Level 5 "sweet-spot"?

postal_bag said:

I guess what I am asking is: If I lower the power and dramatically increase my time spent training at L5, should I expect to see improvements similar to when I adopted the low L4 philosophy? Will I increase power @ vo2max, etc?

I don't think so. I think you'll find low l5 workouts to be similar to high l4 workouts. The purpose of l5 is generally to raise vo2max, which requires time spent at or very near vo2max. Low l5 is probably too far below that zone to be as effective.

Edit: I also think the super hard philosphy is too much as well. Personally, I think 5-6x5's are a good compromise (done at a self-regulated intensity, probably around 110%).

postal_bag said:

Then it struck me. Is there a "sweet-spot effect" of training at low L5? Perhaps it's obvious. Maybe I was blinded by trying always to push the maximum power that I could manage.

I guess what I am asking is: If I lower the power and dramatically increase my time spent training at L5, should I expect to see improvements similar to when I adopted the low L4 philosophy? Will I increase power @ vo2max, etc?

If you experiment with different intensities, then you could probably convince yourself that there was a L5 sweet spot, in that lowering the intensity slightly does allow one to greatly increase the time that can be tolerated there (much like in L4).

The difference in L5 is that VO2max adaptations occur primarily while exercising very near (ie, 95-100%) VO2max. If 120%FT represents VO2max power, then that'd mean you'd want to achieve 114-120% FT during your L5 intervals. You may wonder why L5 goes all the way down to 105%FT, in that case, and Andy has said that he preferred his 'levels' to be continuous and without holes between them. Anyway, that's the answer I recall from a previous conversation on this topic. There truly is a 'no man's land' between ~FT and upper L5.

frenchyge said:

... Anyway, that's the answer I recall from a previous conversation on this topic. There truly is a 'no man's land' between ~FT and upper L5.

Good response. You could train all along the continuum: 10 minutes at 105% for a phase, and then closer to racing peak work on 8 at 107-110% and then finally your 4-5 minutes at 120%.

For some, it may help to ease into L5/6 intensity this way. Sweet spot? Maybe it is out there, maybe it is just reducing the intensity enough to see a big jump in our bearable time (and pain reduction) in a long interval.

postal_bag said:

A few months back, thanks to this forum, I began experimenting with low L4 workouts of a relatively long duration (i.e. ~90 min. @ 92% FT). I realised that I had been too concerned with trying to push the maximum power (105% FT for my 2 x 20's) and was in turn compromising the amount of time spent training near threshold.

How long did it take you to increase your FTP and by how much? Was this an increase from your previous season or just from your 'winter' FTP?

I ask these questions because I've been doing L4 intrevals twice a week for ~4 weeks and have not seen an increase in power.

objective said:

I ask these questions because I've been doing L4 intrevals twice a week for ~4 weeks and have not seen an increase in power.

Once you have stressed your system sufficiently, rest so that supercompensation can occur and then test. So, four weeks on, one week off and test during the rest week when fully recovered. If you don't see an increase in power and you've done a lot of base, start a build phase with L5 work.

objective said:

I ask these questions because I've been doing L4 intrevals twice a week for ~4 weeks and have not seen an increase in power.

Once you have stressed your system sufficiently, rest so that supercompensation can occur and then test. So, four weeks on, one week off and test during the rest week when fully recovered. If you don't see an increase in power and you've done a lot of base, start a build phase with L5 work.

If you are training very hard, you may even see a slight drop in performance when you're really stressed.

Spunout said:

Once you have stressed your system sufficiently, rest so that supercompensation can occur and then test. So, four weeks on, one week off and test during the rest week when fully recovered. If you don't see an increase in power and you've done a lot of base, start a build phase with L5 work.

If you are training very hard, you may even see a slight drop in performance when you're really stressed.

I may be thinking about this all wrong. I was expecting to see an increase over time, in my wattage *during* L4 intervals. For example, in the early weeks of L4 training, I expected to perform towards the floor/bottom of the range. Then, after several weeks, I was expecting to see myself performing towards the ceiling of the range. In my case I've been at the top of the range since I started.

