Increase power or duration?

i'd say up the wattage.

postal_bag said:

I've been doing 4 min. intervals at 115% of my FT. I can complete 5 reps consistently. I don't know if I should be trying to extend the inteval length, decrease the recovery, or up the wattage. Or should I try for 6 reps? My goal is to increase FT and MAP. Forgive me if this has been asked before. I believe that completing 6 reps would put me over the equivalent stress rating of my 2x20 workout. Would that suggest an increase in FT?

While it is possible that your FT power has gone up, doing a workout where the TSS score is greater than a 2x20min workout does not necessarily indicate an increase in FT. I'd say you should do a test to see if your FT power has gone up, and do another rep of your 4 minute intervals until then (as long as the added stress fits into your current stress/recovery routine).

postal_bag said:

I've been doing 4 min. intervals at 115% of my FT. I can complete 5 reps consistently. I don't know if I should be trying to extend the inteval length, decrease the recovery, or up the wattage. Or should I try for 6 reps? My goal is to increase FT and MAP. Forgive me if this has been asked before. I believe that completing 6 reps would put me over the equivalent stress rating of my 2x20 workout. Would that suggest an increase in FT?

When I do 5x5:00 or 6x5:00 I usually target 115%FT. 115% is probably too low (for me anyway) for 4min intervals.

To improve your FT, focus on FT intervals (do mix it up with 4 & 5 min intervals though).

postal_bag said:

I've been doing 4 min. intervals at 115% of my FT. I can complete 5 reps consistently. I don't know if I should be trying to extend the inteval length, decrease the recovery, or up the wattage. Or should I try for 6 reps? My goal is to increase FT and MAP. Forgive me if this has been asked before. I believe that completing 6 reps would put me over the equivalent stress rating of my 2x20 workout. Would that suggest an increase in FT?

MAP and FT are intrinsicly linked, but increasing the volume would work more towards training your FT while you'll need to increase the power output to really force your MAP to improve (which is more difficult). Which direction to go depends more on your goals and long term training program.

frenchyge said:

While it is possible that your FT power has gone up, doing a workout where the TSS score is greater than a 2x20min workout does not necessarily indicate an increase in FT. I'd say you should do a test to see if your FT power has gone up, and do another rep of your 4 minute intervals until then (as long as the added stress fits into your current stress/recovery routine).

Yeah, it's probably a good idea to re-test at this point. I think I've slightly over-estimated my FT since I'm basing the 115% on my 20 min. power, rather than my 1 hour output. Unless it's the same? At any rate, there must be benefits to doing 4 min. intervals at 115% or 120%, or whatever it turns out to be. Do you suggest a 1 hr. time trial?

Smartt/RST said:

MAP and FT are intrinsicly linked, but increasing the volume would work more towards training your FT while you'll need to increase the power output to really force your MAP to improve (which is more difficult). Which direction to go depends more on your goals and long term training program.

Thanks for the info. Is it true that improving MAP will also increase FT to some extent? (I need to look up 'intrinsicly'😉. :o Also, just to clarify, what does MAP correspond to in terms of actual cycling performance? IS it an effort that can be sustained for 4-6 min?

postal_bag said:

Thanks for the info. Is it true that improving MAP will also increase FT to some extent? (I need to look up 'intrinsicly'😉. :o Also, just to clarify, what does MAP correspond to in terms of actual cycling performance? IS it an effort that can be sustained for 4-6 min?

Yes, working on your MAP will increase your FT; this is because the two intensities have a very similar physiologic demand and subsequent training response.
In terms of cycling performance, your MAP is the basis from which all your aerobic performance abilities stem from; that is, your FT and LT are based on your MAP, not the other way around. One can have a higher FT/LT as a % of MAP (which correlates very highly with increased cycling performance), but you have to have a high MAP in order to have high FT because FT can only be raised so high in relation to your MAP. The time frame for a single effort relating to MAP depends on the protocol used to establish your MAP; it could be anywhere from 3-6min.

postal_bag said:

Yeah, it's probably a good idea to re-test at this point. I think I've slightly over-estimated my FT since I'm basing the 115% on my 20 min. power, rather than my 1 hour output. Unless it's the same? At any rate, there must be benefits to doing 4 min. intervals at 115% or 120%, or whatever it turns out to be. Do you suggest a 1 hr. time trial?

20min power is not equal to 1 hr power. If I recall correctly (from Coggan's power paper, I think), 1 hr power can be estimated to be ~93% of 20 min power. That should vary by individual to some extent, however. There's a link in the "Leg Strength" thread of the Cycling Training forum which helps you plot your own Power v. Duration curve.

