Planning workouts using NP

Markster said:

The Question is, where did my planning go wrong?

LOL! Sounds like you used my spreadsheet. 😄 The problem (probably) lies in the fact that the 'robust' spreadsheet is actually a simplification of the NP algorithm. NP is calculated using a 30-sec rolling average power to account for the ramp-up time of the metabolic processes within the muscles, while the spreadsheet ignores that fact (for simplicity). For more typical intervals of at least a couple minutes duration, that should not present a major issue. Your 30-sec intervals pushed the envelope too far with respect to the 30-sec rolling average in the NP calculation, and so the spreadsheet lied to you.

More importantly, though, is if you are looking for a Z4 workout then it would be a good idea to spend at least *some* time in Z4. The training effect from the workout you described would not be the same as a 20min 300w effort, even if you did adjust the numbers to produce a 300w effective NP over the entire period.

Edit: sorry, just saw that only the first interval of the set was modified with the short bursts. :o

Thanks a lot frenchyge, got it now.

I was actually using my own spreadsheet, but it calculates on 30sec chunks of time like you suggest. I've just made up another spreadsheet which replicates the workout as if downloaded from a powermeter with 1sec recording interval, and low and behold the NP for the first 20mins is 258W. Turns out I should have been doing the 30sec intervals at 600W, not 500!

As you said in your edit, I still did 2 of the 20min efforts at constant Z4. My intention is to do a 3x20 workout twice a week, but sometimes do 1 or 2 of the intervals as 5x30sec Z6 (4.5min recovery), or 3x4min Z5 (4min recovery). How many pure 20min efforts are replaced by Z4 or 5 will depend on my power profile, and my goals and how far away they are. With this plan I'm hoping that I'll be effectively be doing a solid 3x20 twice a week to boost my FTP (currently less than 70% of my MAP), while still able to put some work into other areas, and without getting 'stuck at 1 speed'. Does this sound like it'll work, or am I just compromising the quality of the threshold work, and would be better of doing individual sessions focussing on a specific zone?

Thanks, Mark.

Markster said:

Thanks a lot frenchyge, got it now.

I was actually using my own spreadsheet, but it calculates on 30sec chunks of time like you suggest. I've just made up another spreadsheet which replicates the workout as if downloaded from a powermeter with 1sec recording interval, and low and behold the NP for the first 20mins is 258W. Turns out I should have been doing the 30sec intervals at 600W, not 500!

As you said in your edit, I still did 2 of the 20min efforts at constant Z4. My intention is to do a 3x20 workout twice a week, but sometimes do 1 or 2 of the intervals as 5x30sec Z6 (4.5min recovery), or 3x4min Z5 (4min recovery). How many pure 20min efforts are replaced by Z4 or 5 will depend on my power profile, and my goals and how far away they are. With this plan I'm hoping that I'll be effectively be doing a solid 3x20 twice a week to boost my FTP (currently less than 70% of my MAP), while still able to put some work into other areas, and without getting 'stuck at 1 speed'. Does this sound like it'll work, or am I just compromising the quality of the threshold work, and would be better of doing individual sessions focussing on a specific zone?

Thanks, Mark.

Mark,

That sounds like a fantastic workout. Do I have to give you a quarter everytime that I use it? 🙂

When you model a z5 or z6 set of intervals like that, you are just trying to find out if it can be accomplished. If the NP for the work/rest part of the intervals is higher than the NP for the total time on your CP curve, there is a very good chance that you would not be able to complete the workout. If you can complete it with an NP that is above 105% the CP, there is a chance that you need to retest to find your FTP.

BTW The spreadsheet that I use puts you at 246 NP for this block of the workout... At 600 watts, I have you at 285 watts NP

Jim

Seeing as you're in America (i assume) and unlikely to race against me anytime soon you can have the workout for free!

I also haven't thought of a fancy name to copyright yet, and the workout description:

20@300W(5*0.5@600W(4.5@150W))+ 10@150W + 20@300W(4x4@345W(4@150W)) + 10@150W + 20@300W

...is a little bit unwieldy!

I'm worried that we are still getting different NP values.
For the 5x30sec block, I've now taken into account a 150W lead in to the first interval, 5x30secs @ 597W with just under 4.5mins @ 150W between each interval (to make exactly 20mins total). Then from the start of the first interval to the end of the 5th (exactly 20mins) I get 300W NP. This is using a spreadsheet calculating rolling 30sec average every second. Have I made a mistake somewhere (again!)?

I too came at this from the angle of trying to make workouts achievable, and also because I've always responded better to training at 90-95% of my capabilities, yet my motivation usually pushes me too close to 100%

Cheers, Mark.

Markster said:

Seeing as you're in America (i assume) and unlikely to race against me anytime soon you can have the workout for free!