After 4 weeks, I do have a sense that I've improved. I *feel* like I'm recovering better and that they are become less psychologically challenging but there's very little data to back this up.

That said, I did see a 10 watt increase in 60 min NP measured during a recent race. Not sure I could regularly hit this new number but it does indicate that there may be upward movement in my FTP.

I think there's value in what you say. I can imagine my weekly training load (800-1000 TSS) masks improvements. I don’t understand why but it makes "sense" intuitively.

objective said:

I think there's value in what you say. I can imagine my weekly training load (800-1000 TSS) masks improvements. I don’t understand why but it makes "sense" intuitively.

Thank you. You are building training stress, and maybe also digging a hole. Recovery (a week, maybe only four days) will result in 'supercompensation' and you'll see your numbers improve. Read Joh Ackland's book, it is explained pretty good there.

We don't improve (except minimally) until we plan recovery and supercompensation.

Spunout said:

You could train all along the continuum

I agree with this statement, but I take a somewhat different approach to it. I prefer to work my intervals into my rides by taking advantage of the topography of my routes rather than as structured, track-like intervals. Due to the topography of my rides, I end up doing intervals of a wide range of durations at every level, including L5. After studying my ride files over time, I settled on a simple formula for all of my intervals -- I ride them all at 90% of my MP for that duration. It sounds complicated to implement, but I am aided by some technology. In my case, this formula puts my interval power levels above the 106-120% range for the shorter durations. That's because my 8min MP is 122%FT and my 3min MP is 147%FT. So, my 8min interval power is 110%FT and my 3min interval power is 132%FT (I probably have a screwed up power profile). Why 90%MP? Because I can complete all of my intervals on my rides at my target power and because it makes them all "feel" the same. More than 90% makes the interval much harder (and less fun) and less than 90% seems to be a waste of training time. It isn't "hard" to ride at a given power, even 200%FT. It's just hard to sustain the effort for some durations. I'm always riding my intervals at only 90% of the max power I have ridden the duration previously, so they all feel about the same. BTW, I have increased my power significantly using this approach. But, I probably would have increased my power significantly using other, very different approaches. I'm not sure my body knows or cares what approach I am using to induce the stress -- it just cares about the stress.

objective said:

How long did it take you to increase your FTP and by how much? Was this an increase from your previous season or just from your 'winter' FTP?

I ask these questions because I've been doing L4 intrevals twice a week for ~4 weeks and have not seen an increase in power.

I'm not sure I did increase FT power. I didn't do any formal testing. I did increase the power on my 2 x 20' intervals by about 5% after about 3 weeks. Also my abilty to tolerate riding at FT increased to the point where I FELT that I could routinely do a 1 hr FT effort (i.e. 3 x 20' w/1' rest intervals).

Originally Posted by objective
How long did it take you to increase your FTP and by how much?

I ask these questions because I've been doing L4 intrevals twice a week for ~4 weeks and have not seen an increase in power.

Spunout said:

Once you have stressed your system sufficiently, rest so that supercompensation can occur and then test. So, four weeks on, one week off and test during the rest week when fully recovered. If you don't see an increase in power and you've done a lot of base, start a build phase with L5 work.

Personally, I like to see some sort of improvement almost every week or two. Of course this depends somewhat on how many aspects of your fitness that you're training, and which of them you're merely maintaining with minimal attention vs. those you're striving to improve.

Supercompensation can occur after just a few hard days of some thing or some things, followed by sufficient rest, maybe a day, maybe three, but even extremely hard weight training or similar on the bike only needs 5-10 days to realize the effects of supercompensation.

My own training is not done with 4 weeks build and then one week rest. My rest "weeks" tend to be 5-7 weeks apart with no more than 3-4 days of rest at most, and there is still some intensity training during those days.

During the final 3 weeks before the season's major peak it's barely a 2 week cycle of of really hard building with a week or so for recovery/tapering. A buddy of mine who does very well in masters championships does a couple of hard days, then 3-4 days not very hard at all, then 3 really hard days in a row, followed by 10 days not too hard before his first event at those championships.

