Can WKO4 Optimised Intervals Significantly Improve My Run FTP?
I have designed an experiment to try and answer that question.
Success of that proposition would be demonstrated by two conditions being met:
(a) my run FTP continues to climb over the 12 week experiment; and
(b) both of the following: (1) my 1 minute maximum power improves proportionately more than the expected improvement that satisfies (a); and (2) my Vdot derived solely from the gains in run FTP is at an all time high. My best EN Vdot is 38 (which is equivalent to a run FTP of 215 watts @ 68 kgs).
Criteria (b)(2) is necessary as I only have run power data since April 2017.
The experiment uses the WKO4 Optimised Intervals, but for running, to systematically train the different energy systems that contribute to maximum power at durations of 5 seconds, 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 20 minutes.
The underlying idea supporting this experiment is that just as we accept that our bike FTP limits our potential IM bike split, maximum power for 1 minute may be limiting 5 minute power, as well as FTP itself. This maybe the case as EN plans have plenty of FTP intervals of of length between 8 to 12 minutes — as a consequence, our 20 minute power, and to a lessor extent, our 5 minute power should be well developed. In my case, at 65 years of age and approaching my 7th anniversary at EN, I expect that my run FTP is already maxed out.
However, in the plans I have used, I think the shortest run intervals have been around 3 minutes. So, I would expect my 1 minute power should respond significantly (at least at first ) to systematically training the energy systems that support my 1 minute power. And my intuition is that should my 1 minute power respond as I expect, I also expect that appropriate doses of FTP intervals should allow my FTP to rise higher that my current plateau.
Over the 12 week period, every 4 weeks I intend to provide updates to a number of measurements, including my 1 minute power, my run FTP, and my (hopefully) improvements in my 5 km time. Those expected improvements in my 5 km time will be disaggregated into the influences arising from the increase in FTP, as well as a consequence of weight loss, and the non-weight loss improvements in running efficiency as well.
I am putting the experiment out to the Team before I start 12 week experiment in the interests of transparency and accountability. I start the experiment next Monday.
In conclusion, I should point out that this experiment is part of a larger project — which is to achieve PBs for swim, bike and run at my favourite 70.3 on 18 February 2018.
Thanks for reading.
Oh, BTW, I have kept this brief in the interests of ease of readability, but would be happy to elaborate on any aspects of the experiment.
Success of that proposition would be demonstrated by two conditions being met:
(a) my run FTP continues to climb over the 12 week experiment; and
(b) both of the following: (1) my 1 minute maximum power improves proportionately more than the expected improvement that satisfies (a); and (2) my Vdot derived solely from the gains in run FTP is at an all time high. My best EN Vdot is 38 (which is equivalent to a run FTP of 215 watts @ 68 kgs).
Criteria (b)(2) is necessary as I only have run power data since April 2017.
The experiment uses the WKO4 Optimised Intervals, but for running, to systematically train the different energy systems that contribute to maximum power at durations of 5 seconds, 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 20 minutes.
The underlying idea supporting this experiment is that just as we accept that our bike FTP limits our potential IM bike split, maximum power for 1 minute may be limiting 5 minute power, as well as FTP itself. This maybe the case as EN plans have plenty of FTP intervals of of length between 8 to 12 minutes — as a consequence, our 20 minute power, and to a lessor extent, our 5 minute power should be well developed. In my case, at 65 years of age and approaching my 7th anniversary at EN, I expect that my run FTP is already maxed out.
However, in the plans I have used, I think the shortest run intervals have been around 3 minutes. So, I would expect my 1 minute power should respond significantly (at least at first ) to systematically training the energy systems that support my 1 minute power. And my intuition is that should my 1 minute power respond as I expect, I also expect that appropriate doses of FTP intervals should allow my FTP to rise higher that my current plateau.
Over the 12 week period, every 4 weeks I intend to provide updates to a number of measurements, including my 1 minute power, my run FTP, and my (hopefully) improvements in my 5 km time. Those expected improvements in my 5 km time will be disaggregated into the influences arising from the increase in FTP, as well as a consequence of weight loss, and the non-weight loss improvements in running efficiency as well.
I am putting the experiment out to the Team before I start 12 week experiment in the interests of transparency and accountability. I start the experiment next Monday.
In conclusion, I should point out that this experiment is part of a larger project — which is to achieve PBs for swim, bike and run at my favourite 70.3 on 18 February 2018.
