110% efforts

Dave Tallo

I see that the plans identify the longer (5 min'ish) Very Hard bike intervals done at 110 FTP as V02-type sessions ... but does this level actually target v02 and create the adaptations that work at "true" 120% would?  Or is it just done with the belief that your v02 power is really represented by a range (instead of a hard number), of which 110% is at the lower part of the range?   

Or are these *actually* targeting or working FTP?    A bit of necrophilia here, but I remember old Crucible Fitness workouts had athletes long-ish 10-15' sets at FT, with a final 5-8' set at 105-110%, with the intention of raising the ceiling versus roof.            

I don't doubt they're hard ... I just want to pin down what flavour of hard.

Al Truscott

@ Dave - I don't know the science, but I do know… these intervals do NOT *feel* like VO2 work. To me, anything that requires an all out effort for 90-120 seconds, done repetitively for a max of about 15 minutes total work time, is what I view as VO2 stuff. That seems like repeated bouts of anaerobic effort, with incomplete recovery. True, a five minute effort is defined as the VO2 test, but that's a one shot deal with a lot of recovery around it.

This stuff *feels* a lot more like FTP work. This is more like a set of 4x1 mile run repeats "with full recovery" at somewhere between 5K and 10K pace, not @ a one hour pace. I don't think it is doing anything to raise my roof, but it is REALLY helping my ceiling. Or maybe it's like doing 300s in the pool, as compared to 75s, which would be VO2 stuff for me.

The hardness folks are referring to I think is mainly in our heads, not our legs.

tim cronk

Most V02 zone definitions are 105-120%..... Think about it when you do a 20min FTP the whole thing is V02? Turns out its fairly accurate but I find it interesting to use a Z5 interval to estimate Z4....

When my FTP is estimated correctly anything over 1.0 is brutal and I come apart very fast.... Anything below 1.0 and I can hang on much longer.... Since zone definitions vary depending on who or what system and most FTP numbers are just estimates anyway.... I Have been trying to look at things differently .... I still use an estimated FTP to set my training zones but I look at max power numbers for each time frame from 30" all the way to 5hrs.... Each person will have a different percentage of the "FTP" for each time frame based on there strengths and weaknesses...IOW instead of thinking I can ride IF xx for a 2.5hr expected HIM bike split I look at it as what is my 2.5hr power....

Since my weakness is anything above FTP I started working "V02" last OS with 30/30's @ 130% (technically above V02) and worked the intervals up to 180/180's @ 110% over about 12 weeks . Then kept some V02 work all year in the form of riding outside and just hitting a few Strava segments all out.... This year for my OS I did the TR 40k TT plan which had a lot of 127%, 108% , and 105%.... Over 12 weeks worked up to 5 x 8 @ 105% and 6 x 5 @ 108% ......Some of the last wko's were 2 x 7' @ 105%, 2 x 5' @ 108%, 1x3'@115%, 1 x 2 @121%....I hardly did any 1.0 work during that 12 weeks.... Now I'm doing FTP .95-1.0 work but keeping my V02 work at 2min intervals @ 120%....

Did it work? I eeked out a couple more watts on my last FTP test above last year and my training intervals at new numbers are backing that up(we are talking miniscule gains).... I think there is plenty of room in a training plan for all of the above ... The key being how much of each, when in the plan, etc ... Which kinda brings us to your other thread I never replied to about adjusting your training after years.... When you get to Tucson I anticipate some good discussions!

To more directly answer your questions. All JMO...
NO... working at 110% is working something different than working at 120% ... 10% is big and I believe its exponential....
V02 range?.... for me I'm a believer that it begins closer to 105%
Targeting FTP?.... I think everything targets or affects FTP ....But I think each person will respond differently depending on strengths and weakness.... Sprinter or Diesel? What kind of stimulus is needed....

cgres123

@ Tim, way to go at becoming ones own lab rat, that is an interesting response especially

I still use an estimated FTP to set my training zones but I look at max power numbers for each time frame from 30" all the way to 5hrs

.

So I read this as every 30" you adjust your % of power downward for up to your IM finish time?

Keith Wick

The 110% intervals are based on this hack developed by Mike Graffeo. You can find this in the Wiki

http://members.endurancenation.us/Resources/Wiki/tabid/91/Default.aspx?topic=The+Five+Minute+Threshold+Hack+-+5MH

Joe Hallatschek

@Keith - excellent article! Since I am in run jail now with a torn calf muscle (thanks again to overdoing bounding drills) I need to work this in. Thanks!

Anu Rao

I don't know all the science especially when applied to biking.

