Hypothesis and Tweak: I wonder if v02 bike does me any good
I'm finding myself in a KonMari space recently, where I'm looking at parts of my training, picking them up, and seeing if they spark joy, and if they don't, throwing them away.
Ok ... maybe not joy. Gains. Asking myself if they spark gains.
What I'm particularly curious about is whether the bike v02 work does any good, for me, in achieving gains that are meaningful to ironman distance triathlon.
What does happen, in my OS experience, is I get some customary FTP progression over 6-8 weeks by following a "only FTP" program, and then flip the stimulus to adding in v02, once or twice a week. From there, there's some v02 gain, inasmuch as I can hold intervals at 120% for longer durations, and go deep into the hurt ... and this ultimately leads to cook myself after 6 weeks (in fairness, this also overlaps v02 running).
This year, I'm considering skipping bike v02 entirely. Just FTP, and when the gains level off, more FTP. Or a run-focussed block, with an aim to FTP maintainence during that time. Or putting in rest. Or double up swimming. Or something.
...
Now that I have dueling Golden Cheetah and WKO+ on my box, with their modeled CP/FTP, I finally have an apples to apples (or oranges to oranges) year-over-year metric, and I'm thinking that I'll look at bike power files, and for each OS, plot out my modeled FTP at start of the v02 block, end of the v02 block, and again 4 weeks after. If there's mo' FTP at the end (or a month later), the v02 stays. If not, I try something different.
Are there flaws in this approach? Aside from the ego risk of having a sad 2019 power curve, are there any physical limitations, as they apply to Ironman distance training and racing, that this would create? Are there non-FTP specific things that I would forfeit with this experiment?
Love to hear thoughts on this.
Comments
Okay. I'll bite.
Your like your approach - both from KonMari perspective and the analytical aspect. It is a good place to start. The science says that VO2 max will improve your oxygen delivery - so here are some other places to look (besides FTP) for the gains and few non-number (narrative / "touchy feely" areas to consider and broaden the perspective a bit beyond FTP.
Other numbers:
1- You could look at Efficiency Factor (NP/HR) for similar tests or durations. This will tell you if you have a lower "cost" for a particular FTP and more/less efficient. If your EF was 1.73 = 260 W/ 150 HR = 1.73 vs. 1.8 = 250 W / 138 HR. The lower FTP and lower Avg HR was more efficient. This metric is especially sensitive to course and weather, so comparing apples to apples (same course, similar weather) is even more important.
2-What was your TTE (Time to Exhuastion) in comparison for those training blocks? TTE being the measure of the maximum duration for which power equal to mFTP can be maintained. What was the mFTP and TTE for each block. 280 W @ 30 min, vs 265 W @ 42 minutes. This can give you insight into an your resistance to fatigue in threshold-level performance while providing additional insights to better demonstrate Functional Threshold Power.
3-How much time during those weeks did you spend at VO2 max? WKO has a chart for how much time you spend at percentages 75%, 80%, 85% and 90% of your VO2 max. You can see how much time per week you were actually at VO2 max. Was there enough stimulus to give you a stimulus and adaptation?
4- What was your FRC (Functional Reserve Capacity)? This will tell you the total amount of work you can do in continuous exercise above your FTP. Measured in KJ. Over simplified, this is a good measure of how many times you can surge above your FTP before you fatigue. Did this increase or decrease over those seasons? While we prefer to not surge and ride steady, there are always cases when it is unavoidable....
5-Fatigue Resistance - How did the VO2 max impact your ability to build Fatigue Resistance. WKO4 will show how your Power Duration Curve changes, AFTER you have done some amount of work. So, you can see how your PDC changes after you have some fatigue like riding 1000 KJ of work ~= approximately 1 hour at 3.2 W/kg. This will also be evident in your 1 hr, 3 hr and 5 hour NP.
6-W/kg. Consider comparing FTP Watts / Kg. How does VO2 Max aerobic work impact your weight. You could be faster with a lower FTP, just because you weigh less.
Narrative: (the other side of the story)
1-How did you race that particular year?
