Discuss: Hi End vs Lo End of Ranges

morpheus

I've looked for studies but came up empty.  Everything seems to point to conclusions, but no studies specific.  I was hoping to cite specifics.  I'll keep looking.

95% vs 100%.  The rewards come from working in the window.  It doesn't have to be breaking thru the ceiling every time.  Bottom line...consistent, hard work pays off.  And, I've read (and I'm looking for where I found it) that the 95-100% is more fluid than we think b/c an actual FTP moves a little every day, + or -, depending on life & training fatigue levels.  Of course, it's only practical to set the bar once every 6-8 weeks and then work on %'s based on how high that bar is.  Practical for the real world.  But, it's so important to have an 'as accurate as possible' FTP so that workouts that hover around 96,95, even 94% are as close as possible to that bar that has been established.  

What I want to see, in some fancy study OR in testimony from teammates, is that the progress still happens, in the end, when I (or you) hit a rough stretch and I (or you) can only manage 95% instead of 1.01%.  

Not to mention, I'd bet on the guy that combines consistent proper recovery/nutrition/sleep with 95% IF's any day of the week if the 1.01%er isn't doing the same with recovery.

Now, this is not to hate on the many that live over 1.0 IF.  Heck, that could simply be a result of a slightly sub par test.  This discussion is geared more towards giving hope to the folks out there who might think they are coming up short b/c they have to work their a$$ off to hit .96 or .97.

Like I said, I'd love to see some controlled studies that show similar results between a crew that did an FTP build using 95% intervals vs a crew that used 100% intervals.  But, I'm guessing that all of this is just too individual and too variable to put 95%ers and 100%ers in a vacuum.

I'm sure that this applies to the other windows, too.  80 vs 85%, for example.

Consistent, hard work pays off.  3 words of equal value.  Consistent.  Hard.  Work.

Any thoughts?

rlh2000

I think another factor is how well you can test. This is my third year in EN and I just finally can kinda do a decent test. And now that I'm working with those numbers, hitting 1.0 or above is a heck of a lot harder. I did my mid-OS test and had a 10% gain. I was thrilled, but man, I could NOT hold the 1.0 (or above) I was previously. The first week after testing I targetted .95 and worked up from there.

As for the consistency, I say that matters within a workout too, not just day to day. Tonight I was targetting 2x15', and the first came in at just about 1.0. Ended up having the pull the plug on the second. I should have assessed in the WU that 1.0 wasn't in the cards, dialed it down to 0.95, and maybe I would have gotten through both.

JeremyBehler

This is my 5th year with EN. I think you will find different viewpoints here from those that follow the plan to a T to the other extreme. I have never been a great tester. I am however very good at discipline of making my workouts and hitting my numbers. I have followed more of an ebb and flow approach...often bypassing formal tests. If I find myself consistently hitting or achieving numbers I will tweak my ftp every couple weeks. As you build up more experience you will learn what you can do I took all year off last year so really had no basis and as a result did a formal test in week 1 and tested at 230 which is about 45 watts shirt of my 2013 peak. The first couple weeks I was building back my power and endurance but after week 2 I upped it to 245 and then last week I upped it to 260 and have Ben hitting my numbers with the appropriate balance of consistency and pushing. As you build up more rides/training/tests you will have more data to analyze and see what works best for you.

morpheus

OK. Testing. This is discussed often. I was looking for the 95% vs 100% stuff but if you don't know what the 100% is, you can't know where 95% is. So, it comes back to that.

My idea here is based on assuming we know our FTP, whether by testing or swag.

I'm holding .97s to 1.02s, depending on the day and the circumstances.

But, I'm thinking about changing my target for the workout. I'm very curious as to what may happen if I target the low end of the windows for the workouts. This sounds like wussin' out but I'm not so sure it is.

If I test consistently (or swag appropriately, for many), and I train inside the window, be it 95 or 96%, I believe that the results could be interesting. It ''might' provide a bit of energy to be used across the board on other things.

It's early in the season. Wondering about signing up for this experiment on myself.

Joe Matchette

It does come back to the accuracy of the Benchmark.

I am thinking we might be "measuring with a micrometer -- cutting with an axe" here with respect to 95% versus 100%.

Progressive overload. Adequate recovery. Varied stimulus.