However I come from running, the difference between the 90 and current 5 minute intervals, seemed like the difference between  Daniel's I and R workouts. The I intervals (5 minutes long with 3-4 minute recoveries) are intended to stress the VO2 system, while the R intervals (1-2 minutes @ mile pace) are for improvements in running economy, getting comfortable running faster etc.

tim cronk

@Dave M.... Not exactly.... Its really no different than our recommended IF's based on your expected Bike split.... I just look at it as my 5hr power or my 5.5hr power instead of a percentage of my "estimated FTP" For instance when I did KONA/IMFL last fall I had racked up 5 ---- 5hr bike rides of NP's ranging from 174-181(most were 175-176)...... THIS was beyond a doubt my 5hr power.... I targeted KONA below 170 on an estimated 5.5hr split to "take it easy and save it for IMFL" then targeted IMFL at the lower end of those 5hr rides with an expected bike split of 5hrs.... I also look at it as .... What w/kg did I ride for that time frame and not so much exactly what my w/kg is for my "estimated FTP".... Since I really had no idea exactly what my FTP was on both of those IM's because a. I hadnt tested since July and b. the test I did was a 20min estimate test.... But I know how much power I put out for each IM and I know how much I weighed so I know exactly what my w/kg was for each IM.

@Kieth Wick... awesome I didnt know Mike G. came up with that.... Coach P. had recommended I do that hack and that is when I started on my "vo2" quest! .... Back on subject I find 110% too hard to complete those and the 108% was about all I could handle and repeat..... Same thing just slightly different approach for someone like me a "diesel".

@Anu Rao.... good stuff and I have thought quite a bit about that as well.... Obviously in any SBR interval, the shorter it is the harder we can go.... The question that comes up alot is how long should the recovery interval be and at what percent of effort.... If we are looking for pure speed and power I believe the best approach is to take as much rest as needed to be able to repeat the interval at such a high level therefore logging more total time at that level or speed.... If we are looking for more endurance added to the mix I believe the approach would be to minimize the recovery time and intensity.... Me being the diesel engine has no problem with endurance but I need more absolute power and speed... So I have been doing whatever I need to so that I can log more time at higher power and speed paces....

Even in Swimming I read an article that made sense to me... The guy said most people do not rest enough inbetween sets.... Think about it... How many times have you seen a swim wko with hardly any rest... His theory was more rest so that you can do repeats at a faster pace... His favorite wko was a 100yd all out, hang on the wall 1min, 100yd easy, hang on the wall 1min, Repeat!

I think all these focussed V02 type wko's belong very early in ones season and then just maintained at a much lower percentage of volume year round as we focus more on the race specificity.

Rumpole

Funny--I was a lurker on ST and there was a thread on an "FTP improvement plan" that I never tried, but the basic setup was this: 2x20 @ 95-100; next day 1x20@105-110. Rest. Repeat until you break mentally or plateau. There's some flavor of that in the back half of the OS.

TH3 FRB

One mistake people often make is looking at "zones" as having absolute boundaries. The relative contribution of your various energy systems is a contiuum. Not only that, but working below the optimal effort of any given target system still has benefits. Just like riding at 92% FTP will train your FTP, riding below VO2 max will still create adaptations to your VO2, perhaps just not as effectively. I'd generally agree that something around 120% FTP probably targets VO2 max more directly but 110% for longer intervals like 5' can also be effective and might not result is the same amount of fatigue and be a better choice for endurance athlete types.

Rumpole

Sure--110 percent FTP = VO2 "sweet spot."

TH3 FRB

Posted By Chris Mohr on 09 Apr 2014 08:32 AM

Sure--110 percent FTP = VO2 "sweet spot."

Good way to look at it!  Just be sure to make the intervals long enough.  The first min or two won't be hitting your VO2max sufficiently but then you'll get 3-4min of decent stimulation in a 5min interval.

steve Beyer

Here is my "case study" with the 5' intervals at 110% FTP(or low end VO2), as opposed to the 30/30's or 1' intervals prescribed in last years outseason:

Beginning NOS 2102- FTP 238, VO2 316
End NOS- FTP 257, VO2 319

* FTP gain of 19 watts, and VO2 gain of 3 watts

Beginning JOS 2014- FTP 249, VO2 310
End JOS- FTP 274, VO2 331

* FTP gain of 25 watts, and VO2 gain of 21 watts

And to further put it into perspective, I went into the NOS with much more to gain potentially IMO, due to not being in NEAR as good as fitness as entering into JOS, having just put in a solid year of training which culminated with IMFL. My take is that I'm SOLD on the 5' intervals prescribed by the coaches this outseason!