3-Did you get injured?
4- How much did running VO2 max impact your ability to go hard on the bike? What if you dropped the VO2 max running, and just focused on the VO2 max on the bike would that give you more bike gains? More time in zone?
5-Did the VO2max running work - pay off with improved run speed? Could you skip VO2max run and add get away with just threshold or below work on the run?
Hi Dave
To make my point clearer, I will redefine your question a little bit.
I will ask whether your 5 min max power limits your 20 min max power? And the answer is that, potentially, it could. Imagine this situation. My 5 min max power is 300 watts. IMO, this means that my 20 min power must be less than 300 watts. I don't know how much less than 300 watts my 20 min power is, but it must be less.
Now, consider us as long course triathletes, we hammer out FTP intervals almost all year round. This suggests, subject to at least one caveat, I would expect that our FTP was pretty well developed relative to our potential - particularly if you are a multi-year athlete.
The caveat is the potential for 5 min max power limitation on 20 min power I mentioned, and my expectation that our 5 min max power is much less developed relative to your potential, because we don't spend much time working on that duration.
So my answer is, you probably need to work on your max power at 5 mins in order to get closer to your potential 20 min max power.
Of course, how much is enough? That is why we have Coach Patrick.
Actually, the way I think about these issues is more generalised than the 5 min and 20 min examples I gave. I think in terms of the power duration curve as per WKO4, and IMO, any point on the curve potentially limits all max powers to the right (ie longer durations).
This is the same argument as If I want to break a 3 hour marathon, I need to go well under 90 mins for a half marathon.
I relation to how much work you need to do on durations less than 20 mins (in order to get closer to your potential), WKO4 can help if you know what you are doing. I have made some progress here but a few others in the Haus are more into this than me.
Perhaps they will chime in?
@Dave Tallo , I think the VO2 sessions serve several purposes. Besides the aerobic benefit and mental toughness, we develop our fast twitch muscles. This is very much like a functional strength workout with weights. Those sessions strengthen support systems. We do strength and core exercises to support our big muscles. Those exercises help the ends of our races. The EN training has emphasized this kind of focus with run durability training that strengthens the supporting run muscles through higher frequency running.
@Dave Tallo - I think @Peter Greagg is spot on. Following his cue, I'd slightly modify his question as follows: Does 1 min max power or "5 min max power limits your 20 min max power" or your 5hr power?
The best thinking on this that I've read says that all of our metabolic processes are contributing all the time, albeit at different levels. There also appears to be a relationship between our anaerobic (< 3min), our max aerobic (≈5min) and our aerobic abilities.
Even when we are riding at IF 70%, we are still getting an anaerobic contribution. Even if it is only 1w, that adds up to 18kJ of anaerobic energy burned on a 5hr ride... and you still have to run. This is an argument for (not only in the out season) building your anaerobic reserves (FRC).
FTP is really only important as a planning number, or a metric to compare your current fitness to previous cycles. But it is undeniable that improving FTP correlates with our ability to ride stronger. FTP is limited by our ability consume oxygen, or VO2. When VO2 goes up, it is easier to raise FTP. If you focus entirely on FTP, and exclude VO2, you can still raise FTP... but you will find that you VO2 also improved. It is easier, and more efficient, to first raise your VO2 then raise your FTP. A better use of time.
You can achieve your VO2 max at different time/power combinations. 120% is one of those. If you are focused on 120%, you are probably not going hard enough. This is another shift in the thinking on training. Recently there is a strong push towards accumulating time at or near (95%) of VO2max. There are different targets for weekly accumulation, but 15-20 minutes is typical 9and very hard to achieve).
my 2¢ would be for you to go directly opposite from what you are considering:
Peter, Ed & Rich give a much better description of the supporting and additional benefits of doing VO2 max work. They make excellent points about the value of VO2max as a supporting part of raising your FTP and being a more complete athlete. I was a bit clumsy, but I intention was to broaden the perspective a little bit. I wanted to remind you of a few metrics that might be useful for you to use as guides / or intermediate goals to measure your progress along the way to your larger goal of increasing your fitness and improving FTP. The other metrics can be indicators of the effectiveness of your VO2max work (i.e. FRC, time accumulated at or near 95%, efficiency etc) and another gauge of your fitness, just like FTP.