With all this in mind, why wait for the end of a four week cycle to provide the rest needed for the supercompensation? What is magic about 4 weeks except they fit nicely into the periodization models of 12 week and 16 week blocks? Weeks are convenient too but when you look closely at how long supercompensation takes for various aspects of your race fitness (they don't all take the same amount of time) you may find yourself working with "weeks" that are 8-10 days long. My own "weekly" cycles vary between 5 and about 10 days.

Does your weekly training schedule look pretty much the same week after week for 3+ weeks in a row? If the actual (estimated) time needed for supercompensation for each type of training is considered you may see that you need to change the order of certain types of training during succeeding weeks.

postal_bag said:

A few months back, thanks to this forum, I began experimenting with low L4 workouts of a relatively long duration (i.e. ~90 min. @ 92% FT). I realised that I had been too concerned with trying to push the maximum power (105% FT for my 2 x 20's) and was in turn compromising the amount of time spent training near threshold.

The interesting thing was that by lowering the power and dramatically increasing my weekly volume of L4 training (from 40-80min. to 3.5 hrs. or more) I found that I had increased my 20 min. power, and my ability to endure FT power.

Now, having recently begun L5 training, I realise I have fallen into my old pattern of trying to push the maximum power. My first workout was 3 min. intervals at 120% FT (the maximum power suggested for vo2max training) w/2 min. recovery. I was able to complete 5 reps, which is understandable since I had not trained at L5 since the fall. I am confident that I could get up to 8 reps in time, for a total of 24 min. @ L5 for the session. Last season I was doing 5-6 x 4' @ 120% FT.

Then it struck me. Is there a "sweet-spot effect" of training at low L5? Perhaps it's obvious. Maybe I was blinded by trying always to push the maximum power that I could manage.

Tomorrow I am starting a phase of low L5 training (107-111% FT) with longer durations. I recently did 20' + 12' + 12' @ 108% FT, as an L4 workout, so the lines are already blurred (which I don't see as a bad thing). Maybe it's time to adjust my FT.

I guess what I am asking is: If I lower the power and dramatically increase my time spent training at L5, should I expect to see improvements similar to when I adopted the low L4 philosophy? Will I increase power @ vo2max, etc?

I've hit a plateau with 2x20 work(~255w), and although I have tried doing more VO2max work(~280w) to raise the ceiling for more LT improvement, I'm not able to raise the wattage.
As a result, I have lowered the time spent on these intervals to ~10 minutes at 108%. These still have that *nasty* feel to them, and they are what I'm using to prepare for 10 mile TT's.
The other way I am trying to raise LT is a technique inspired by Frenchyge, that I call over/unders. With these, I ride for 1-2 minute periods at 10w above level, then 1-2 minutes below level, over a 15 minute period(2-3 intervals). These are also useful for team TT preparation.

whoawhoa said:

I don't think so. I think you'll find low l5 workouts to be similar to high l4 workouts. The purpose of l5 is generally to raise vo2max, which requires time spent at or very near vo2max. Low l5 is probably too far below that zone to be as effective.

Edit: I also think the super hard philosphy is too much as well. Personally, I think 5-6x5's are a good compromise (done at a self-regulated intensity, probably around 110%).

Well after yesterday's workout of 5 x 8' @ 108% w/2' rest intervals, I would agree that it seemed like high threshold work. I still feel that this "no man's land", as frenchyge puts it, between L4 and 'useful' L5 (say 107-112% FT) is an important area for me to target. I can always increase the duration or tray them at 109-110% as I progress. Afterall this will become my high L4 as my FT increases. Just as my 90' @ low L4 will become 'tempo'.

The problem was that I was going from 105% on my 2 x 20's to 120% on my 6 x 4's (actually 3's at this point) and was never putting in any time in between. There is a 50w gap there that I was 'missing'.

The most important thing is that this has helped me to overcome a psychological barrier. Kind of like a bridge over that 50w gap. I now believe that I can increase my FT by up to 8% this season.