Regarding the 1 hr TT, it depends on whose zones you're using. Each training scheme is based on it's own measurement protocol (40K TT for Coggan, 25W/minute ramping MAP test for Stern, etc.). You should re-test using the protocol which matches the zones you are using.

postal_bag said:

Yeah, it's probably a good idea to re-test at this point. I think I've slightly over-estimated my FT since I'm basing the 115% on my 20 min. power, rather than my 1 hour output. Unless it's the same? At any rate, there must be benefits to doing 4 min. intervals at 115% or 120%, or whatever it turns out to be. Do you suggest a 1 hr. time trial?

Personally, I sort of think the answer to this question is a function of how far up your personal power improvement curve you are now. A simple way to approach intervals when you're pretty low on your own personal improvement curve is to just do a mix of them ranging from ~4 mins to ~20 mins at a pace that is pretty close to your maximum pace for that duration and keep the recovery duration to a minimum (a max of 1:1 for the longer intervals and ~2:1 or even 3:1 for the shorter intervals). Testing is a good thing to get more precise, but when you're pretty far down your personal improvement curve, just about any high-intensity work will result in improvements in power. I think testing such as MAP and 1 hr TTs becomes more important in fine-tuning your training plan as you move up your personal power improvement curve. For example, I rode for 5 months without doing either a 1 hr TT or MAP test. I have realized significant power improvement just from riding various intervals at sort of crudely defined intensities a couple of times per week.

Sure, but the original question stemmed from the feeling that his current 115% FT interval set had gotten too easy. He asked whether he should do more reps or bump up the intensity. Before someone does either of those two options, I would suggest a check to see if either one is really necessary. In other words, maybe correcting your FT value would put the original interval set back to a challenging level without modifying the workout structure. If your FT has changed and you don't worry about it then you're really training by feel, or at best training BY power and selecting arbitrary wattages for your interval sets.

Seeing those bumps in FT power has got to be the best intermediate reward for your training program, right?

frenchyge said:

Sure, but the original question stemmed from the feeling that his current 115% FT interval set had gotten too easy. He asked whether he should do more reps or bump up the intensity. Before someone does either of those two options, I would suggest a check to see if either one is really necessary. In other words, maybe correcting your FT value would put the original interval set back to a challenging level without modifying the workout structure. If your FT has changed and you don't worry about it then you're really training by feel, or at best training BY power and selecting arbitrary wattages for your interval sets.

Seeing those bumps in FT power has got to be the best intermediate reward for your training program, right?

Right. That's what it's all about, but it'll show up in lots of ways. I can tell my power is way up from a few months ago and I still have never done a 1 hr MP. I'm simply saying that when one is a long way from one's potential it's not necessary to try and define training zones too precisely. Anyway, the distinction between the zones is a fuzzy line anyway. Even though Andy's zones don't overlap (which I like), he says that the lines are somewhat blurred. And several of Ric's zones explicitly overlap. And, I may be alone in this, but I am not at all sure it matters much how you get your minutes in a zone. Does it really matter whether you do 2x15 L4s or 4x8 L4s? Granted, there's no point in doing more reps if you can sustain the intensity longer. But, I'm leaning toward what matters is total time at power rather than # of reps.

I agree that 1 hr TT's aren't anything to look forward to, and I haven't done one yet either for that same reason. As an alternative, one can track their output over long intervals (ie, 20-30 minutes) as well to catch the changes in FT, and that's something that can be observed during a typical workout.

I still think there's a motivational advantage to noticing "Cool! 2% rise in FT power!" As opposed to "These seem kinda easy, I guess I'll push a little harder next time."

frenchyge said:

I agree that 1 hr TT's aren't anything to look forward to, and I haven't done one yet either for that same reason. As an alternative, one can track their output over long intervals (ie, 20-30 minutes) as well to catch the changes in FT, and that's something that can be observed during a typical workout.

I still think there's a motivational advantage to noticing "Cool! 2% rise in FT power!" As opposed to "These seem kinda easy, I guess I'll push a little harder next time."