Some of the metrics like EF, time in "zone"etc do not require a max effort test - so you can gauge your progress without having to constantly test. But some of the other metrics like VO2max & FRC do require a max effort - because they are based on your PDC curve. (TTE is kinda unique because it is a modeled value off the PDC as a predicted value of the amount of time you can sustain your mFTP.) The good news is that you can space out those max efforts throughout your VO2max build period. Like Rich said, you will need to do that work within 60 days for it to exist in your current fitness," so you can space those efforts out and maintain the "health" of your PDC curve.
Maybe your "Tallo KonMari" analysis is done in two parts. First, the comparison of 4 and 8 week training blocks effectiveness on FTP, followed by a closer analysis of those training blocks for IF, EF, time in zone, FRC, TTE and VO2max changes so you can evaluate the effectiveness of those blocks relative to the guidelines that Rich laid out. I also make case for also keeping track of the narrative, how you felt after all that training- as the other side of the story. Finally, there may also be a case for decoupling the VO2max running from the VO2max biking and focus just on the bike this time - in order to get the big efforts required to move the VO2max for the biggest gains. All that data analysis should certainly bring you joy.....
@Peter Greagg @Edwin Croucher @Rich Stanbaugh
Such great stuff here. None which helps me with my mission to have the Zen-like mind with just one simple number, but much that helps move my thinking forward an give me understanding that I was lacking.
I won't be able to try to digest ^this all^ until the weekend, but really look forward to engaging with the material / you guys on your input. These posts are really helpful and are taking me in a direction that I hadn't planned, but am keeping an open mind about.
Any thoughts on the experimental design question? For example, setting out to test the hypothesis with year over year comparisons, but comparing lots of the Hero Bar dimensions (plus others) that Matt describes?
@matt limbert
@Edwin Croucher
@Peter Greagg
@Rich Stanbaugh
@Rich Stanbaugh to further clarify this discussion, there are different energy systems that contribute at different durations along the PDC. Therefore to get closer to your potential across the various time durations, you need to specifically target those individual energy systems.
This is reason for Rich's suggestions to target different time durations.
Andy Coggan, Tim Cusick and others @WKO4 cover these ideas frequently
I agree with @Ed Croucher...the point of the VO2 work is NOT to affect non-racing metrics such as FTP or 5 hour power. Although that helps in the parts of the training cycle which come before the final 8-12 weeks before an Ironman. Rather, VO2 work in the weeks 12>>6 before an IM seems to me an attempt to eke out the last few % of muscular endurance by building some residual, or reserve strength in those poor tired quads and glutes, to be called upon when endurance in the slow-er twitch fibers is starting to fade.
@Dave tallo, this may not be the best approach, but the longer I do this, the less I focus on training numbers, and the more I'm simply attempting to get as strong and as long as I can without tipping into injury territory. You may still be young enough (both in train years and in actual years) to treat yourself as an endurance machine with specific inputs producing specific outputs designed to make a 10 hour race-day effort as efficient as possible. Enjoy it while you can.
@Al Truscott I am so glad you stated this ... "but the longer I do this, the less I focus on training numbers, and the more I'm simply attempting to get as strong and as long as I can without tipping into injury territory."
I love metrics and data to assess progress, but there comes a point when the lens of progress shifts from did my FTP go up or down to how can I string together weeks and months of training without injury. I had to abort the Nov OS and the Jan OS due to a low back problem that stemmed from bike crashes. It's getting better with my commitment to strength and core work. Too much intensity equals too much down time equals loss of fitness. My PMC has a nice gentle upward slope, that pleases me.
Every self coached athlete needs to keep asking themselves "how will this workout affect my downstream training?" It's an EN saying, not mine. Know when to push hard and know when to back off despite what the data is saying.
