Home› Outseaon November 2011› Group Discussion-Outseason November 2011

Nov OS - OverAchieving on Cycling Intervals Wiki Post

DanielaDaniela
in Group Discussion-Outseason November 2011

 Saw this get posted to the Oct OS group and thought it would be a good reminder to those of us that have gone through the OS, and good info for the newbies.

http://members.endurancenation.us/Resources/Wiki/tabid/108/Default.aspx?topic=OverAchieving+on+Cycling+Intervals

 

Comments

  • Paul ScholzPaul Scholz

    thanks for the reminder Daniela!

  • Shaughn SimmonsShaughn Simmons

    Thanks Daniela,

    Very important post, hope all have a chance to read........

  • DanielaDaniela
    I've been guilty of it in the past, and have paid for it in the following workouts. I just get so competitive with myself and try to beat the numbers, and get even more encouraged to push when when I see others posting over-reaching numbers. But this year I'm going to stay in the subscribed workout effort!
  • William JenksWilliam Jenks
    Shouldn't forget this one as well, for when you're on the other side....

    http://members.endurancenation.us/Resources/Wiki/tabid/108/Default.aspx?topic=WorkOut+Triage

    I think the key take home message is not to overachieve so as to mess up the next workout(s). Maybe I'm not a great tester so my benchmarks are a little more "achievable" than for other people, but I tend to be able to *slightly* overachieve bike and run workouts without setting myself back.

    Today I did Thursday's bike (long story) and hit 1.07 and 1.01 for the two 8-minute intervals. If I were a better tester, maybe those same wattages would have been 1.02 and 0.96. :-) 1.07 for 2 x 20, though, means you have misestimated your FTP. :-)

  • DanielaDaniela
    Posted By William Jenks on 04 Nov 2011 06:32 PM



    Today I did Thursday's bike (long story) and hit 1.07 and 1.01 for the two 8-minute intervals. If I were a better tester, maybe those same wattages would have been 1.02 and 0.96. :-) 1.07 for 2 x 20, though, means you have misestimated your FTP. :-)





    By doing the second int at a lower wattage then the first, didn't you kinda overachive on the first interval and sacraficing the second one? image

    I guess the way I was taught (from a previous coach who did a lot of EN-like stuff) was to always increase through the intervals.  i.e. .96, .97, .98.  If it goes the other way, or one is lower then any of the prior, I paced it wrong.  

    I'd guess that Tuesday's are the riskier workout to go over.  There are many times I pushed Tuesday, and then really regretted it on Thursday.  At least with Saturday, you're just running on Sunday then taking a break on Monday.

  • Coach PatrickCoach Patrick
    Great reminder. This early most will overachieve b/c the first test was so bad after time off...but after about 10-14 days you are "up to speed" and so too is the fatigue. Have to be careful! image
  • Nemo BrauchNemo Brauch
    Both really great reminders! Thanks everyone. It's soooo easy this early in the OS to over achieve and totally cook yourself, only to dig a big hole that is really hard to get out of. The OS is 20 weeks long. There's no need to try and cram your work into the first few weeks. Pacing yourself throughout the whole OS will serve you as well as it does pacing well throughout the FTP test.
  • William JenksWilliam Jenks

    @Daniela, yes, you are right on all counts. But... :-)



    I probably should not have posted those numbers due to a complicating factor I did not explain.



    I pulled a hamstring at a soccer match on Tuesday. That was my first significant ride after the injury and I was (and am) still learning how it affects me. Your point is very well taken outside of that issue. Obviously, there is a special fatigue and soreness in dealing with this.



    The point I was trying to make was more about 0.98 and 1.02 meaning slightly different things for different people and there has to be some observing of cause and effect.



    For the record, today, I hit both intervals more evenly... one more day out from the injury and having learned a bit more what it feels like to work on. Both intervals were 263 W...the IF is only different by 0.02, with the second one higher. :-) I did 3 x "85%" , which were 0.86, 0.86, and 0.87.



    (Fortunately, the injury is not especially serious on the possible scale of hamstring pulls...)

  • DanielaDaniela
    @William - I know you know image I do get your point, and I believe some people just don't test all that well. My SO would be in that category (that is when he actually does a test).

    Glad the hamstring isn't all that bad as hamstring injuries go. Hope you're back to good soon!
Sign In or Register to comment.