Short FT intervals in Advanced OS
I'm curious about the reasoning behind the 6min FT interval in the Advanced OS that follows the more standard 2X12 on the "long" weekend ride. Is this a result of the Power Hack? 6min is typically considered too short to be effective unless it is on a very short rest interval or at a higher output like 105-115% FT for example.
0
Comments
My guess, the 6' is a tack on to get 30' of FTP work total.
By doing it the way written,you accumulate 30 minutes of FTP work, but don't have the recovery cost of the longer interval days, meaning that it can be written into a non-Tuesday (the hardest day) while still driving up the get fast time and the TSS.
I don't have the advanced plan in front of me right now, but it's all about context.
This isn't about trusting the process. As a scientist by training I'm not one to blindly follow based on faith. I like to understand why something works and on a more academic level I'm interested in a bit of discussion on how RnP arrived at what might otherwise look a little odd. I'm just interested in a little friendly discussion/debate.
I realize the potential recovery costs of longer FT intervals but 12, 12, 6 isn't significantly different from 3X10 or 2X15 in that respect although 2X15 might increase the mental effort required to finish out the 2X15 @ 85%. One thing that the ExPhys folks over on the wattage list will generally agreeon is that FT intervals under about 12min aren't as effective at causing the desired adaptation of FT work unless you are on very short recoveries.
That said:
I have read some of those same threads on Wattage, and either those guys are superhuman or they are using an FTP estimate that is, in effect, lower than ours. (Either that, or I am a wimp.) The idea of regular workouts at 90 minutes of FTP, even broken up into 30 minute blocks, sounds exceedingly demanding to me. That's the kind of thing those guys often talk about. I have come to wonder if the testing protocol we typically use gives a value that's just a few percentage points higher...enough that 2 x 20 is really plenty tough. 5-10 W would make a big difference to me!. Thus, if you follow (for example) the main Coggan test, maybe you can handle a bit more"FTP" work than if you follow the "EN protocol" because the tests themselves aren't quite the same. I grant that they are close, though. [The "critical power" fit that GC spits out just from generic accumulated data, which is derived from Skiba, also correlates very well to or FTP tests, but it's bound to be systematically a little different too.] I need to say that this is wild speculation.
I mean, honestly... If my FTP is my relatively rested, balls-to-the-wall effort for 42 minutes (including the 2 minute rest), how can I be expected to go for twice that long at that power?
...the point being that with all the different ways of estimating FTP (...seven deadly sins...), perhaps (given that what we do here seems to work), that is not inconsistent with your assertion about efforts slightly above FTP.
-----------
Another take...
the 12/12/6 is psychologically different for me than 10/10/10. Those 12's, especially if you're stretching the wattage goal, are very hard to fake. Harder than the 10s. I will not claim to have any scientific evidence to quantify, but those two 12s ARE a bigger challenge than the first two 10s would be. Even if I can "fake" the last 6 a little bit, I don't see that the workout produces a lot less stress overall because of the two longer first ones.
I'm pretty damn confident that what we use here is an over-estimate of FTP. By definition FTP is the average (or NP) for a 1hr max effort time trial. 2X20 (2') is meant as an approximation because a 1hr solo TT is brutal and not realistic to do on a regular basis for testing. That being said I can't imagine doing 60min straight at my 2X20 (2) NP. What that probably means is that we risk going too hard when doing our FT intervals here and are likely pushing a bit above our true (60min) FT.
The longer intervals are definitely harder. My point was that 6min isn't a long enough work interval at FT to most effectively trigger the desired adaptations. Based on what the physio guys say 10-12min is marginal and everyone should really be shooting for 15-20min intervals at or around FT if the primary goal is to increase FT. The fact that those durations are typically very hard for me suggests my estimated FT is too high and I would be better (less recovery cost and same or better training effect by working at ~95% of my 2X20 (2) FTP estimate. On the occasion that I get to do a legit 40k TT I tend to pace on feel rather than looking at my PM because I know my 2X20 (2) is a bit unrealistic for an hour effort.
Just a thought...interested to see what RnP say.
Isn't this the "weight lifting" analogy that RnP use all the time? In order to lift more weight, we have to lift more weight?