All you younger Jedi's ... don't stop.
@Sheila Leard & @Al Truscott AMEN! I had to give up Vo2 Max running a couple of years ago because of recurring injuries. Luckily I can still do hard efforts on the bike, but I notice that it does take longer to recover from those workouts than it used to. That just means that I have to space them out and focus on recovery more.
@Dave Tallo your quest for a Zen like one number is a noble one. I know that we're data driven and want to get every potential gain that we can out of every workout. One of the things that I found after taking a break from "serious" training is going for a long ride or run and experiencing the joy in just being outside and in the moment. That and sprinting hard up the next hill or going slow to ride with Susan (OK, mostly pulling her through the headwind) without worrying about my fitness or hitting a certain number on the power meter. Yeah my fitness numbers dropped but I've been having a lot of fun. As I get back into training now I'm enjoying the intervals and the satisfaction from the afterglow of those as well because I know it's helping to keep me strong and able to do the things that a lot of people my age can't. Case in point, I was riding my bike to work after a PT session. As I rode into the parking lot I swung my leg over the seat and did a flying dismount on the sidewalk. A coworker who is younger than me saw it and said, "Wow, you're in good shape." I wanted to say, no not so much, but I didn't, I just was happy that I'm able to do that without pain. So keep hammering, you're laying the foundation for your future self.
What this is pushing me towards - as I circle back to my original question - is to break my question / hypothesis into a few different pieces. I'll start in this post with explaining why I'm interested in modelling this. In a subsequent post, and only after I have a better understanding of the roles of the shorter durations on the PDC, I'll ask more questions.
I think Matt gets most closely what I'm getting at in my message: what I'm really curious about is, using past performance as the main inputs, to determine how I would look at that data, and particularly the downstream benefits or costs of v02 work on demonstrated FTP. Matt does expand my thinking and force me to look at those other dimensions, which I'll do.
The reason why I'm doing this, or that I'm curious, does actually have a purpose: I'm very aware that bike and run fitness, and the balances between where I put my time, energy, and recovery cost, have some crossover, but even in the OS, specificity plays a large role. So, I have to make choices between bike and run, and further, between the types of bike and run, and there is opportunity cost for, say, a certain type of work where I need to forfeit, or compromise gains, elsewhere. If I am Deep in FRP, it's costing my run. If I'm deep v02 run, it's costing my bike.
My run pace has been decimated by an experiment last season. So, I am in a position where not only do i need to do everything I possibly can in terms of basic OS run work (that I know I respond to, historically), but I also have to look at EVERYTHING else, to see where I can get back run speed. So, this means looking critically at the best possible bang for the buck cycling training FOR ME, and the least-cost cycling training FOR ME, and critically explore if they can fall away, in service of more run work and accelerated gains. The reason I'm so interested in the model / test / hypothesis of v02 is, as i mentioned, I think I might b one of those neutral responders that that stimuli (I've posted before about Coggan's acknowedgement that v02 response, and its contribution to FTP is individual, and not an absolute correlation ... so I really do wonder if I might be one of those. and if the hypothesis is supported by looking at timing and contributions to FTP shortly following v02, I think that would definitely tilt these scales towards FTP only, or a 4 week run block in OS with only bike maintainence, or another strategy that speaks to addressing the run weakness / limiter.
But again, I'll commit to educating myself further on the PDC and contributions of various consistent types of work. Seeing as some of the responses had started to stray into "here's what you ought to do to be the best cyclist possible" territory, though, I wanted to pause it and situate my question as being driven by the best allocation of run and Bike in a constrained package.
Thanks for continuing to indulge the conversation. Learning lots, albeit slowly.
@Mark Mauer: Preaching to the choir. I spent Nov - Feb "just running," and kept my Garmin display on Time of Day for every outing. Going out, enjoying activity, skipping the day if i wasn't feeling it. I can't agree more that it's more important than any fitness Metric.
(But definitely didn't have anyone telling me "Wow, you're in good shape," like you had! )
look and act older than that) when they're trudging into work on a Friday
morning.
