2015 NOS Week 9 Bike – The Easy Part is Over!
Yup, we’ve been working extremely hard but the most challenging part
of the OS is yet to come. You have 8
weeks of hard work under your belt and a nice load of fatigue. On top of that a lot of us have new improved
numbers to reach for and the intervals aren’t getting any shorter. This is the time when chronic overachieving
will catch up to you; so be smart as you approach the next 6 weeks.
Whether your first eight weeks were rock solid or you weren’t
able to do what you wanted it’s time to refocus.
Examine what you did right and where you want to improve. Re-examine the goals you set at the beginning
of the OS to remind yourself what you want to accomplish. Adjust your goals or set new ones accordingly. As the training plan says, we have 18 bike
workouts left in the OS, make each session count. Bring that same enthusiasm you had the first few weeks of OS to every workout from here on out.
Get out there and ride.
Report back to let us know how it's going and so that we can share in your triumph (or misery).
Comments
3 x 15 @ .99, .99, .99
Didn't get around to posting Saturday's wko
2 x 15' and 5' @ 1.0, .99 and .98
Looking forward to a rest day tomorrow. Good luck on everyone's workouts this week!
I'm with Teri...that 3rd interval was NO fun today! I also had tomorrows bike done today to line up this week.
3 x 15' @ 1.0, 1.0, 1.0
My HR monitor is on the fritz again and I tore it off after 12'...I'll try a battery change and hope it helps!
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/655168808
Very tough but managed to make it ... no overachieving here though!
WU w/ 12' Z3 @ 252 - 0.84 IF - 1.00 VI
Then 3x 12' Z4 as:
292 - 0.97 IF - 1.00 VI
293 - 0.98 IF - 0.99 VI
299 - 1.00 IF - 0.99 VI
http://www.strava.com/activities/232013173
I do wonder if I have been over reaching. Is Training Peaks good for this kind of analysis?
Thanks.
My 5' test was 310, and my 20' was 270. These are mixed results because my first test gave 5' as 286 and 20' as 276. My V02 Max was WAY higher, and my FTP was slightly lower.
At first I was really excited by the results because I was using a bogus algorithm to calculate my FTP: ((5' Max + 20' Max)/2) * .95 placing me in the 4.0 club! But alas, thanks to some kind hints by the vets here (in my Strava comments), I've learned that only the 20' test matters.
Here's the conundrum: On the first test I turned in low numbers on my 5' test and hammered my 20' so I had better numbers to train with. This time I hammered my 5' and laid it all out there on my 20' as well, but didn't beat the first test numbers. Although I've brought my best effort both times, I've gotten worse, even though I feel myself getting stronger on my rides and spins.
I get the 20' * .95 theory to estimate the FTP, and agree that my original algorithm was probably bogus, but it seems odd that the estimate of FTP doesn't take into account the 5' test at all. I was wiped after that thing and it DEF affected my performance on the 20'.
Can someone give me some insight?
Thanks!
Did my 3 x 12 this AM at .95, 1.01 & .99. That was not easy.
@Brian: Remember, FTP is a measure of your one hour power. The 5 minute is meant to give you some fatigue before your 20 minute test. Some people like to do the 20/2/20 test.
Tues. bike workout done, kinda. Suppose to be 3X 12', had to do 2 X 12', 1 X 6' for time. Small power bump kicking my butt. Going to be a busy day, fortunately after today I'm off til 1/5/15 !
2 X 12' @ 1.01, 1.00, 1 X 6' @ 1.00
Really good session despite a hectic morning, packing and loading up the truck for a family Christmas retreat in the GA mountains. Squeezed in enough time for an hour on the trainer. 3 x 12' @ .99, 1.00, 1.00. No over achieving the second half of the OS for me. The three intervals felt good, no stress in HR, breathing or legs. Time to hit the road. No biking for me until Saturday.
Merry Christmas!
My thinking is that the intensity of the 5' test, in combination with the amount of rest between that and the 20' has a significant impact on the performance of the 20' test. If everything is consistent test to test (which is the goal) I agree that the 20' test will supply consistent results. But the reality is that may not be entirely true from test to test. In my case, even though I pushed as hard as I could on both tests both times, I don't think I was psychologically capable of reaching my V02 Max on the 5' test the first time, which in turn improved my 20' results the first time. The second test I was able to push more on the 5', making my 20' worse.
I just think the correct formulation should take into account these factors (5' intensity, rest time between, AND 20' avg. pwr) in order to provide a more accurate FTP and resultant zone levels. I feel I've definitely been improving, but my two tests don't reflect that.
@ EVERYONE: What are some well respected resources considering the theory behind all these different test formulations (1hr, 20-2-20, 5-20, etc.)? I'd like to look into this further.