If we just did our intervals at our (real) FTP, then we would never progress and increase.
Sincerely, non-scientific guy.
None of this really is directly related to the original question though - why is a 6min FT interval tacked on?
Joel,
Note I have only done the beginner and 2-3 weeks of the intermediater OS this year. I'm just an economist so I really don't understand the phisological side as well as I probably should but here's my take.
Perhaps in the micro picture of things, 1 day or the1 week, the 6 min interval looks like a tack on an could probably be. I see it as a way to get to the additional FTP or enduce extra TSS points for the day with a lower fatigue cost. I would suspect that some people could handle the mental challenge of 2X15' every day out, but when will you burn out. I know that the OS previously was 16 weeks and has been extended to 20. Cumulative fatigue by week 16 was a huge factor for me last year. Extending just one workout a week from 2X10/ 2X12' by 3 minutes each over 20 weeks is a lot of extra work both mentally and physically.
In the intermediate program I found one of these session on Saturday and note that the 1X5 comes after a 2X12 @ FTP. Could it be that the effects of these short intervals are more effective after the longer FTP intervals? I would agree that a 5x6' or if the 1X6 was first it would definitely be an easier and lower quality ride. Having the 1X6 after the longer intervals brings the self coaching aspect in, If you have gas in the tank I think the word is tohit it at 1.03 or 1.05 of FTP if you are recovering for the next day.
In part I believe part of the answer can be found from the workout triage from the wiki here http://members.endurancenation.us/Resources/Wiki/tabid/108/Default.aspx?topic=WorkOut Triage:
From a weekly standpont we still have to run as well so if this 1X6 is on a tuesday or Saturday might be a way to keep cululative fatigue down for the average person.
Now in a macro aspect I believe from week 17 on in the intermediate plans there are 2X20's and this extra FTP while it may not be as beneficial gets me prepared for the long FTP session that happen when fatigued.
Gordon
I also thing Gordon might be on to something when he mentioned the fact that the 6' comes at the. I'm no ex. physio guy, but it does seem a 6' int. after a 2x12, 15 or 20 would still have some benefits similar to those gained by the first 2 sets even though a 6' FTP interval by itself would do very little.
Joel,
I'd have a hard time disputing your points about being in the advanced plan, but I know that Rich did dial back the workouts last year as people were burning up with three hard bike days. I know that for me last year and even this year the 6'-8' FTP intervals will help as I have a long way to go to hit my upper limit and need that adaptation time. I just can't handle that much work over 20 weeks.
For those that are close to a plateau maybe an advanced plus program would be useful. I'd expect that there would be relatively few that would need that program, but there are those outliers. Let me say if you can hold to mostly 2X15's and 2X20's for 20 weeks your a rock star.
Perhaps this is something that a small groups could test next year. I know with the power hack over the previous 2 season RnP adapted the Vo2 max section for this years program from 30/30's to 2.5'.
Hopefully RnP will catch on to this thread and give us some insights on the plans.
Gordon
I did the advanced plan last OS. Asked the same question during the power hack, for the same reasons. The response I got was that, at the end of it all, it really is only about total minutes accumulated at FTP. Yes, the wattage list guys suggest that intervals need to be longer. But we see folks on beginner OS programs which ramp up to longer intervals much slower still see big gains. So, around these parts, there is a belief that total minutes at FTP matter, even when some of them are within shorter intervals.
As discussed earlier, for this particular interval, I cannot speak for RnP, but believe that it has to do with driving up total minutes at FTP, while keeping recovery costs a little lower.
For the type that likes the modeling, you can put such a workout into WKO, and see the incremental amount of TSS the 6 minutes generates. Since the advanced OS is already quite a workload, and (as Chris Whyte always reminds us) getting faster is about progressive adaptation, this is one way to drive up the TSS / training load.