@Dave Tallo @Dave Tallo You might appreciate this study that Alan Couzens commented on. At the end of the day there are more ways than one to get results.
It's not just about the total work/TSS: TT performance improved twice as much in the continuous aerobic group, while Max Power only improved in the group that alternated periodic sprints with easy spinning. Both groups had *the same average session load*
Thanks, @Sheila Leard. Couzens also posted an article (his site, not his feed) on crossover between Bike and Run V02, challenging the holy grail of sport specificity. Interesting, but not convincing enough for me to forfeit the specific work I'm pretty sure i need to do in order to address outright run speed.
Looking forward to that article ... once I get past the required 101-level reading I need to do on current exercise phys. But I will be curious about the study's measurement of load: as has been said many time, not all TSS is created the same, and I would further submit that the cost of different kinds of TSS are greater for some of us than others.
Noted some pieces in this seminar that are very much in line with my question ... I’ll admit there’s some confirmation bias I’m bringing, but couldn’t overlook at around 1:10:00 ... ‘if I were training for an IM, I’d only do FTP ...’
Also, the Coggan chart describing the differential costs of various types of work: I'm calling this "More is More, until More starts to come at a much greater cost, and impairs your future More compared to lesser cost work."
Dave, one of the interesting questions (I think) when trying to decide what to do next is "where are you starting from?" I have learned tons from the TP/WKO4 webinars. The ones by Dean Golich are particularly informative.
What I've noticed is that most of these guys are training cyclist, not triathletes. The cyclists have PDCs that are a very different shape form most of the triathlete PDCs that I've seen. Maybe because of the length of their races, maybe because of the focus of their training,... but without fail, the triathlete data that I've looked at shows strong development from 20' onwards and what is chronic under development at times less than 5'.
I would go as far as to say that the exclusive focus on aerobic development has created an "epidemic" of under developed VO2 and FRC amongst triathletes.
Here (below) is thePDC of a lady I know from 2017. She is a strong cyclist at nearly 4w/kg from 20' onwards, Cat 2 out to nearly 5 hours, but she is less than Cat 5 under 2 minutes.
We all have different phenotypes and our training is probably not going to benefit from trying to develop a Sprinter's phenotype (having relatively stronger w/kg under 2' than at 20'). However, it seems completely unreasonable that a Cat 2 rider's performance is "untrained" under 5 minutes.
The big question is this: Does work below 5' make any difference to one's ability to produce power over 3-5 hours?
You can find all kinds of opinions on this subject. You quoted Tim Cusick in the webinar where he said ‘if I were training for an IM, I’d only do FTP ...’
The point to my post is that I think it matters where you are starting from. What is your fitness across all durations today. I do not believe Tim would focus on FTP only for the athlete with the above chart. The extent to which here physiology is asymmetrical over 20 min vs under 5 min indicates asymmetric development in her underlying physiology.
That's not to say that if she continues to work focused on aerobic development that she will not get improvement... I am saying that working on FRC and anaerobic development will:
Our metabolism is always a combination of different energy sources. Even when you are riding for 5 hours, there is still an anaerobic contribution to the power you are generating. When we improve our anaerobic metabolism, our ability to clear lactates improves; this lactate clearing capacity contributes directly to increasing FTP.
What does your data look like? Does your PDC look reasonably developed for all time frames? If it does, then it is maybe a great approach to focus exclusively on FTP development? If your PDC is a dramatically lower class under 5 minutes than it is at > 20 minutes, then it is probably a better ROI on your training time to work to make y our PDC shape more reasonable.
I think this is really the point the Tim Cusick is making in in the webinar you posted when he talks about his 'house of fitness.' Your FTP is limited by your VO2... he talks about working on the FRC / VO2 in order to 'raise the roof' so that the FTP has more room to develop.
I have a long winded response to this on my work computer but in the meantime - what’s the source for claim #2?
Dave - I am absolutely reading between the lines from lines of research. There is a wide body of research that supports the facts that we continue to consume energy from glycolytic metabolism for sub-threshold effort. There is a separate body of work that suggests that short, high intensity intervals in the FRC / VO@ ranges (sub 5 minutes) lead to superior training adaptions for longer duration efforts.