Still a very demanding workout and overall I'm very satisfied with my power output.
http://tpks.ws/9xpB
Total workout of 1:22 with 289 NP and IF 0.93
1st 15' Z4 @ 313 / 1.00
2nd 15' Z4 @ 310 / 0.99
3rd 15' Z4 @ 310 / 0.99
I checked how I did that specific workout last year and guess what ... I had to pull the plug after 10' in the last segment!! Additionally my NP #s per segment are about 2% higher this OS
Wow, I was not prepared for all that the Tuesday bike workout was going to do. When I originally looked at the WKO, I did not see "3". I was prepared for a 2 X 15' ride. My legs were pretty tired to begin with from the last three days of work. Before the workout, my stomach felt like just before a race. The warm-up confirmed that my legs were indeed tired, so I chose to ride at .95 IF and see if I could hold that for all three intervals. # 1 went fairly well and I held steady watts and cadence. #2 was work. My average HR crept up a few bpm and I could really feel the fight was coming. #3 was a cage match. Through ten minutes I was down 4 watts from my goal and losing cadence. Over the next three minutes The gorilla was still landing body shots, but I had pulled back two watts. The final two minutes were bloody. I dropped into a bigger gear and started slugging. In the end, I made up 3 more watts. My intervals finished: 257W @ 0.952 IF, 256W @ 0.948 IF & 258W @ 0.955 IF. I'm counting this as one up on the gorilla.
http://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/655616663
@Everyone, In regards to the FTP test protocols. I personally like the 2 X 20' test. It gets me the closest to that 1 hour actual. Without access to a velodrome, I would be very hard pressed to be able to push out an actual 1 hour effort at that level. I don't believe I would be able to stay that focused on a trainer.
FTP Test today was tough, but awesome - up to FTP of 213, which is a 17W improvement from my first test. I'm happy, if not a bit surprised. I think I underestimated my fitness a bit going in, but I also think maybe I didn't push hard enough for my initial test? I think I suffered a LOT more this time.
Today was no joke. Thank goodness for 1970's disco groove. The third interval was TOUGH. Heart rate crept up, watts dropped slightly. Ended with an IF of 0.91. Not bad. Starting to understand TSS and IF to predict work intensity. Still in run jail, so i'm focusing on riding daily for the next week. Should get kicked out of jail next week.
Yes, I was listening to "Dance fever".
FTP target : 250W
Intervals were:
1) 254W (1.02)
2) 253W (1.01)
3) 252W (1.01)
for 1hr9min... and 94 TSS
Link--> http://connect.garmin.com/activity/655762591
The definition of FTP (in simple terms) is the maximum power that you can sustain for 1 hour. As Rachel mentioned, the truest way to determine your FTP is to go out and ride as hard as you possibly can for 1 hour. For most people this is mentally and physically the same as being tortured, or at least it should feel that way.
The two FTP tests that I am familiar with and that are most common on the team are the 5/20 test that you completed and the 2 X 20 test that Ed mentioned. Each test has its advantages and disadvantages and I'm guessing certain people's power profiles are more suited to one test or the other.
In the scheme of things crushing yourself for 20 minutes just isn't the same as destroying yourself for an hour. As Mark mentioned, this is one of the reasons that the 5' VO2 segment is included in the 5/20 test. If done properly you burn some matches during that 5' segment and just cannot bring the same amount of power as you could during a stand alone 20 minute interval, however, you can still put out more power than you would be able to for a full 60 minutes. This is why the 5% reduction is made. The two advantages to this test that stick out to me are 1)you are able to determine a more accurate VO2 number, 2) the "hard" part of the test takes less time 25' vs 40' or 60'.
When I first started with EN the recommended test was a 2 X 20'(2') test. You take the NP of those 42' and call that your FTP. You determine your VO2 levels by riding at 1.1 or 1.2 of that determined number. Again, you can ride harder for two - 40 minute intervals than you could for a full hour, but with the 2' rest/recovery period between the intervals, it brings your NP down enough to simulate what your FTP would be. In my opinion the advantages are that you don’t burn your legs up with the 5’ VO2 segment and you’re riding hard for 40’ which is more similar to a true 60’ TT.
I've tried the 5/20 test a number of times and I just cannot recover from that 5' segment. Ultimately testing is about finding an accurate number that challenges you during training and provides you the ability to race at your full potential.
I’m sure there are a bunch of other ways to test. In the 1st week NOS thread Coach Rich mentioned a climb that he frequently rides. He has a formula he uses to determine his FTP from that climb. I think the longer you ride with power the easier it will be for you to get a rough idea of what your FTP is. If you think you had a bad test you can always retest ? It’s a good workout in itself. The other thing you can do is bump your watts up a little. Just make sure you don’t overdo it. In the last half of the OS overachieving can bite you hard.
If you are still interested in additional methods of testing and can’t find anything in the wiki or forums go ahead and post the question. I’m sure a bunch of people will be able to chime in and provide some insight.
The new FTP is rough. 2x15 done with IF 1.02 and IF.98. With the new FTP I have to concentrate a lot more now to maintain the watts.
12' @ 0.95
12' @ 0.98
10' @ 0.96
Good to get it done.
Late start but got the MS done. Like everyone else, I had a hard time from midway thru interval 2, right till the end. That. Was. Hard.
3 x 15' (3') @ .992; .995; .988
No extra credit this time and no brick run either, just not enough time in a day sometimes.
Full ride in 1:10 @ .914 and I hope I still have legs in the morning......
DUmb questions Peeps. When the JOS starts are we all going to transition to that group or do we stay here in our warm, comfy, NOS thread?