I also haven't thought of a fancy name to copyright yet, and the workout description:

20@300W(5*0.5@600W(4.5@150W))+ 10@150W + 20@300W(4x4@345W(4@150W)) + 10@150W + 20@300W

...is a little bit unwieldy!

I'm worried that we are still getting different NP values.
For the 5x30sec block, I've now taken into account a 150W lead in to the first interval, 5x30secs @ 597W with just under 4.5mins @ 150W between each interval (to make exactly 20mins total). Then from the start of the first interval to the end of the 5th (exactly 20mins) I get 300W NP. This is using a spreadsheet calculating rolling 30sec average every second. Have I made a mistake somewhere (again!)?

I too came at this from the angle of trying to make workouts achievable, and also because I've always responded better to training at 90-95% of my capabilities, yet my motivation usually pushes me too close to 100%

Cheers, Mark.

Mark,

Do the workouts that keep you motivated, keep you happy and keep you adapting.

The point that I was trying to make was that this part of the workout was not a threshold workout. When you do 30 seconds - 2 minute intervals at that intensity, it is considered Anaerobic Capacity.

The modeling just helps with checking to see if the workout is do-able...

Jim

Markster said:

As you said in your edit, I still did 2 of the 20min efforts at constant Z4. My intention is to do a 3x20 workout twice a week, but sometimes do 1 or 2 of the intervals as 5x30sec Z6 (4.5min recovery), or 3x4min Z5 (4min recovery). How many pure 20min efforts are replaced by Z4 or 5 will depend on my power profile, and my goals and how far away they are. With this plan I'm hoping that I'll be effectively be doing a solid 3x20 twice a week to boost my FTP (currently less than 70% of my MAP), while still able to put some work into other areas, and without getting 'stuck at 1 speed'. Does this sound like it'll work, or am I just compromising the quality of the threshold work, and would be better of doing individual sessions focussing on a specific zone?

The posts here seem to indicate that there's no hard reason not to mix-and-match zones, although some people (me, for one) like to keep them separate out of personal preference. Substituting Z5 or Z6 into one or more interval periods seems like a good way to fine-tune the amount of work you're doing in each zone.

One thing I will mention is that 30sec Z6 intervals seem a bit too short to really drive the oxygen deficit. I'd suggest going longer (~1 min) to really empty the tank on each interval. If that compromises your ability to follow it up with solid Z4 work, then I'd probably look to split those into 2 workouts. Personally, I like to group the aerobic stuff (Z3-5) into certain workouts, and then mix Z6-7 into my Z2 rides. I don't typically mix Z6-7 with Z3-5 for fear of having the fatigue of one interfere with the other. That's just my preference, and others do just the opposite in an effort to simulate racing fatigue levels.

frenchyge said:

The posts here seem to indicate that there's no hard reason not to mix-and-match zones, although some people (me, for one) like to keep them separate out of personal preference. Substituting Z5 or Z6 into one or more interval periods seems like a good way to fine-tune the amount of work you're doing in each zone.

One thing I will mention is that 30sec Z6 intervals seem a bit too short to really drive the oxygen deficit. I'd suggest going longer (~1 min) to really empty the tank on each interval. If that compromises your ability to follow it up with solid Z4 work, then I'd probably look to split those into 2 workouts. Personally, I like to group the aerobic stuff (Z3-5) into certain workouts, and then mix Z6-7 into my Z2 rides. I don't typically mix Z6-7 with Z3-5 for fear of having the fatigue of one interfere with the other. That's just my preference, and others do just the opposite in an effort to simulate racing fatigue levels.

The reason I specifically picked 30secs and 4min was a scientific study, referenced in Asker Jeukendrup's 'High Performance Cycling', that showed that these durations were more effective at increasing 40km TT speed than either 1, 2 or 8mins. The 30sec intervals (with 4.5min recovery) have really worked for me in the past, at least in the short term. So I feel that replacing some of the pure threshold work with interval work of these durations shouldn't do any harm, and will hopefully provide some benefit for the TT's which are my focus. If I want to specifically improve my AC (for short climbs in road racing maybe) then I'll do 1min intervals as you suggest.

www.abcc.co.uk has an article by Dr Gordon Wright where he describes an interval method where 10sec sprints are followed by 1min intervals and then 5min intervals, all in the same session. He seems to think there could be benefits to training in this way, I think related to activating/training all the muscle fibres. I'm not sure whether the science/evidence supports this, but the theory provided a bit of inspiration for my workout described above where instead of 10secs, 1min and 5min, I'm gonna try some sessions where I do 20mins of 30sec intervals, 20 of 4mins, and a 20min threshold effort, all of which have been shown scientifically to improve 40k TT power.

At the end of the day though, like otb4evr suggested, I think the real benefit will be making my turbo sessions a bit more interesting so I'm more motivated and enjoy them more.

Mark