Question about S/W chart in WKO4
This is a chart that shows up in WKO4. I read it to say I'm pretty good at long intervals(duh, all my training for years has been that way), but really suck at shorter time efforts. I'm currently semi-retired from triathlons and am trying to up my game road biking to ride with the faster groups. I get dropped on hill surges. So, this chart indicates I should do more 1', 2' long hard efforts. Does it make sense to keep long intervals(12-20') on Tuesdays and short(30"-5') on Thursdays. Seems like I've heard not to work on both at the same time?
Thanks
0
Comments
For me that chart is biased to the FTP realm (it's only an hour "long"). Within that hour, it's showing you opportunities to challenge your current training aka strengths. I put those together since what you train is what you are good at.
In your case, I would modify your basic Full / Half week to look like this:
I can't see the graph you posted but I have spent some time trying to figure out WKO. One of the graphs they talk a lot about is the one here that compares your PD curve to your MMP curve. Look for points on the graph where your actual data (MMP) is below your expected data (PD). For me, at this time it's 5 seconds, 1 minute and 1 hour. Once identified, work really hard at these precise intervals. A couple of assumptions built in; first you should be working on all duration of your power on a regular basis - so if you only do FT work, the rest of the graph is kind of meaningless. This also assumes you are working to be an all round cyclist looking for weaknesses in your power output. Like me, if you're mostly a long course triathlete, then 5-hour power matters a whole lot more than your ability to surge for 20 seconds.
The good news/bad news thing about the WKO program is that it is incredibly flexible. It's super easy to create and modify charts. As a result, there are now 100s of cool charts to look at. It's a little mind-boggling. I tend to pull some down, modify them, use them for a while and then delete them. I follow the Facebook group for ideas and discussions. At the end of the day, there are probably 5 or 6 things I look at on a regular basis, then deep dive on a topic, learn about it and how it applies to me and then delete and move on (hopefully a little smarter!)
"Weekend rides (after intervals on Saturday, whenever you want on Sunday) just crush a 30 second hill. Road bike, in the drops, get speed so the momentum is there and power over it. Think 85rpms...not a 50rpm killer road climb...Town Line Sprints would also be good. You'd be looking for 6 to 8 of these in the first few weeks."
is a great way to build strength across various RPMs.
The advice (from the WKO crew) for testing and for trying to maximize the repeats on the short durations has been high RPM, small chain ring efforts while climbing at 3-4%.
Generally you can sustain the higher powers that you need in the FRC+ zones longer this way.
This is also a good way to test Pmax. The WKO model is heavily influenced by Pmax. I suggest getting a good Pmax test in there so that your curve reshapes.
First, I love the modeled FTP number (mFTP). If your data is accurate, the mFTP is excellent. No need to test regularly. I can see it start to spike up in the offseason and then gradually decline into the Ironman build phase. I rarely update FTP in TrainingPeaks anymore.
Speaking of accurate data, it's surprising how many files area corrupted with bad data that will skew all your analysis. I set up a small chart on my dashboard to look at power over 1 second and longer. It's an easy way to catch power spikes. If I see my 1-second power over 800 watts I know there is a problem so I go find the file and correct the data. I use TrainingPeaks graphs to catch power drops. It's surprising how often there is a block of zeros in the data that shouldn't be there. I typically ignore them unless the ride file is super important to get right.
It seems to me that we may be 'over-thinking' this. What matters for triathletes is our ability to push steady big watts for a longish time, and then run up to around our ability. Let's talk about 70.3 but the same idea holds for 140.6.
So for me, I need to be able to execute an IF around 0.82, with a low VI, based on my race history and EN guidance.
So the only part of the PD curve that I am interested in is around 2:30 to 2:50, and in training, I want that number to be as high as I can drive it.
I can't copy my PD curve for some reason. But anyway, these are the details where the PD curve differs from my MMP.
@ max I have 515 watts, compared to 582 watts.
consequently I am below the PD curve until 5 secs.
from 5 secs to 20 secs I am over the PD curve.
from 20 secs to 2 mins I am under the PD curve.
from 2 mins to 20 mins I am above the PD curve.
from 20 mins to 1.75 hours I am below the PD curve.
and from 1.75 hours until 3 hours I am above the PD curve.
Because my max is much lower than the PD model, mFTP is well below my actual FTP (188mFTP compared to 195 to 200 watts.) A few months ago when my FTP was around 190 watts, mFTP was 185 despite me putting up NP60 of 193 watts. So I don't think that curve has much useful information to me. That said, I will raise a question or two about it soon.
Because of where I am in my current build (just about to start week 13 of the intermediate 70.3), I am about to start VO2 max intervals mid week. I expect that this VO2 max block will push up my FTP (based on belief in EN plans and my personal experience). I am thinking ceilings and roofs here. And that when that happens, I will be able to push up my power in the range 2.30 to 2:50. And this should lead to a faster bike split.
Now I acknowledge that my PD curve would agree that I 'need' some intervals in the 20 sec to 2 min range because I am below the curve for that period. But I am also below the max predicted and don't see any reason why I should spend any time on increasing my max because I can't see how that would help me in the range 2:30 to 2:50. I feel the same about the other range where I am below the PD curve (40 mins to 2 hours).
But I could be wrong?
For me to be wrong, you would have to be arguing that all points to the right of a particular point on the PD curve must be influenced by all the points to the left — which seems unlikely to me
Any thoughts?
Thanks for the advice/suggestions.
I watched all the WKO4 webinars, including theb one on Optimised Intervals. Tim makes a heap of sense, and I have bought into the concepts.
I have done just 2 FRC interval sessions (which I selected because the PD curve with error calculations showed that time period was where I was lowest compared to my PD curve). Over this period my mFTP has risen from 189 to 195 watts.
BTW, I have also using Tim's suggestions on training my TTE (which is fatigue resistance). On my APB ride, I sit on an IF of 0.85 for 1.5 x my TTE, rest for 10 mins and then repeat. Over time I hope to push that out to 2.0 x TTE.
Also, on Saturday's long ride, I am doing the single FTP interval instead of the EN plan prescribed FTP work. For me, it is 34 mins (my TTE) @ 190 watts (last week), and hope to push that up to my mFTP over the coming weeks.
So thanks again for encouraging me to look more closely at WKO4.
Cheers
Peter