Here is some fun reading...
The Nature of Training Response; Peripheral and Central Adaptions to One-Legged Exercise, Saltin et al correlates metabolic response and cardiovasular function to both sprint and endurance training. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/132082
Short intervals induce superior training adaptations compared with long intervals in cyclists – An effort-matched approach by Rønnestad et al demonstrates that HIT in both the short interval (SI: 15-45sec) and long interval (LI: 3-5min) increased their mean power output during the 40-min all-out trial (SI: 12% ± 10% vs LI: 4% ± 4%, respectively) with a tendency toward larger relative improvement in mean power output during the 40-min all-out trial in the SI group. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24382021
Energy system interaction and relative contribution during maximal exercise, Gastin, Energy System Contributions During Incremental Exercise Test, Bertuzzi et al, and Interaction among Skeletal Muscle Metabolic Energy Systems during Intense Exercise, Baker et al, both demonstrate that glycolytic metabolism continues to contriubte (although to s lesser degree) to sub-threshold energy production. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11547894, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772588/ & https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jnme/2010/905612/
@Sheila Leard : Alan Couzens would agree. He found that most of his athletes who did not reach their goals were injured or sick.
Thanks Rich - and excuse my terse q above - I'm living a nightmare at work and some of my tone of adversarial writing in TRW is creeping into my tone everywhere else. I genuinely appreciate you continuing to offer this info up as educating me.
(but having said that, I'll double down on dumb below!)
I hear ya, but in my mind, direct proof on 2, after evaluating it's benefit, as well as it's extra cost to my running - would be a big difference. In fact, make that the complete turnaround - in my thinking. I can't refute v02 or FRC are inherently good for their parts on the PDC, or that they raise the ceiling. or that there is an anaerobic component to FTP. But pound for pound, I still don't know if they are influencers of faster or more efficient FTP development over continuing to work on unrealized FTP roof (or moving the TTE out), or prevail when weighed with eventual greater impact on the ability to train the run the next day, or later that week.
now, the part that I wrote earlier, and I'm now getting around to pasting ...
<snip>
Thanks Rich, for the continued dialogue and notes. From the start, a comment on the act of me responding: I’m acknowledging I’m a neophile in the WKO4 metrics and your understanding and application of exercise physiology far surpasses mine. And you’re talking in three-dimensions with N>1 evidence and I’m plucking stuff that confirms my thinking from a seminar I watched 12 hours ago. However, someone in the office just made a pot of coffee, and I’m caffeinated up, so, giddyup.
I took away a very different message from the Seminar, and the advice that the presenter was offering regarding the relationship, role, and relative costs of work done on FTP instead of shorter durations on the Power Curve. The biggest aha I had was given the heft that FTP work carries as a gainer, and for its comparison to the value and cost of the shorter stuff, there’s more value in the FTP. And that FTP improvement and work can come in the forms of pushing up the value, but also extending the curve to the right via work that’s notionally targeting TTE. This was the “wait – hold it there” screenshot for me:
Here’s where I’m at on the question: I have a pie of a fixed size*. Fitness pie. It’s the sum of bike (effort and recovery), and run (effort and recovery). Strategically, in the OS to meet my eventual Ironman triathlon objectives. I’m cutting it as about 60% Run pie, 40% Bike pie. And I need to have a placeholder to make sure that no matter what, the run portion stays at 60%, and bike pie doesn’t spill over.
So in looking at the bike, there are a few approaches I can take to make the most of this fixed 40%. Recalling from above that this 40% is made up of both effort and recovery – so, my ability to do the work, and my ability to absorb the work, the question becomes what is the type of bike work that I can fit in there, that includes the optimal blend (or benefit/cost). Remember – there’s 60% run pie that can’t move.