RapDaddyo said:

I agree with this statement, but I take a somewhat different approach to it. I prefer to work my intervals into my rides by taking advantage of the topography of my routes rather than as structured, track-like intervals. Due to the topography of my rides, I end up doing intervals of a wide range of durations at every level, including L5. After studying my ride files over time, I settled on a simple formula for all of my intervals -- I ride them all at 90% of my MP for that duration. It sounds complicated to implement, but I am aided by some technology. In my case, this formula puts my interval power levels above the 106-120% range for the shorter durations. That's because my 8min MP is 122%FT and my 3min MP is 147%FT. So, my 8min interval power is 110%FT and my 3min interval power is 132%FT (I probably have a screwed up power profile). Why 90%MP? Because I can complete all of my intervals on my rides at my target power and because it makes them all "feel" the same. More than 90% makes the interval much harder (and less fun) and less than 90% seems to be a waste of training time. It isn't "hard" to ride at a given power, even 200%FT. It's just hard to sustain the effort for some durations. I'm always riding my intervals at only 90% of the max power I have ridden the duration previously, so they all feel about the same. BTW, I have increased my power significantly using this approach. But, I probably would have increased my power significantly using other, very different approaches. I'm not sure my body knows or cares what approach I am using to induce the stress -- it just cares about the stress.

When do you typically achieve a new MP for a specific duration? Is it during a race or group ride? or solo? I like the 90% idea for longer durations, but we can do some pretty amazing stuff for shorter durations if properly motivated, such that even 90% MP for a 3' effort would seem intimidating. I can do ~155% for 3' -ONCE- but I couldn't do 3' repeats @ 140%. 😉

postal_bag said:

Well after yesterday's workout of 5 x 8' @ 108% w/2' rest intervals, I would agree that it seemed like high threshold work. I still feel that this "no man's land", as frenchyge puts it, between L4 and 'useful' L5 (say 107-112% FT) is an important area for me to target. I can always increase the duration or tray them at 109-110% as I progress. Afterall this will become my high L4 as my FT increases. Just as my 90' @ low L4 will become 'tempo'.

The problem was that I was going from 105% on my 2 x 20's to 120% on my 6 x 4's (actually 3's at this point) and was never putting in any time in between. There is a 50w gap there that I was 'missing'.

The most important thing is that this has helped me to overcome a psychological barrier. Kind of like a bridge over that 50w gap. I now believe that I can increase my FT by up to 8% this season.

If I understand the numbers correctly, you are doing 3' @ 120%FT, 8' @108%FT and 20' @ 105%FT. Out of curiosity, do you have an idea of what your interval power is at each of these durations as a percentage of your max power at that duration? If, for example, I rode my intervals at those power levels (computed as a function of FT as you do), I would be riding them at 82%MP (3'😉, 88%MP (8'😉 and 97%MP (20'😉 respectively. The 3' interval would be a walk in the park, the 8' interval would be about where I usually ride it and the 20' interval would require TT concentration. Do you take this (%MP) into consideration in deciding at what power to ride an interval of a given duration?

frenchyge said:

If you experiment with different intensities, then you could probably convince yourself that there was a L5 sweet spot, in that lowering the intensity slightly does allow one to greatly increase the time that can be tolerated there (much like in L4).

That is key for me. I am always amazed at how pschological factors play such a huge role in my training. I guess I won't fool myself into thinking that I will achieve L5 adaptations with this approach. I'll consider it 'super-high' L4. 🙄

RapDaddyo said:

If I understand the numbers correctly, you are doing 3' @ 120%FT, 8' @108%FT and 20' @ 105%FT. Out of curiosity, do you have an idea of what your interval power is at each of these durations as a percentage of your max power at that duration? If, for example, I rode my intervals at those power levels (computed as a function of FT as you do), I would be riding them at 82%MP (3'😉, 88%MP (8'😉 and 97%MP (20'😉 respectively. The 3' interval would be a walk in the park, the 8' interval would be about where I usually ride it and the 20' interval would require TT concentration. Do you take this (%MP) into consideration in deciding at what power to ride an interval of a given duration?

You do uderstand the numbers correctly. And you do have a screwed-up power profile.😉

When initially selecting the power for a given duration, I usually pick a point within Andy's recommendations (106-120% FT for L5, etc.) and fine tune the power as I am able to complete various workouts. I assumed 3-4 min intervals would be for the high end, 7-8 min for the low end, etc.

