"steepening the curve"

I have a hard time understanding your two example workouts. Why 6x4 with partial recovery? or do you consider 3min being full recovery? And why using 2min long intervals for ac development?

Or should I understand that you consider awc and ac (anaerobic capacity) as being two different things?

And why comparing L5 twice a week with L6 once a week? Do you mean to compare L5 twice, with one L5 and one L6?

From a periodization perspective, I think addressing L6 first then L5 may make you save time, as long as you don't use those longish L6 intervals you refered to.

Not arguing here. I'm just trying to understand..

whoawhoa said:

So, one of my greatest week points is AWC (~230)

Have you seen AWC broken down into ranges like Andy did with w/kg ?

If so, what is considered below average, average, above average, good, etc?

Is the steepen the curve part that your trying to adress in the 5min-20min area ,the2min to 5min part or the 30sec-2min part? I think that the 5-20 min area is mainly about oxidative capacity of type 2 fibers with help from AWC. So that area would benefit from L5.*** I think that the 2-5min area is about the "depth" of your AC and that the 30s to 90ish seconds is mostly about the "amplitude" of your AC and that you train them in different ways. Of course nothing in this area of your curve is pure in that the adjacent factors affect it.

***Not to open a can a worms but this IMO is one use 30-30 intervals at 105-110/70%ish of your Pvo2max. Because FTP usually marks a change to greater usage of type 2b fibers and 70% should be under FTP. This way you can recruit those type 2b fibers for a longer time each session and more effectively because vo2 stays highish. Not only that but according to steve mcgregor, subjects actually do spend a good bit of time at vo2max using a 100/70 protocol.

just what I think as I can't truly prove a lot of it.

gvanwagner said:

Is the steepen the curve part that your trying to adress in the 5min-20min area ,the2min to 5min part or the 30sec-2min part? I think that the 5-20 min area is mainly about oxidative capacity of type 2 fibers with help from AWC. So that area would benefit from L5.*** I think that the 2-5min area is about the "depth" of your AC and that the 30s to 90ish seconds is mostly about the "amplitude" of your AC and that you train them in different ways. Of course nothing in this area of your curve is pure in that the adjacent factors affect it.

***Not to open a can a worms but this IMO is one use 30-30 intervals at 105-110/70%ish of your Pvo2max. Because FTP usually marks a change to greater usage of type 2b fibers and 70% should be under FTP. This way you can recruit those type 2b fibers for a longer time each session and more effectively because vo2 stays highish. Not only that but according to steve mcgregor, subjects actually do spend a good bit of time at vo2max using a 100/70 protocol.

just what I think as I can't truly prove a lot of it.

Thanks, Greg. Great response. First of all, I definitely am mainly targeting the 5-20 minute range. I'm a climber/tt type and would like some more power for the moderate length climbs and shortish tt's we tend to have in my area.

For the second part, I'm not so sure. Let's say two of your biggest goals were 2 time trials. One takes just over 20 minutes, starts with a stupid-steep 2:30ish climb, followed by 14kilos of mostly flat, somewhat techincal course. The other is just over thirty minutes, with a bunch of brutally steep, short hills ranging from 30 seconds-3 minutes, with a few power flat/descending sections and a lot of descents too steep and technical to pedal very hard. What would you target (aside from FTP) given this? And how would you balance it with FTP-focused work assuming you were like me and have low AWC and a 20mp/FTP ratio around 1.02?

whoawhoa said:

Thanks, Greg. Great response. First of all, I definitely am mainly targeting the 5-20 minute range. I'm a climber/tt type and would like some more power for the moderate length climbs and shortish tt's we tend to have in my area.

For the second part, I'm not so sure. Let's say two of your biggest goals were 2 time trials. One takes just over 20 minutes, starts with a stupid-steep 2:30ish climb, followed by 14kilos of mostly flat, somewhat techincal course. The other is just over thirty minutes, with a bunch of brutally steep, short hills ranging from 30 seconds-3 minutes, with a few power flat/descending sections and a lot of descents too steep and technical to pedal very hard. What would you target (aside from FTP) given this? And how would you balance it with FTP-focused work assuming you were like me and have low AWC and a 20mp/FTP ratio around 1.02?

When I flatten my curve to a particular point Ill be doing similar training to what would possibly help you so this is what Im planning for me.

The 30-30 intervals at 100-110/70-75 5MMP. These work as a way to keep vo2 high for a longer time and spend a lot more time actually delivering O2 to those particular fibers. Plus they mimic your TTs. I plan on spend some time on a met cart in the spring to get a better handle on these and what I can do with them.

