Levels confusion!!

beldon said:

I have been following the 2 x 20 thread with interest and thought I might try a variation of it on my newly purchased srm`s.

Did 4 x 10 mins at about 310/20 ish for each one. My Map is about 400 from a loose test a week or so ago and threshold about 325.

My confusion lies with the different `levels` that are out there. Mr Coogan has my threshold at 282 - 326, cycling peaks has it at 294 - 341 and Mr Sterns web site has it predicted at 260- 300!!

Bit of a difference between them all really. I could easily handle 260 but would struggle for 341. Who do you follow?? I appreciate that a `proper` test would be the way forward but just trying to get some idea on what everyone else does??

Thanks

Hmmm - I don't recall estimating your functional threshold power, but then again my name isn't "Coogan". 😉

Kidding aside, the power values defining your levels should be the same in CyclingPeaks as wherever you got the values you credit to me, because I'm the one who designed them for CyclingPeaks.

As for your basic question, which is "at what power should I train if my (whatever) is X?", the answer to that question depends on the test used to fill in for "whatever". That is, if you've done a MAP test using the same protocol that Ric uses, then you should use the percentages that he recommends. OTOH, if you've determined your functional threshold power using any of the various ways I've described, then you should use the percentages that I've suggested. In the vast majority of cases, it won't make any difference if you don't do this and instead "mix and match", but in some cases it might.

The fact that you did 4 x 10 at 310-320 but feel that you'd really struggle at 340 says to me already that your functional threshold power is almost certainly between 310 and 340 W...and we've already been able to narrow it down to a 10% range based on just one single workout. Isn't training with a powermeter great: training is testing and testing is training.^TM

beldon said:

I have been following the 2 x 20 thread with interest and thought I might try a variation of it on my newly purchased srm`s.

Did 4 x 10 mins at about 310/20 ish for each one. My Map is about 400 from a loose test a week or so ago and threshold about 325.

My confusion lies with the different `levels` that are out there. Mr Coogan has my threshold at 282 - 326, cycling peaks has it at 294 - 341 and Mr Sterns web site has it predicted at 260- 300!!

Bit of a difference between them all really. I could easily handle 260 but would struggle for 341. Who do you follow?? I appreciate that a `proper` test would be the way forward but just trying to get some idea on what everyone else does??

Thanks

For what it's worth, my threshold levels are now based on Dr. Cooogan (🙂 kiddin'😉 chart, as it seems to be the best out there for Power based training. And the testing is fairly easy to do : 60min (or 40k) all out.

Everyone that created a chart, is entitled to set the borders where he feels they should fall. In other words, it is kind of normal to see variations from one chart to an other.

And even when following the same chart, in the real life, those borders vary anyway. For instance, last sunday, I tried 30min @ 88%, and 60min @ 92%. For some mysterious reasons, I hit LT during the first 30min (even though I was in Coggan L3). And I did not complete the workout, as I reached near max HR after only 40min (in the 60@ 92%).

Yesterday, I tried the same wkout, it went fine, the levels suited me very well.

Oops. My apols Mr Coggan!!

Thanks for the replies. I`m a bit tired today in anycase so not sure it was a true reflection of what I can probably do, just an experiment whilst i get used to the power meter and get some extra training in at the same time!

Will keep at it and use the cycling peaks levels that I have.😉

CyclingPeaks also uses Coogan's levels, this is a choice in the power zones setup. They should be the same based on your Threshold power entry.

From all of the above, there are many different measuring sticks out there. Just be sure to test and train by the same meter. See the 2x20 thread and you'll see (finally at the end) that it is noted that the FT range is wide, but it is the length of the interval's inverse relationship to power that makes the workout effective.

And, just in case you don't have enough ways to determine interval intensity for a given duration, here's one more. Ride one interval at the desired duration (in this case, 10 mins) at what you think is max power. You should know within 5 mins if you've over- or under-estimated your max power. Take 90% of that number and use that for your intervals. It just so happens that for me this methodology always puts me in Dr. C's (notice how cleverly I avoided the spelling game🙂 ) schema all the way down to ~1 min.

