Steady Power vs interval Power
To set the question I am 51 years old with 11 IM experince over a 10 year-ish tri career. I started training with the Base and race prep theory and came to Rich under Crucible Fitness and had my best year. I'm not looking to reinvent anything but I have found my training and execution changing as I age and as I figure it out wonder what I find has application to younger folk also.
As I age I am finding changes to my recovery and ability to nail training efforts like I used to (there is a great discussion of this in the Boomers section). So I find that I can do the 15 min interval with a 4 recovery very well at higher wattage than the 20 FTP intervals. This is no real surprise but I also find that the small recovery really helps so I have tried an experiment to see what 3 15 minute FTP intervals with 2 min rest would be (48 min test) compared to my 2 20 min with 2 min rest FTP test (42 min test). I find that my overall wattage is higher and I "feel" better spinning the 3 15 min intervals. I guess I have a larger wattage taper/drop off at about 15 minutes looking at my 20 min data. This may be a mental thing but I did last years OS without this sort of issue.
Could this translate to a race execution sort of wattage use where a short reduction in wattage (planned) can create some recovery that allows a higher overall wattage? I thought of it like the walking intervals of running and how that is used by many. So in a race it would be like a 80% for 15 min and then 70% for 2-4 and repeat? I am considering the "recovery" benefit for a higher overall ride wattage while preserving the run off the bike. The danger I see is driving a very high interval that does not have any real recovery over the IM distance and having no run.
Dusty
Comments
I like where your head is at; I'd want to know the overall "cost" of that kind of focus. Not to mention there are countless race situations / considerations where doing intervals might not work out (drafting, crowds, aid stations, downhills, etc). I am also not sure that your inability to ride as well at 2x20 vs 3x15 will translate to a .7 IF effort...do you find the same effect for longer intervals at a lower effort?
P
my recent (last year to year and a half) experience is that the longer, slower I go the stronger I am on the run (not a revelation). I have not lost any endurance as I can do a 7-8 hour ride at lower intensities and have fine recovery. This is in keeping with what i have read about endurance and getting older. The issue then is the fine line to get (or keep) the "fastest" bike i can get. I am finding that i can do an IF of .8 but am paying more for it as I get older(?). 3 years ago I had a .8 ride at IM AZ and was able to run a 3:45 marathon. The next year after the OS program I was stronger on the bike got a .8 if with a 10 min improvement on the bike but paid for it on the run for 20 minutes slower. And I had felt great coming off the bike. Conditions there with heat on the run that year also played a part. So there are maybe too many variables but I am just trying to keep thinking it thorugh as I keep track of my numbers and recovery. This is all on the trianer right now so when i get outside maybe it evens out on the road again.
But it leads me to consider at least that some sort of power/recovery technique may be suitable to maintain an overall higher IF as opposed to reducing the IF on the bike (and giving away some time) to preserve the run. Could an interval technique create a better ride time and preserve the run rather than a lower IF to preserve the run?
I'm with you that race conditions and course have a big impact. i was thinking if IM Lou where the hills themselves kind of set up an interval for steady on the uphill, drive through the top and cruise steady on the downhill.