I do admit that I hadn't touched L5 since the fall, so maybe that is a factor. I don't think I lost any power at FT, but it seems like my vo2 power is down ~20-30w. I'm not worried, I'll just work it back in gradually, as was suggested.

postal_bag said:

You do uderstand the numbers correctly. And you do have a screwed-up power profile.😉

When initially selecting the power for a given duration, I usually pick a point within Andy's recommendations (106-120% FT for L5, etc.) and fine tune the power as I am able to complete various workouts. I assumed 3-4 min intervals would be for the high end, 7-8 min for the low end, etc.

I do admit that I hadn't touched L5 since the fall, so maybe that is a factor. I don't think I lost any power at FT, but it seems like my vo2 power is down ~20-30w. I'm not worried, I'll just work it back in gradually, as was suggested.

Did you answer my question? If you did, I can't figure it out. As to whether my power profile is "screwed up," I actually think we all have somewhat different power profiles in the 0-20 min duration band. And, I think these drift over time, both as a result of training that raises the entire profile and as a result of training that targets specific durations. This is a question that is rarely discussed when people talk about doing intervals of x duration at y power. Typically, the only reference point for power is as a % of FT. I think it is helpful to understand what someone is doing (and the benefits they are deriving from the efforts) by also looking at their interval power as a function of their MP at that duration. In fact, I don't even use power as a % of FT to decide what power to use for an interval. For example, I would expect to see no improvement in my 3' power if I rode my 3' intervals at the power you use (120%FT) because it would be too low (82%MP). At that duration, these would be tantamount to tempo rides.

RapDaddyo said:

Did you answer my question? If you did, I can't figure it out. As to whether my power profile is "screwed up," I actually think we all have somewhat different power profiles in the 0-20 min duration band. And, I think these drift over time, both as a result of training that raises the entire profile and as a result of training that targets specific durations. This is a question that is rarely discussed when people talk about doing intervals of x duration at y power. Typically, the only reference point for power is as a % of FT. I think it is helpful to understand what someone is doing (and the benefits they are deriving from the efforts) by also looking at their interval power as a function of their MP at that duration. In fact, I don't even use power as a % of FT to decide what power to use for an interval. For example, I would expect to see no improvement in my 3' power if I rode my 3' intervals at the power you use (120%FT) because it would be too low (82%MP). At that duration, these would be tantamount to tempo rides.

If you want to stress your VO2max, you need to train near VO2max. The last statement you made is unlikely, but possible. It depends on your particular VO2max and anaerobic capacity.

Take this example...

A person has a 6mp of 400 watts and a FTP (60mp) of 300 watts. That's a fairly big difference. That large delta could be because they have a poorly-developed FTP (in other words their VO2max is high, but their threshold, as a percentage of VO2max, is low), they have a tremendous anaerobic capacity (in which case their threshold, as a percentge of VO2max may be high, but their high AC is skewing the number up), or a combination of the 2.

Your 90% formula would result in very different workouts depending on which situation a particular person has.

Let's say their VO2max power is actually 340. In this case their FTP is fantastic, 88% of VO2max. Their 6mp is high due to an excellent anaerobic capacity. If they did their 6 minute intervals at 90% of 400, or 360 (106% of VO2max), it's very doubtfull he would be able to complete the set.

Now what if their VO2max is 380. Their FTP isn't so great in this case, only 79% of VO2max (although encouraging in that this rider has a lot of headroom for FTP improvement!). This riders AC is not so stellar. If he did his VO2max intervals at 90% of 6mp, he should have no problem completing the test, but might be doing them too easy (95% of VO2max).

So therein lies the problem with using a percent of Xmp for figuring an interval intensity. You may, in time, discover a conversion factor (in your case 90%), that works for you, but any changes in the relative strengths of your fitness may cause the resultant workouts to change also. That is one of the reasons behind Coggan's ranges.

The correct answer for how hard you should do a set of VO2max intervals is to do them as hard as you can and still complete the set (or close to it). Whether that works out to 80 or 95% (or whatever!) percent of Xmp, it is correct. For longer intervals, it's more complicated, and depends on what you're trying to do, and how it fits into your overall training plan.

Scott