All required for muscle adaptation.

So what does all that mean in the end? I think that, pardon the expression, "IT'S ALL GOOD!" As long as we follow the principles above, then we will get stronger, more durable, etc.

Yesterday reminded me that if I do the first interval at 95% or so, I will be much more likely to hit higher on the subsequent. And, as a matter of my own psychology, I 'feel' better about the workout when I see an increase across the intervals. That does not mean to sandbag at the start. Rather, it is like the admonition on the VO2 days --- Don't be Hero at the start and a Zero at the end.

Jan Schorpion

Chris, when I first got started with EN for the 2013 NOS, I had never used power on the bike, was of the belief I always had to hold 19-20mph on the bike and couldn't ride on the trainer for more than 45 min. I signed up for trainerroad and began using virtual power. My first FTP test was 226W and in the subsequent OS workouts, I was unable to hold 8-10min at 100%. I began riding at the 95% range and would hold this power. Over the next several weeks I would increase this to mid range and then eventually I would be able to hold 100% for the shorter to mid-range zone 4 intervals, but had to stay at the lower end for the longer ones. 

Currently I shoot for 100% for zone 4 intervals, but when it comes to riding at 1.1 or 1.2 , it ends up being 1.07 or 1.17. 

I think when I was first introduced to power metrics, having a range was very beneficial. I would not have been able to continue keeping up with the workouts if I had to hit 100% all time time, I think fatigue would've gotten the best of me. Therefore I believe that you will continue to see gains when riding frequently at .95 vs 1.0, although your FTP bump may be smaller. 

morpheus

Right. I think that is what I'm getting at.

Am I getting less of a wko on a day when I can only muster, say, 93%? I don't think so. Hard work gets results. If 93% was tough, then it was a tough workout.

And, this brings up the point of logging data and watching trends. Living on workouts that hit (only) 95% consistently and then testing status quo or improving, as well as staying strong & improving on the run and swim tells me 'carry on'. But, living on workouts that hit 91-95%, having similar frustrations with the run, not sleeping well, no mojo, HR lagging or racing, these are clues for the athlete to rest up, maybe swag down temporarily (?).

The science behind all of this is incredible. The art of it may be incredibler

Coach Rich

Great discussion! My notes:

• .93 to .95 is certainly better, within the context of those handful of intervals across the week which are our primary tools for getting faster, than 80-85%. 
• For me, it's about tweaking my week constantly to create conditions for successful key workouts, bike and run. I'm always moving things around, experimenting, and preparing myself mentally, nutritionally, musically  to succeed in these sessions, or do it better than last week. At some point I think it's valuable to look at a calendar and count how many bike and run interval sessions you have on the books before your race = a limited number of opportunities to make myself faster = what do I need to do, changes to make, etc to ensure I have the best sessions possible. 

Al Truscott

"80% of success is just showing up" - doing structured workouts on a consistent, nearly daily basis, is the core/foundation of a good training program.

Chris asks, "how specific should the ranges be" and "what - if anything- is the benefit of consistently training @ 1.0 IF compared to 0.95 IF for cycling intervals?" These elements of an answer have already been noted here:

• One key is maintaining that ability to consistently come out daily and perform. If keeping the intervals @ 95% instead of 100% allows you to do that, then that;s a good thing.
• Constant self-monitoring of early warning signs of over-training is critical: sleep, diet, mood, weight, fatigue before, during, after wkos etc.
• "Everyone is different", meaning greater or lesser ability to perform at the various energy systems being trained. I may be great at holding 1.0 for 2x20, but routinely fail @ 1.2 for 6x 2', doing much better @ 1.1 or 1.15. And vice versa.
• Some means of identifying one's "baseline" is imperative, whether by routine testing, or tweaking based on performance in workouts.

All of this is based on the science of muscle physiology - the various energy systems which drive muscular work. They all need to be trained for good race day performance. They each respond best to specific types of training as sorted by time and effort. And they all overlap, so, to some degree, they are all *always* being trained. The ranges and times have come about primarily for optimum use of training time and recovery. EG, you *could* train your VO2 max system by just riding for six hours a day @0.6- 0.7 IF, but that would be a MASSIVE waste of time, to say nothing of the fatigue build up and impact on your "real life".