Totally agree. In a perfect world, I would like to do both a 1 hr TT and a MAP every couple of weeks, for zone definition and for progress tracking. But, it often isn't a perfect world. One real-world example. I probably pushed a little too hard when I started doing intervals at the end of May and hurt my glutes. For the next 2 1/2 months, I simply could not do more than 200w seated. I was okay off the saddle because the glutes don't come into play in the same way. It was a pain in the neck, but I was forced to do all high-intensity minutes off the saddle. I couldn't even think about doing a 1 hr TT or MAP test. And, my interval schedule was severely compromised since it's so fatiguing to go hard off the saddle more than a few minutes. I adjusted and just did lots of repeats, even for L4s. But, I got my high-intensity minutes in (at my best estimate of zones), kept riding and eventually was able (very recently) to do significant minutes >200w on the saddle. It is only now that I (cautiously) consider doing a 1 hr TT next week. I have just the right ride planned, a 17.5 mile hillclimb TT course that I want to ride on 9/17.

frenchyge said:

I agree that 1 hr TT's aren't anything to look forward to, and I haven't done one yet either for that same reason. As an alternative, one can track their output over long intervals (ie, 20-30 minutes) as well to catch the changes in FT, and that's something that can be observed during a typical workout.

I still think there's a motivational advantage to noticing "Cool! 2% rise in FT power!" As opposed to "These seem kinda easy, I guess I'll push a little harder next time."

Actually, now that I'm wound up let me really take on this zone question. I think the reality is that the zones should be a continuum along the full power/duration curve, offset from one's MP at that duration, although I haven't figured out the offset algorithm. In a phrase borrowed from Good Will Hunting, "How do ya like them apples?"

frenchyge said:

20min power is not equal to 1 hr power. If I recall correctly (from Coggan's power paper, I think), 1 hr power can be estimated to be ~93% of 20 min power. That should vary by individual to some extent, however. There's a link in the "Leg Strength" thread of the Cycling Training forum which helps you plot your own Power v. Duration curve.

i think Andy would say that the "93%" value is not fixed - it varies from person to person and at different points in training for that person. currently, my estimated difference is 5%.

Quoted post said:

Regarding the 1 hr TT, it depends on whose zones you're using. Each training scheme is based on it's own measurement protocol (40K TT for Coggan, 25W/minute ramping MAP test for Stern, etc.). You should re-test using the protocol which matches the zones you are using.

to clarify my schema the incremental rate of change in a MAP test is dependent upon a broad base of fitness (elite or non-elite) and gender. In other words there are there are three different rates to be used depending on who you are

Ric

postal_bag said:

Also, just to clarify, what does MAP correspond to in terms of actual cycling performance? IS it an effort that can be sustained for 4-6 min?

MAP can't be held for this long. Data that i have on a wide range of abilities (world pursuit champion to 4th cats) shows that ~ 88 - 91% of MAP can be held for ~ 3.5 to 5 minutes. MAP needs to be tested in a incremental, continuous test to exhaustion.

Ric

RapDaddyo said:

And, I may be alone in this, but I am not at all sure it matters much how you get your minutes in a zone. Does it really matter whether you do 2x15 L4s or 4x8 L4s? Granted, there's no point in doing more reps if you can sustain the intensity longer. But, I'm leaning toward what matters is total time at power rather than # of reps.

You may be alone in this! Both myself and Andy suggest minimum time periods in certain zones to get a training effect, i *think* both Andy and I suggest 15-mins as a minimum to get full effect from zone 4/level 4 work or alternatively you could do shorter intervals (5-mins) with very short recoveries between intervals (30 - 60 secs) which 'fool' the body into thinking they are one continuous effort.

For zone 5/6 MAP work i'd suggest a continuous effort of 3 - 5 mins, with 3 mins being the minimum required to fully elicit VO2max

in other words it's important to look at the whole picture -- that is, number of intervals and total volume, as well as recovery periods (as this may effect where the energy is drawn from), and length of intervals.

ric

RapDaddyo said:

Totally agree. In a perfect world, I would like to do both a 1 hr TT and a MAP every couple of weeks, for zone definition and for progress tracking. But, it often isn't a perfect world. One real-world example. I probably pushed a little too hard when I started doing intervals at the end of May and hurt my glutes. For the next 2 1/2 months, I simply could not do more than 200w seated. I was okay off the saddle because the glutes don't come into play in the same way. It was a pain in the neck, but I was forced to do all high-intensity minutes off the saddle. <stuff snipped>

I wonder if all this is connected -- you don't know your 'correct' zones (you've been estimating) and have injured yourself from riding too intensely? I know with hindsight things can often be easier, but would it not have been better to define your zones/levels in the first place and ridden more moderately thus saving yourself from injury? Could this have led to greater improvements than what you've currently seen as you may have been more consistent in your training not having to deal with an injury?

Ric

Hey RD, how do you like *them* apples? :p 😄