Quadrant Analysis Info - TP Blog and Video of O'Donnell & McKenzie from Kona

Jeff Unruh

 Some stuff from the TP blog...

http://blog.trainingpeaks.com/posts/2011/10/13/quadrant-analysis-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-other-quad.html

The Youtube video (sound is about 1 second async - a bit annoying)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-vnhqehJ3s

Can't get the dang video to embed...

Tom Glynn

For power analysis, I think CoachP does a better job

Quick notes for those not wanting to watch 30 minute video:
Luke McKenzie, second off bike.
NP 271
Avg P 257
Time 4:21
TSS 294
VI 1.05
KJ 4038
Cadence 86
w/kg 3.8


Tim O'Donnell
NP 257
Avg P 235
Time 5:04
TSS 307
VI 1.10
KJ 4285
Cadence 83
w'kg 3.8

Coach Rich

Can someone do the math and back out their IF and FTP from their TSS? Thanks

Tom Glynn

For Luke and Tim respectively



tss = if^2 x time in hours x 100



TSS 294 307

Time 4.35 5.07

Constant 100 100



IF^2 = TSS/(TIME*100)



IF^2 0.676 0.606



IF 0.822 0.778

NP	271		257
FT	330		330

 

funny, they both have an FT of 330.

Jeff Unruh

For Luke...

Best 20 Minutes 4.4 W/Kg - 298W on climb to Hawi
Best 30 minutes 4.2 W/Kg
Best 60 minutes 4.0 W/Kg

Tom Glynn

Been thinking about this data for a while. As always the caveat on this kind of analysis is what do pros who train 30+ hours a week have in common with us mere mortals - almost nothing.

I was surprised at how low their FTs were. I would have thought they would have been well north of 350.

There was a good discussion about TJ Tollakson's power data at his last race and it was discussed in the forums recently.

It appears to me that the pros all seem to have FTs in the mid to low 300's but race at IFs approaching 0.80 or higher. My take away is that it's important to work at the FT, but at some point diminishing returns set in and then they begin working at holding higher and higher IFs for their given FT.

I think this only works if you are off the bike in the 5 hour or less range. Otherwise your TSS would be through the roof. With pros off the bike in 4.5 hours, I think this makes sense.

So what does that mean for EN style training? I think we are on the right track, pushing to increase FT on the bike. Maybe we adapt the plans for those with higher FTs or w/kg over a certain level. Maybe the goal of the longer Saturday ride should be to incorporate TJ style workouts. Push hard for 45 minutes, spin for 15, repeat 4 or 5 times. Maybe beginner plans are IFs of .70, intermediate 0.75 and advanced 0.80 for the 45 minute blocks. Then take the race rehearsals and string 5 hours together at a slightly slower FT.

Anyway, interesting thoughts for power geeks

Finished my season so it's time to start thinking about next year!

Trent Prough

I would agree with Tom 100% on this one. I too think there is a point when doing EN style stuff for a long period the FT is going to level out some what. That is what I found this year anyway. (3 years en style training). So I started not worrying so much with raising ft but with holding it longer in workouts. I played with doing 30 minute FT intervals and some 30 to 60 min 80% stuff in longer workouts and found when racing even short stuff I held higher watts longer and still ran well or at least same as before.

Might be something to look into for the advanced section people!!,

tuckerm

Couple of things.

Trent, check this article out.  Maybe helpful if you have time and means.  www.peakscoachinggroup.com/Articles/the_next_level.pdf

Tom, I like the outside the box thinking.  But isn't the Sunday workout for that 80-85% stuff?  Sure it's not specific time intervals, maybe it should be, but we do get a fair amount @ 80%+.  Or are you talking about the Saturday bike?  I would think the closer we get to raceday then maybe inserting those longer 70-80% intervals into the workout.  Actually that makes some real sense, gets you more dialed in to your position as well. 

Good stuff!  Like it.

Tom Glynn

Tucker,

great article. I saw it a while ago. I think the article is focused on increasing the FT number, so lots of riding at or near FT. In his Racing and Training with a Power Meter Book, the advice is very similar. The best way to raise FT is to ride just below it for long periods of time. The best "sweet spot: for riding is the 88%-94% of FT per Coggan.