SolarEnergy said:

even when following the same chart, in the real life, those borders vary anyway. For instance, last sunday, I tried 30min @ 88%, and 60min @ 92%. For some mysterious reasons, I hit LT during the first 30min

What do you mean by "hit LT"? Are you saying that you were measuring your lactate concentrations throughout each effort, and they rose above whatever criteria you use to define LT during the first 30 min? (If that's not what you mean, then you didn't "hit LT".)

Spunout said:

CyclingPeaks also uses Coogan's levels

And again I find myself forced to ask: who is this Mr. Coogan that everyone keeps mentioning?

acoggan said:

What do you mean by "hit LT"? Are you saying that you were measuring your lactate concentrations throughout each effort, and they rose above whatever criteria you use to define LT during the first 30 min? (If that's not what you mean, then you didn't "hit LT".)

Heart rate maybe?

acoggan said:

What do you mean by "hit LT"? Are you saying that you were measuring your lactate concentrations throughout each effort, and they rose above whatever criteria you use to define LT during the first 30 min? (If that's not what you mean, then you didn't "hit LT".)

Thanks Andy to keep me in the right track.

To answer your question. I taste my own sweat. It it is salty, then I conclude it must be acid salt 😄 (kiddin)

I may have been wrong in the interpretation. But I may have been right.

I don't know. You asked me, in an other discussion, why I was interested into LA response to steady continuous exercice? I guess you now have part of the answer. I am still updating my knowledge about this particular level of training.

whoawhoa said:

Heart rate maybe?

Not only hr.

That wasn't the first time I was trying this one. It is 30min@ 88% FT, immediately followed by 60min@ 92%FT. Fairly simple.

I am usually able to complete the 60min. That really feels like lower L4, with fatigue building up very progressively. Typically, I seem to reach ventillatory threshold after let say 15 to 20 minutes (in the 60min). And my hr, after 10 minutes, is ~150. After 45 min, my hr is usually around 165, reaching 170 at the end of the distance.

Last sunday, I reach ventillatory threshold after 20 minutes in the first 30min (same curve as during 60min). Hr was 158. And RPE was exacly like if I had began the 60min already.

More important, I managed to do only 30min at 92%, instead of 60min. At that time (after 30min) I was already way over ventillatory threshold, almost at respiratory compensation point, hr at 170, RPE was high.

All that lead me to conclude, that during the first 30min (at .88), I was probably working higher than usual, probably at LT (at least the physiological response). That explains why it felt harder than usual, but most important, that'd explain why the first 30min of the 60min segment, actually felt like the second 30min interval of a 2X30 set.

But hey, I have nothing to prove that. Just feelings for what they are worth.

So it is not only hr, it is a combination of things. I am looking forward to understand these things better, see how they correlate and interact with each other.

beldon said:

I have been following the 2 x 20 thread with interest and thought I might try a variation of it on my newly purchased srm`s.

Did 4 x 10 mins at about 310/20 ish for each one. My Map is about 400 from a loose test a week or so ago and threshold about 325.

My confusion lies with the different `levels` that are out there. Mr Coogan has my threshold at 282 - 326, cycling peaks has it at 294 - 341 and Mr Sterns web site has it predicted at 260- 300!!

Bit of a difference between them all really. I could easily handle 260 but would struggle for 341. Who do you follow?? I appreciate that a `proper` test would be the way forward but just trying to get some idea on what everyone else does??

Thanks

Just to clarify, the 260 to 300 W isn't a "threshold" prediction on the cyclecoach.com website, it's the intensity for a zone 4 effort based on a MAP of 400 W.

If you were wanting to (e.g.) estimate ~1-hr/40-km TT power a MAP of 400 W would give an *estimate* of ~288 - 308 W. These figures are provided in the section below the zones prescription.

Ric