The shorter intervals (6') are in there because last year the feedback we got was that the 2 x 10, 3 x 10, 2 x 12, 2 x 15, 2 x 20' stuff got boring and monotonous. So when writing the plans we mixed things up and mixed up the intervals. If you want to go something longer than 6', go for it. In general:
My Tuesday ride is 3 x 5k of climbing, about 19-21', with watts at about 1.02, 1.05 and 1.07 IF. If I go over 1.05 I consider bumping my FTP and changing it in my Joule, making all my subsequent rides harder. On Saturday I finished my climb with 2:20 ride time on the dial at .93 IF. My point is that I have a goal 'total FTP time" in my head for the workout and just do whatever I feel like doing, interval-wise or "go that way, as hard as you can" -wise to accumulate that time.
So while there is no black box here, I'm also not gonna bullshit you and tell you we did some double top secret regression analysis of everyone's data and determined that Magical Workout on Tues of Week 4 of the Adv OS plan should be 2 x 12 + 1 x 6'. Instead, I said "how can we keep ratcheting things up week after week without killing people or boring them to death?"
Excellent - that's the info I was looking for. Simply mixing things up a little is perfectly acceptable IMO...just for the sake of doing something different. If there was some super double top secret info you guys figured out witha bunch of pain cave lab rats I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing out on the secret sauce. I'll likely tweak it a bit for myself and ride the 12-15min ints at 95% and the short one at 100-105% just to further change it up from 100% FTP all the time.
From what I've seen, most folks are kicking that last one up a notch.
My thought exactly - I'll probably knock it out @ 105%
Most importantly, we have you for 20 weeks here, hard on the bike and run...that's a lot to ask for, and we respect that by not crushing you. At the end of the day we could have written an 8 week OS plan for the bike...but it doesn't fit how we want to model your entire season and progression...
Great stuff here, thanks all!
~ P
Given the discussion on the optimal length of bike FTP intervals, I am curious if the miles repeats with significant rest (for example today's 1x4 mi (5')) are improving our run LT, or are they just part of a build up to more effective sessions (2x2miles). Would they be more effective if we can manage to take less rest? Like I notice that Carrie only takes 400 meters rest, whereas I usually do 800 meters which is about 5 minutes. If I'm going to work hard (and it IS hard WORK) then I'd rather put a little more oomph into it to get more out of it, if the experts say that it's worth the extra oomph!
@Joel, I have not read through all the posts above, so forgive me if I repeat something that has been said. Nothing wrong with asking and even questioning one's coaching methodology. Excersize physiology does not have all definite answers on anything, as you well know.
Coaches have already chimed in and gave you some background you are looking for. I would like everyone to take a note of this as it relates to 6min and 8min intervals, so called short ones.
In 2008, using Joe Friel's trainingpeaks.com Virtual Coach and his famous book, as presented to me with little understanding, I kept repeating 4-5x6min(2min)Z4-5a (no power meter in those days and I am purposely using his HR zones), 4x8min(2min)Z4-5a, and a VO2max 4x3min(3min) Z5a-b. I made myself post two fastest bike splits in a row at 2 olympic distance races, both were very close to 60min on a rolling course for a 40k TT. I would not underestimate the potential of those when executed at 105%FTP, they are a very powerful tool in raising your FTP.
On the other note, applying the principle of specificity to training, the shorter the distance, the shorter the intervals can be but aiming at the top of the power range. Person racing sprint and olympic distance during OS can benefit a lot from 6 and 8min intervals. Now, when you put it in context of another opportunity to spend time at FTP and not incur high recovery cost, you got it.
I am with you, I like asking questions why even if it is challenging coaches. I will have a set of my questions related to running later as I start OS. I simply like to know why. I am also a student of the sport and a swim coach myself. I think that if athlete knows why, he/she can approach his work with more understanding and discipline.
@ Beverly - My theory about intervals from 400m - 2 miles is to take just enough rest in between each so that I can complete all the intervals at the prescribed pace, and feel like I'm ready to quit at the end. If all are done at the same speed, the first one should feel pretty easy, the last one a real challenge to finish. I've found that the EN recommended rest inervals are just a wee bit too long for me (VDOT 46-50), but I use them as a guide when I first start up, then shorten them as I prove to myself I can handle it. If you're going slower, you may need a bit more time, but you have to learn what your own recovery pattern is. Also, as you get more fit, you'll need less recovery, until you bump up your pace after a new test.