Thanks for reading.
Oh, BTW, I have kept this brief in the interests of ease of readability, but would be happy to elaborate on any aspects of the experiment.
Tagged:
0
Comments
First up, have a look at this article
https://help.trainingpeaks.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000308911-Optimized-intervals-training-specifics-using-the-Optimized-Intervals-report-in-WKO4
then we can start.
Cheers
Peter
What is your proposed schedule? Frequency, # of intervals, recovery interval effort level and time, distances, etc. what will you be monitoring to assure you are getting the right level of work? Pacem HR, RPE, power?
Now, the 'average case', the durations to be targeted are 5 seconds, 20 seconds, 45 seconds, 4 minutes, and 15 — 20 minutes. The power targets are simply 90 - 95% of your maximum power at that duration. So by testing your max run power at these durations, you could fit those power targets into the Optimised Interval structure — if you wanted to.
Also, I am starting low in power and interval numbers, and apart from these intervals (which include our Z4 ones), all other running will be zone 1.
In addition, I have cut back on the bike due to my concerns about fatigue, which I will monitor closely, and I wont hesitate to cut back of rest etc.
And I will tell you what I actually do, given I start on Monday.
Cheers
Love the spirit behind this idea, Peter. However, where I think the customized intervals are safe(ish) on the bike, these are likely too risky when it comes to the run. The chance of injury increases pretty dramatically once run speedwork is folded in, and when you layer on top of that a type of speedwork that contains intervals that are at an effort faster than, say, zone 5, and at the limit of what someone could theoretically hold for a certain duration, it goes up up up.
Moreover, I think the adaptions that you are trying to create with the customized/individualized intervals on the bike might have a logic that applies to cycling, I don’t know if the same logic is there for applying it to the run. In other words, although targeting certain power durations in the run might contribute to other similar durations (ie my 1 min power is close to my 90s power etc etc), I don’t know if this has the effect on LT pace (which I believe is still where the money is as a marker of / predictor of run outcomes up to the Marathon distance.) Then again, I also say this without really getting under the hood of WKO4.
So what, then? As I’ve written before, I’m a strong believer in Jack Daniels (the coach, and the drink!), and I think his durations described in Daniels’ Running Formula are on the mark for the objectives that we’re seeking in this space … whether it’s run speed that speaks to running a faster 3000m, 5k, half or full. The paces and ranges of duration for intervals (which I think are the basis for the EN paces) are spot on, create the adaptions that have downstream effect of raising VDOT and running faster, and have a physiological basis grounded specifically in running. Certainly, the athlete can manipulate the load done at these paces, and do so pretty dramatically – longer intervals, shorter recoveries between intervals, etc – but the reason he (and EN) has the athlete sticking at these paces is they work at doing what they are supposed to, and specific to running.
Last piece I like in Daniels are the built-in guardrails … the formula part gives some great guidance on the precise portion of work that is done at certain paces (ie. “do no more than 8% of total weekly mileage at Pace X”), and this really helps putting some limits on ambition and mitigate the risk of injury.
Thanks for your feedback and comments, as well as your concern. I do appreciate it. Just as I appreciate similar support from the other Peeps. IMO, this collegiate support is what makes the Team so great.
In the first post I just focused on the "What" and the "How" to keep that post shorter and easier to comprehend.
Now to the "Why", and for this purpose, let's just talk about bike power.
My 1 minute maximum power is 260 watts, compared to my FTP of 196 watts. My guess is that given these two numbers, my theoretical maximum 1 minute power must be more than 400 watts.
If that is the case, how do I get near that number (or even near 350 watts)? Well, the standard approach is to use intervals @ 90 - 95% of your maximum power at the duration you are interested in. That would be intervals of 1 minute duration @ 235 to 245 watts. Remember, this is just the standard approach that is used to design our Zone 4 bike intervals. Then of course, we could have a discussion about the work:rest ratio, and how many intervals to do in a session, and then how many sessions a week.
It is not my job to defend WKO4 — that is the job of Andy Coggan and Tim Cusick. However, WKO4 asserts that if you want to maximise your power at durations of 4 minutes or less, then you need to specifically target durations at 5 seconds, 20 seconds, 40 seconds, and 4 minutes, because they argue that the energy systems that fuel the work at each of these durations need to be separately and systematically trained.