My take on the pros seems to be that they have really maxed out their ability to raise their FT and are now working on riding at higher and higher IFs with a given FT. I'm pretty amazed they can pull off an IF of 82% for over 4 hours.

As to the Saturday reference, I was just meaning a long ride day, regardless of the day it's done. The EN guidance for these rides is generally interval work mixed with lots of riding around at 80%-85%. I was thinking that maybe it could be a little more structured towards riding a constant IF for longer periods of time. So for example over a 4 hour period you ride 15 minutes easy, 45 minutes at a constant IF and then repeat 4 times. If you can hold an IF of 0.75 for each 45 minute block, next time bump it to 0.76 and so on. The goal then is not to raise FT, but to learn to hold a higher IF for longer periods of time.

Maybe I'm over thinking this

tom

Peter Greagg

I don't claim to be an expert, these thoughts occured to me when I was reading these posts.
Conceptually, FTP work is probably the optimal training for TTs in the 60 minute range.
For longer than 60 minutes bike events, you probably need to raise the maximum normalised power you can hold for the expected duration of the bike (think IMs and your 5 hour mean maximal power).
So it seems to me that the EN style FTP approach is all about raising the left side of the mean maximal power curve (think something like a parallel shift up), whereas the pros approach (as for TJ and discussed here) is about raising the right.
Once you are near your FTP potential, improvement can only come from the raise the right approach — although it is interesting that Coach P achieved an all time high FTP at the end of the last OS. Which reminds me of Chris Whyte's thought that people tended to underestimate their long term potential, and overestimate their current potential (or words to that effect).
Now the key issue here is whether structured intervals at, say 85% of FTP, give a better fitness boost than aggressive ABP rides?

I (obviously) don't know the answer but am happy just really drilling the APB rides.

Cheers
Peter

arnold schmidt

My basic training week looks like this:



2 x 20' @ FTP (5')

10' spin

2 x 30' @ 80-90% FTP (5')



I do the above twice per week



Then



4-5 x 30' @ 80-90% FTP (3-5')



All workouts are separated by 1-2 days off bike



I prefer fewer longer duration intervals to more shorter duration intervals



If I can't hit FTP goal I take an xtra day rest



My training week is more then 7 days long



I am try to raise the right side of power curve or at least flatten it out a bit

tuckerm

@Tom, no I think you're heading in the right direction. I'm not shocked the pros can hold that IF for 4 hours. They're genetic freaks. I think it's been nailed here about the right side of the curve. I'm thinking the pros have their FTPs and I don't want to say they are content with it, but they realized that it's going to take a whole hell of a lot of work to raise it to a level where they would see a noticeable change. So then they just train for long periods at race specific wattages.
I think Arnold has some good workouts there. Like that 80-90% level for workouts. Would love to see some longer sets like that in the plans. Arnold, what type of gains if any have you seen from these workouts? On both sides of the curve.

Also on Slowtwitch Chris Whyte asked Dirk Bockel a question about this. When I see his response I will update.

Oh and another thing about the pros being freaks. The guys from IM Talk interviewed Marino and he said when he gets on the bike he rises at FTP and above for the first hour to get the lead. Then he settles in. So these guys are on a different level. If we tried that it be game over.

robin sarner

Interesting.  My ftp is probably high enough (340-350, 4 watts/kg).  What has seemed to help me progress on the bike is more longer rides at a decent IF.     I am sure this is among the stuff the coachs are looking at for pointy end plans. 

tim cronk

Some missing information is . What was there HR's? And what zone were the HR's in? I have a thread asking what is wrong with my IF/TSS RR's being so off the charts. But out of the RR I had my HR on it was in very low Zone 2. My point is if I was a HR athlete and used EN guidance I would be trying to keep it in Zone 2 after the initial hour in Z1. I would have no idea that my IF/TSS is supposedly way too high. And yet riding the RR with power I have IF and TSS off the charts with a top of Z1 bottom Z2 HR??? And believe me I aint no pro. Whatever they are capable of my bet is pretty reasonable HR.

Love the idea of .7 .75 .80 long IF rides for beginner int adv. Think the ABP ride was the most valuable last year specially if you do the full 3 hours. I did 3 hours religiously but not after the long day as written, I put in in after a swim/run or rest day more for scheduling than recovery but liked that set up. The shortest ride of the week can have plenty of FTP intervals and of course OS.