For depth of AC I plan on doing my L6 workouts at a set level above 5MMP and doing them to failure with full recovery. Ill probably use about 110% and that should get me about 2.5 min for the first one. The duration will decrease but the goal is use up your "tank" on each one. 4-5 reps per session.

Even though the climbs can be short Im assuming that you won't cross too far into the "amplitude" of AC too often simply because that would cause you to blow up if near the beginning and if not then your be too fatigue to do it anyway. So even really short hills in TTs then I still think that it's a depth issue because of the way we usually pace them.

As far as folding this work in with L4, are you still seeing improvement with L4 work. I'd imagine it's coming much more slowly if at all with a 20mp at 1.02. If your still seeing improvement with L4 work then milk that cow for it's worth. If not than clip the low hanging fruit.

I think that AWC is one of the most underappreciated aspects of race performance. IMO, AWC accounts for being dropped in RRs and crits more often than FTP. One of the reasons AWC needs to be so high is that part of AWC does not recover. So, if you attack and/or respond to attacks, you are (by definition) emptying your AWC tank with each attack. After awhile, an attack develops, you go to the tank and *oops* the tank is too low and you watch the lead group ride off to the horizon.

When I work on increasing my AWC, I do 2-3 min efforts at ~90% of my MP for the given duration. I estimate my MP for any given duration from the CP model (Monod). I believe AWC is highly responsive to focused training. About 15 months ago, I couldn't do any seated efforts >200W due to sore glutes, so I was basically forced to do all of my high-intensity efforts off the saddle. I couldn't sustain durations longer than a few minutes, so I ended up doing tons of L6s (one day I did 47 of them during a 3hr ride). My AWC went off the charts and my FTP actually didn't suffer too much. Later, when I was able to do seated efforts again, I was able to bring my FTP up nicely and kept a high AWC. I'm not working on AWC at the moment, but beginning in December L6s will again get a significant focus.

RapDaddyo said:

I think that AWC is one of the most underappreciated aspects of race performance. IMO, AWC accounts for being dropped in RRs and crits more often than FTP. One of the reasons AWC needs to be so high is that part of AWC does not recover. So, if you attack and/or respond to attacks, you are (by definition) emptying your AWC tank with each attack. After awhile, an attack develops, you go to the tank and *oops* the tank is too low and you watch the lead group ride off to the horizon.

Boy can I relate to this - this season in particular I have had this happen to me more than a few times. I think I have a reasonable AWC at ~300 but my FTP has been lower this season by around 7% and I cannot help feeling that this has also played a large part. My AWC is also down however, as most of my training has been aimed at trying to get FTP back up..

When things get hard quickly, I am into L5/6 earlier than the others that are hanging in there at the top of L4 and as such I am burning matches by the box.

I also find that it is the ability to repeatedly go into the red that makes more difference to the outcome of my races, than how deep I can go.

RapDaddyo said:

I think that AWC is one of the most underappreciated aspects of race performance. IMO, AWC accounts for being dropped in RRs and crits more often than FTP. One of the reasons AWC needs to be so high is that part of AWC does not recover. So, if you attack and/or respond to attacks, you are (by definition) emptying your AWC tank with each attack. After awhile, an attack develops, you go to the tank and *oops* the tank is too low and you watch the lead group ride off to the horizon.

When I work on increasing my AWC, I do 2-3 min efforts at ~90% of my MP for the given duration. I estimate my MP for any given duration from the CP model (Monod). I believe AWC is highly responsive to focused training. About 15 months ago, I couldn't do any seated efforts >200W due to sore glutes, so I was basically forced to do all of my high-intensity efforts off the saddle. I couldn't sustain durations longer than a few minutes, so I ended up doing tons of L6s (one day I did 47 of them during a 3hr ride). My AWC went off the charts and my FTP actually didn't suffer too much. Later, when I was able to do seated efforts again, I was able to bring my FTP up nicely and kept a high AWC. I'm not working on AWC at the moment, but beginning in December L6s will again get a significant focus.

I agree, but I would add race smarts to the equation as well. A rider with high AWC and good race smarts is almost impossible to drop in the racing that I do - rolling hills with no climbs longer than about 3km.

Bruce Diesel said:

I agree, but I would add race smarts to the equation as well. A rider with high AWC and good race smarts is almost impossible to drop in the racing that I do - rolling hills with no climbs longer than about 3km.

So I better start working on that AWC then
🙂

gvanwagner said:

***Not to open a can a worms but this IMO is one use 30-30 intervals at 105-110/70%ish of your Pvo2max. Because FTP usually marks a change to greater usage of type 2b fibers

Endurance-trained cyclists have few, if any, type IIb (IIx) fibers remaining, as they've all been converted to type IIa.

gvanwagner said:

***and 70% should be under FTP. This way you can recruit those type 2b fibers for a longer time each session and more effectively because vo2 stays highish. Not only that but according to steve mcgregor, subjects actually do spend a good bit of time at vo2max using a 100/70 protocol.

