for less effort!

Peter - I hear that mate. I too, came from the school of "if it doesn't hurt, you must not be doing it hard enough"!

Training with a PM has changed all that, radically to say the least.

Difficult to believe, same benefit from less effort, but it sure is a nice bonus! 😄

peterpike said:

Thanks for the replies. Lucy I know exactly what you are saying - its just that whatever length of interval I have done i've always tried to give it my max power for that length of time so that at the end it is getting very hard - its difficult to believe that I could get the same benefit for less effort!

I agree with Lucy. Don't push it too much too often. Riding at 100% FTP is stressful and riding above 100% as you like to dois very stressful and in the long run become more and more difficult to recover from and could contribute to over training.

peterpike said:

its difficult to believe that I could get the same benefit for less effort!

This has to rank in the top 5 misconceptions of training IMO.😉

RapDaddyo said:

This has to rank in the top 5 misconceptions of training IMO.😉

I agree, although it's still one I struggle to follow, schooled as I was in the 'it has to hurt' mentality like Lucy. I often find myself at the gym and instead of dialing in some sweet spot training at 91%, I'll want to do my 2x20 at 105%. Particularly as I have quite limited training time, it seems to produce a desire to want do a pb in every training session. :o

But I do struggle to understand the scientific basis for why this is the case. If I do 2x20mins at 250 watts versus 270 watts, is the former really as good in terms of producing adaptations ?

fastcat said:

But I do struggle to understand the scientific basis for why this is the case. If I do 2x20mins at 250 watts versus 270 watts, is the former really as good in terms of producing adaptations ?

Assuming that they are both at the same level (and therefore they are targeting the same adaptation), why not just compute the TSS of each ride? That's how I now set my weekly targets, TSS by level (e.g., L4-300TSS, L5-150TSS, L6-120TSS). Even within the same level (e.g., L4), rides are hard to equate due to differences in both power and duration. TSS reduces the rides to a common denominator.

RapDaddyo said:

Assuming that they are both at the same level (and therefore they are targeting the same adaptation), why not just compute the TSS of each ride? That's how I now set my weekly targets, TSS by level (e.g., L4-300TSS, L5-150TSS, L6-120TSS). Even within the same level (e.g., L4), rides are hard to equate due to differences in both power and duration. TSS reduces the rides to a common denominator.

Yes, that's a good idea (and a good reminder - I've been meaning to do that - will be easier if the PT SL fund grows sufficiently😉)

One of the problems with the misconception is that we are led to believe that the body adapts best to exercise when it is stressed more than it has been before, if intervals are performed at 90% then aren't we asking the body to do somthing that it can already do?

peterpike said:

I've been doing 2x20min at 295w for a few weeks now but today I did 3x20min at 280w, if my FT is about 285w at the moment which workout is best for improving my FT?

I don't think the answer is as clear cut as some are making it out to be. My own answer would be "it depends".

Mainly, I think it's a function of the following:

1)your training history (short term--what you did yesterday, and longer term--what you did over the last few weeks)

2)the composition of the rest of your training

3)your own physiological capabilites.

Just for instance, just looking at 3), if rider A's 20MP is 103-105% of his/her 60MP, and rider B's 20MP is 110-115% of his/her 60MP, do you think they would both be better served by doing the same thing?

Not to over-complicate your question, but think it's more a matter of just adding up TSS points.

So, with that said--the real answer: just do 3@295W😄

RipVanCommittee said:

Just for instance, just looking at 3), if rider A's 20MP is 103-105% of his/her 60MP, and rider B's 20MP is 110-115% of his/her 60MP, do you think they would both be better served by doing the same thing?

So, are you going to answer this question? Which rider would gain more benefit from 2x20 @ 295 and which would gain more benefit from 3x20 @ 280?

RapDaddyo said:

So, are you going to answer this question? Which rider would gain more benefit from 2x20 @ 295 and which would gain more benefit from 3x20 @ 280?

Interesting question. Here's my crack at it:

Rider B will just about always benefit more by doing 3x20's at just under threshold, because he needs more work on long term endurance and flattening the P/D curve.

Rider A will sometimes be better off doing 3x20's (because it's probably still a greater stimulus towards FTP) but will sometimes be better off doing less work at higher power, e.g., when targeting a race that emphasizes 20-30 minute power (like a tt or hill climb of that length).

What do you think, RVC?

whoawhoa said:

Interesting question. Here's my crack at it:

Rider B will just about always benefit more by doing 3x20's at just under threshold, because he needs more work on long term endurance and flattening the P/D curve.

Rider A will sometimes be better off doing 3x20's (because it's probably still a greater stimulus towards FTP) but will sometimes be better off doing less work at higher power, e.g., when targeting a race that emphasizes 20-30 minute power (like a tt or hill climb of that length).

What do you think, RVC?

But is this really an answer to the question? The question relates to the greater benefit for FTP, 2x20 @ 295 or 3x20 @ 280. You seem to be saying that perhaps Rider A should focus more on, say, L5-L6 work rather than L4 work. That seems to be an answer to a different question.

whoawhoa said:

Interesting question. Here's my crack at it:

Rider B will just about always benefit more by doing 3x20's at just under threshold, because he needs more work on long term endurance and flattening the P/D curve.

Rider A will sometimes be better off doing 3x20's (because it's probably still a greater stimulus towards FTP) but will sometimes be better off doing less work at higher power, e.g., when targeting a race that emphasizes 20-30 minute power (like a tt or hill climb of that length).

What do you think, RVC?

Hey, I DID answer the question--3x295W!

Seriously, WWhoa has my position pretty much nailed. The only other thing I'd add is the part about the composition of the rest of the training. If I were doing 2 L5 workouts a week and 1 L4 workout, I'd still probably opt for 3x20 for both riders (unless I were in taper mode).

RapDaddyo said:

But is this really an answer to the question? The question relates to the greater benefit for FTP, 2x20 @ 295 or 3x20 @ 280. You seem to be saying that perhaps Rider A should focus more on, say, L5-L6 work rather than L4 work. That seems to be an answer to a different question.

No, I would recommend that protocol even if the goal is strictly to improve FTP or 1 hr. power.

It would seem that if one's 20MP were 103-105% of their 60MP, they could be more likely to benefit from additional recruitment of motor units at the higher intensity, despite less overall work.

RipVanCommittee said:

It would seem that if one's 20MP were 103-105% of their 60MP, they could be more likely to benefit from additional recruitment of motor units at the higher intensity, despite less overall work.

Can you elaborate on this some? As a 103-105% guy, I'm definitely interested in more gains with less work. 🙂