What supports FTP work in my mind is the direct relationship of the metric to Ironman training. What supports it in preference to 2 min, 1 min, v02, etc is the combination of what specifically it achieves in direct relation to Ironman training and racing, and the cost. This isn’t to say that this shorter work doesn’t have its role, and I understand that both shorter duration and longer stuff, at different intensities, combine to achieve fitness. but as I’m coming to understand it (and what seems to be confirming my experiences over OS’s since 2005) is that for me, the v02 bike work does have an outsize cost and does erode the load I can take on, and absorb, later in the week / month / block. I don’t hit FTP or ABP numbers. I skip workouts. I have classic overtraining symptoms. I don’t see gains in other concurrent work (like run or swim). And though it may contribute to a more balanced-looking PDC, or be a hugely-time efficient way of boosting a part of fitness, I’m still not convinced of the gains, as it pertains to IM, are worth it on balance.
So, with this thread, I'm saying More is More, but sometimes More is (just marginally) More, and higher cost. Less triathlon pie some Ironman race day.
The Coggan chart I mentioned upthread illustrates it nicely. My major takeaway is “of course you would want to do FTP. High return, lower cost, and fruit that’s both low-hanging AND voluminous. Although the arguments for 5 min power, v02 max work and other shorter stuff along the PDC are there, I’m coming to accept that until FTP is fully maxxed out (which I think is much more than I have imagined in the past), it’s where someone (I) should stay. Also, I am coming to accept (or pivot towards) there being a lot more FTP room than I had imagined. We probably both saw the recent ST post where a guy was commenting that his FTP was stuck based on the ~7h bike work he was doing each week … and the responses were “do more work. You’re not near your ceiling at 7h – let’s talk at 12+.” Now, applying that to the EN OS, where I think we’re routinely in the 3 to 3.5 hour per week range for biking in the week, I can start to imagine that I too could be pretty far from FTP potential (as could be achieved by high-gain, low-cost FTP type work alone). Also, this is data I’m describing in my OP as having an interest in exploring OP, with a lot of seasons to examine. (here’s a hook: it's already loaded in the chamber and ready to fire to another ENer as a zip file!)
“But the sorter stuff is necessary for neuromuscular recruitment, or fast-twitch fibers, or a rising tide raises all boats” they say. Yes, but these are also worked by FTP training to the extent that they are relevant to Ironman training, progression and racing, and further, on their own, they don’t offer a specific and stand-alone benefit to training and racing Ironman. I don’t surge or even ride at FTP in a race. I don’t Zwift. When I get passed by the B-group of roadies on a summer long ride, I wave and wish them well as they ride on by . So, unless I need to deploy the specific type of fitness that specifically raises my ceiling in order to accommodate a higher FTP, I think I can set short and hard aside.
What about a predictable FTP plateau? Again, thinking to the seminar, there’s a lot of FTP room that we have, and that I am now recasting my thinking on this to imagine that I probably haven’t really fully accessed it – particularly as approaching this in a model of a time-limited athletes competing in multisport activities. And even if I have maxxed out my FTP as modeled by a 2x20(2) test, the big piece the seminar points out that while it’s useful to think of work to do in moving the PDC up – raising FTP at specified durations – there’s also gains, specific to the type of training for Ironman – that are realized by shifting PDC to the right, through extending TTE. So there might be a “up” plateau, but there’s still FTP work that can be done, and gains that can be achieved before having nowhere to go but the shorter more intense stuff.
What about v02 crossover benefit to the run? and go-all-day fitness? That’s where … run v02 work comes in. If it’s even necessary, that is (and that might be an exploration for further down the line). Again, with the ceiling / roof metaphor, there might be a time and place for it, but I have an open mind to consider there might be much much more LT to develop, and a large cost. For generalizable fitness, yes, v02 max is the absolute fitness ceiling, but (1) if its not contributing directly to what you’re doing, and (2) if other work you are doing is achieving similar non-specific changes, and this other work IS contributing directly to what you’re doing, and (3) the v02 costs a lot, and that cost will be either doing more of the good stuff, or absorbing the good stuff, there might be something to this.
What about FRC? I don’t surge in an Ironman bike. At least not deliberately.