Now turning to why I want to raise my 1 minute maximum power, as I mentioned earlier, I think that it is possible that my FTP is being held below my theoretical potential by my very low 1 minute power. This experiment is designed to see if this is the case.
And I do accept that WKO4 optimised intervals are designed for the bike. I am seeking to see if they will also work for run power.
To prepare for this 12 week block of high intensity, I started a run streak with weekly mileage of 20 kms. Then each week I added 2 minutes to each run. Now 9 weeks later, I am at 40 kms a week. The run pace I have used is just below MP. In addition, I now walk for 90 minutes each day. I judge that this preparation should enable me to complete at least 8 weeks of the 12 week plan. Anyhow, we shall see.
Thanks again for your interest.
Some food for thought... you wrote: "Now turning to why I want to raise my 1 minute maximum power, as I mentioned earlier, I think that it is possible that my FTP is being held below my theoretical potential by my very low 1 minute power. This experiment is designed to see if this is the case."
My understanding is a little bit different. I don't think of your 1-minute power as limiting your FTP. Rather, I think raising your VO2max as a precursor to raising your FTP is an effective training method. I have been using this approach on the bike and have, as you outlined here, spent quite a bit of time focusing on the very short-duration powers. I believe that one can drive VO2max improvements with slightly longer efforts too. for example, traditional track workouts in the 400-800m range are very effective and "safer" (particularly in the beginning) than 50-200m efforts.
As I lay out my winter efforts, I was planning on using plyometric exercises to try to improve some running metrics such as leg stiffness (lkeg) and will keep the running power focus on the middle distance efforts that I view as less likely to tweak a hamstring than sprints.
I am not sure we are disagreeing? We both appear to be saying that you can likely raise your FTP (above what is possible otherwise) by training durations shorter than FTP intervals.
I recognise the danger (particularly for a 65 year old) of pushing hard at short durations. I am easing into the interval, rather than exploding (hope that makes sense).
I am sure you are correct in that good gains can be made with traditional 400 and 800 metre track sets (athletics have used them to good effect for eons). However, WKO4 focuses on the different energy systems responsible for max power at duration of 5 secs, 20 secs, 40 secs, 5 minutes, as well as 10 to 15 mins - and they advocate that each separate energy system needs to be trained separately to get optimum results.
Anyway, time will tell if that works with me.
Btw, part of this experiment (not detailed here) is to investigate whether running efficiency can be trained. I am using the Vance definition of efficiency, run pace divided by watts per kg. Because it probably varies with pace and a lot of other things, I am using the regular 20 minute tests and will disaggregate the improvements in the 20 min pace into the contributions from FTP improvements, weight loss, and running efficiency. If there is any signs of improvement in running efficiency, I will do a post outlining the things I have tried.
What I mean is, HIIT may not produce any measurable increase in VDOT, or running efficiency. But it may make us better able to improve our ability to hold a higher speed or power over the longer haul, longer than FTP. Say, going from 0.78-0.82 IF for those 1-2 hour runs to 0.84-0.88. And that will translate in better ability top hold pace throughout a 21 or 42K run at the end of a triathlon.
Now if you've been sitting on the couch for more than a couple of months or are new (less than 3 years) to the game entirely, sure, your VDOT will improve with almost any kind of structured training. But if you've been knocking things out for years, with only occasional 1-2 weeks slowdowns every 6-12 months, then the results might be more subtle, and longer to appear.
My 5 km time has dropped from 31:24 to 27:36 (Vdot increase from 29 to 34). Of the 228 seconds decrease, 130 seconds comes from the loss of 5.1 kgs, while the remaining 98 seconds from the increase in power.
My run FTP has increased from 196 watts to 207 watts. My 1 minute max power increased from 260 to 281 watts, my 5 minute max power increased from 225 to 244 watts, and my 20 minute max power increased from 197 to 216 watts.
All pretty good gains, so I intend to continue the project — noting that my probable max run FTP (since 50 years old) is around 215 watts.
I would also note that I am quite tired as a consequence of the aggressive weight loss program and my 70.3 build — at the end of last week my CTL was 90, my ATL was 112, and my TSB was -21.
I will provide a further update in mid January.
Happy to answer any questions etc.
Watch the effects of the cumulative fatigue and follow your recovery closely to carry this through injury free.