The (still unanswered) question is, does this mean a greater stimulus for increasing VO2max?

Anybody have any anecdotal data on increasing AWC with focused training? (ie what % did you increase your AWC w/ training)?

acoggan said:

Endurance-trained cyclists have few, if any, type IIb (IIx) fibers remaining, as they've all been converted to type IIa.

True I hadn't thought about that but muscle fibers aren't all at the same capacity are they? Don't certain fibers need to have higher force requirements to be called on?

acoggan said:

The (still unanswered) question is, does this mean a greater stimulus for increasing VO2max?

It has promise- we'll see- In this particular case it is more specific to his TT. That being said I assume your talking about being a greater stimulus then the standard 5x5 workout or its brothers. 5x5 isn't exactly the "perfect" workout either. But in this instance it possibly has the same effects but is much more specific. And keep in mind that these aren't the 100/50 variety which has been shown not to elicit vo2max in cyclists. 110/70 is a different ball game.

gimpy_calfee said:

Anybody have any anecdotal data on increasing AWC with focused training? (ie what % did you increase your AWC w/ training)?

I included just such an example in the talk I gave on powermeter use on the track at the recent cycling summit...you can download it from www.fixedgearfever.com (or I can just tell you that by doing standing start kilometer efforts just 1x/wk I was able to increase mine by ~33% in just 6 wk).

gvanwagner said:

True I hadn't thought about that but muscle fibers aren't all at the same capacity are they? Don't certain fibers need to have higher force requirements to be called on?

Yes, but the reason I brought it up was to illustrate that it is a mistake to strictly interpret metabolic responses as being a function of motor unit recruitment patterns. The perfect example of this (again) is microintervals, which entail significant recruitment of type II motor units but result in a physiological/metabolic/neurohormonal "profile" consistent with the (much lower) average power at which they are performed.

gvanwagner said:

It has promise

My point is that there is no research to either support or refute the "time at/near VO2max" hypothesis (which dates back to the 1960s). To design intervals sessions based on this idea is therefore basically operating on faith.

whoawhoa said:

Can I expect significant AWC gains with the longer intervals

Based on my experience, the answer would be "no".

acoggan said:

I included just such an example in the talk I gave on powermeter use on the track at the recent cycling summit...you can download it from www.fixedgearfever.com (or I can just tell you that by doing standing start kilometer efforts just 1x/wk I was able to increase mine by ~33% in just 6 wk).

Hi....

Can you tell me where on that website I can find your presentation?

Also, to make sure I understood correctly......You did standing start kilo efforts once per week with no other targeted Level 6 work and increased awc by 33% in 6 weeks? That seems quite significant! [img]cyclingforums.comsmile.gifOpen ↗[/img]

EDIT: Ah, after quite a bit of searching I've come across a presentation titled 'Track Applications of a PM'

Lucy_Aspenwind said:

Hi....

Can you tell me where on that website I can find your presentation?

Sorry, I would have linked directly to it if I'd realized before now that it was possible:

http://www.fixedgearfever.com/downloads/TrackApplicationsForAPowermeter.ppt

(If that doesn't work, sign up for an account, then follow the 'Downloads' option from the menu on the left hand side of the page.)

Lucy_Aspenwind said:

Also, to make sure I understood correctly......You did standing start kilo efforts once per week with no other targeted Level 6 work and increased awc by 33% in 6 weeks?

That's correct.

The workouts, BTW, consisted of 6 x 1 km all-out from a standing start, w/ ~10 min of easy pedaling between efforts...and if you want a feel for what effects a training program that places an even greater emphasis on level 6 might have, download or view this presentation:

http://www.fixedgearfever.com/downloads/PASO.ppt

and check out the last few slides.

acoggan said:

I included just such an example in the talk I gave on powermeter use on the track at the recent cycling summit...you can download it from www.fixedgearfever.com (or I can just tell you that by doing standing start kilometer efforts just 1x/wk I was able to increase mine by ~33% in just 6 wk).

What are standing start kilometer efforts?

(edit: never mind, I read your next post)

Edit again...how long are these intervals? In the realm of 1-2 minutes?

Aside from being part of a formula used to generate a power/duration curve, would anybody be kind enough to explain me what anaerobic work capacity is?

How is it different from anaerobic capacity?

And why on earth would one favor using 2min intervals, knowing how stressful they can be on aerobic system, to improve anaerobic capacity?