What about your anaerobic contribution to your FTP? Gotta look at the historical data, and particularly my historical data following bouts of V02. That's where I'm still keeping an open mind.
The bigger picture, again, for me is that it’s keeping that bike work contained, not spending time on something that has limited value to what I’m training for (until FTP is maxxed, which I am making a safe bet would be “never,”) and keeping the recovery cost in the apportioned bike part of the pie, and not spilling over to the run.
*"well, just make a bigger pie" isn’t an option in the short term we're talking … "bigger pie" is a year-over-year thing.
@Dave Tallo - I'm not sure I have energy to tackle all this :-) So, just a couple thoughts:
>> What about FRC? I don’t surge in an Ironman bike. At least not deliberately.
We humans (including Canadians) are always burning FRC. Even when you are cruising along at IF 70%, you are burning somewhere between 0.5 - 1.0 w of FRC. When you are swimming and running, you are also burning some FRC. I'm pretty sure this was covered in a couple of the papers I gave you links to. It is also the basis for a lot of the work Coggan did with WKO4.
So, doing some quick math, 5hrs (IM bike) * 0.5 to 1w (avg rate of burning FRC) = 9 to 18kJ burned.
Now - FRC is not 100% anaerobic energy... it is energy above FTP. So, some of that (between FTP and VO2( is aerobic / recoverable in the short term.
But, if your FRC is only 8-12kJ... the chances are that you are not going to have the energy that you need to run the marathon the way you hope to run it. Probably, after about 10k, you will feel "flat." You'll be able to run steady, but the slightest push or the slightest hill will have a big impact. I know you have felt this on the bike.... you go out for a training ride and crush the first couple hours. Then it is gone. You can ride steady, but you get dropped on every incline because you cannot push. This is what it feels like when FRC is gone.
Bottom line - if your FRC is bigger, you will have more FRC left in the tank to support your run.
>> I’m cutting it as about 60% Run pie, 40% Bike pie.
You know what works best for you. Do you mean 60% of your TSS load or 60% of your training hours or?
Interestingly, if I was going to do a plan that was 60:40 run-heavy on a TSS basis, I would actually work harder on the FRC intervals, particularly early in the cycle and make certain that I followed them with a swim day or a recovery run day. The reason is that, while they are hard, and they do burn the glycogen out of your legs, recovery from them is easier than recovery from hard FTP sessions. You do not accumulate much TSS since the recovery intervals is long and largely zero load (spinning < 75w or just standing there). The development from these intervals would support the run and the future hard bike work.
>> “But the sorter stuff is necessary for neuromuscular recruitment, or fast-twitch fibers, or a rising tide raises all boats” they say. Yes, but these are also worked by FTP training to the extent that they are relevant to Ironman training, progression and racing, and further, on their own, they don’t offer a specific and stand-alone benefit to training and racing Ironman.
I think this really comes back to a point I was making in one of my earlier posts. If you are well developed under 5', then I agree with you. However, if you are one of these people that are chronically underdeveloped for maximal efforts under 5', then I do not agree with your point. In general, yes. Specificity is the rule and the way to go. But, to me, it is not even logical to say that you can completely neglect training a portion of your physiological ability to deliver power to your pedals and have that work out to be the most efficient way to train. You don't need to become a sprinter... I agree that would not be a good return on training time. However, forcing your body to go through adaptions relating to clearing lactose from your cells will force adaptions to both OBLA and MLSS, both of which will not only help with the bike but will have crossover benefits for running. There are neuromuscular developments that happen under load that you'll unlikely achieve with threshold workouts.
So - if you are "well developed" at short durations, then I agree there is little to be gained. However, if you are under developed in these short durations, I emphatically disagree that "they don’t offer a specific and stand-alone benefit to training and racing Ironman."
At the end of the day - you know yourself better than anyone. I would never presume to know what is best for you. I really enjoy your perspective and your original thinking, so am jus throwing some things our there to distract you keep you focused on the important stuff rather than thinking about the "nightmare at work" and "TRW" (whatever that is)!