Home General Training Discussions

Targets and Plan Structure

 I think this is directed more at the coaches, but here's the question that I have.  I'm now in the intermediate OS, started in beginner.  Since starting the plan, I'm quite sure that FTP has gone up considerably.   My "old" targets feel easy.  Is that factored in to how the plan is designed? In other words, if the plan is 2x15@FTP, followed by strides, followed by running interval day after six weeks, does the plan assume that that's "really" your FTP from a training perspective?  Or does it assume that you've adapted somewhat, and that those bike intervals are really more sweet spot efforts (same with the run), and that's why you really shouldn't try to overachieve?  

The reason I ask is that I'm one of those folks that sets the 95 percent as a floor on the bike, and then tries to beat it (not just hold).  As I look down the road, however, the plan gets HARD.  2x15 and 1x10 in the sweet spot followed by a run is a very different w/o from 2x15 @ FTP.  Make sense?

Comments

  • RnP put in periodic retests so you can earn that number. If it seems easy now, just give it time. 14 weeks of an OS (esp when some of us have done 20ish weeks) should seem "easy", but the fatigue builds.

    Check out some of the advice forum posts in the wiki, about not pushing, trust the plan, etc.

    The way it works around here, in da haus, is to earn your training marks (ex, FTP, vDot). If you feel that the current numbers are too "easy", then retest to earn your next number/FTP/vDot.
  • Not sure I understand your question...

    The bike intervals are at 95-100%. Some people's FTP rise more than others between tests so I suppose the 95-100% number is more true for some than others, between tests. 

  •  I think Chris is asking "Why does the amount of work time increase progressively over the weeks of the OS?" 

  • Posted By Al Truscott on 10 Jan 2013 09:14 AM

     I think Chris is asking "Why does the amount of work time increase progressively over the weeks of the OS?" 



    Because if I'm keeping the intensity constant (each interval at 95-100%) and capping the volume of each session (~60' per session on the weekends) then my remaining tool to increase the TSS of each session and encourage adaptation is to increase the minutes per session of Z4 work. 

    When you test, you establish a Bigger Number and 95-100% of a bigger number is a Bigger Number...but you're also more fit = able to handle/put up that bigger number so...

     

  • Posted By Rich Strauss on 10 Jan 2013 09:43 AM
    Posted By Al Truscott on 10 Jan 2013 09:14 AM

     I think Chris is asking "Why does the amount of work time increase progressively over the weeks of the OS?" 



    Because if I'm keeping the intensity constant (each interval at 95-100%) and capping the volume of each session (~60' per session on the weekends) then my remaining tool to increase the TSS of each session and encourage adaptation is to increase the minutes per session of Z4 work. 

    When you test, you establish a Bigger Number and 95-100% of a bigger number is a Bigger Number...but you're also more fit = able to handle/put up that bigger number so...

     



    No, chris was asking is the intention to balance TSS against the fact that the body will adapt.  If I understand RIch's response correctly, the plan assumes that your FTP doesn't budge between tests, and for some people, it may not budge much.  Let's put it in context.  Assume FTP is tested at 200.  After 6 weeks of work, 95 percent intervals at 190 feel like tempo/SST both in terms of RPE and in terms of repeated heart rate measurements.  If you tested, you'd beat the old benchmark, but the plan doesn't call for it.  So in reality, those 3x15 intervals followed by a run is really SST followed by a run, and easier on the body. 

    If I understand Rich correctly, the plan doesn't assume that.  It assumes that you can handle more work, but not necessarily that you'll do it any faster or that you're underachieving after a particular period of time.  It assumes that you could handle that load @ your FTP even if it never changed in those 6 weeks (which given what I've been going through is bloody unlikely).  

     

    EDIT-unlikely that FTP would not rise after this kind of effort.

  • Posted By Chris Mohr on 10 Jan 2013 03:55 PM
    Posted By Rich Strauss on 10 Jan 2013 09:43 AM
    Posted By Al Truscott on 10 Jan 2013 09:14 AM

     I think Chris is asking "Why does the amount of work time increase progressively over the weeks of the OS?" 



    Because if I'm keeping the intensity constant (each interval at 95-100%) and capping the volume of each session (~60' per session on the weekends) then my remaining tool to increase the TSS of each session and encourage adaptation is to increase the minutes per session of Z4 work. 

    When you test, you establish a Bigger Number and 95-100% of a bigger number is a Bigger Number...but you're also more fit = able to handle/put up that bigger number so...

     



    No, chris was asking is the intention to balance TSS against the fact that the body will adapt.  If I understand RIch's response correctly, the plan assumes that your FTP doesn't budge between tests, and for some people, it may not budge much.  Let's put it in context.  Assume FTP is tested at 200.  After 6 weeks of work, 95 percent intervals at 190 feel like tempo/SST both in terms of RPE and in terms of repeated heart rate measurements.  If you tested, you'd beat the old benchmark, but the plan doesn't call for it.  So in reality, those 3x15 intervals followed by a run is really SST followed by a run, and easier on the body. 

    If I understand Rich correctly, the plan doesn't assume that.  It assumes that you can handle more work, but not necessarily that you'll do it any faster or that you're underachieving after a particular period of time.  It assumes that you could handle that load @ your FTP even if it never changed in those 6 weeks (which given what I've been going through is bloody unlikely).  

     

    EDIT-unlikely that FTP would not rise after this kind of effort.



    Ok. The only way we could do that is if you measured / assessed / tested / advanced your FTP more frequently:

    • A couple versions of the OS plan back we tested about every 4wks. We, as a team, decided this was too much and / or not necessary. 
    • Brown Belt Training with Power is to collect your data over time and use software tools to analyze that data and determine if/how much your FTP has risen = can adjust it upwards when the data shows it's warranted, without the need the test. 
    • ^This^ is sorta the method I use. I haven't done a formal FTP test in years, nor do I do formal intervals. I ride "courses" and have years and years of history on these. I have one hill in particular that is 3.1 miles at 5-6%, takes me 18-21' to climb, as a function of fitness and fatness. 93% of my number up that hill, on a road bike, has been a very good estimate of my FTP. So I TT up it and if my IF for the inteval is >1.07 I know that I'm due for an FTP bump. I use 90% / > 1.10 for me up the hill on a tri bike. The net is that I'm pretty much racing Old Rich whenever I get on the bike and ride hard. 
    • Finally, the bike warrants a little bit more risk than the run. That is, if the interval is 95-100% but you find yourself riding at 103% and it feels ok, you're probably not going to die and that's a warranted course of action.

    But the Golden Rule of Self-Coaching is:

    How is what I'm doing NOW going to affect my downstream workouts. 

    In short, manage yourself in real time and don't crush Tuesday at the cost of boogering Wednesday. 

  • Rich-

    Thanks for the response. 

    You've pretty much described exactly how I used power last year.  I had a couple of key w/outs that I would do (sufferfest vids), and based on the performance, would raise the FTP 5w when IF>1.05 or so.  After just following the OS plan, I realize that I was making several mistakes in using that approach.  The first was that there was never a "rest" week.  The second was that every workout was to the redline.  Some days I'd kill it.  Other days, I wouldn't; the graphs would look like dfib.  That's why I'm so curious about the logic of the plans; I was riding all told about 7hrs per week and spending a fair amount of time in z4/z5, and plateaued at just shy of 3w/kilo in March.

    In the OS, there has yet to be a day where I have missed a target on the bike (knock on wood) although RPE varies widely (pre-ride dairy not a good idea).  Progress on the run's different, due to managing an injury, but that has improved a lot as well. Knowing that all I have to do is stay at 95 percent (like you said, if I can do better, then great, but I don't need to do better to get the benefit) has made a huge difference.  Since I bumped the plan from beginner to intermediate, I haven't messed with my numbers much and won't till the retest.  I am approaching where I was last year in terms of FTP intervals, despite NOT doing a 3hr ride every weekend.  In a sick kind of way, I'm bummed that the OS is nearly half-over for me.  (I'm sure I'll feel differently after the last six weeks -- those workouts look like real mfs.).

     

    EDIT: How do you get a black belt?

Sign In or Register to comment.