quick but important FTP interval question
Quick question just to confirm: are Bike FTP intervals done AT FTP (i.e. the top of Z4 zone wattage), and Run FTP intervals done AT the Z4 pace? I get confused because on the left of the DataTool page it lists Bike FTP as the top of my Z4 zone wattage, yet for the Run pace it lists a pace that is 1 second *faster* than my *Z5* pace. Thanks in advance guys! -Liebs
0
Comments
The FTP intervals for the bike and run workouts are the Z4 paces listed in the "Bike Zones" and "Run Zones" boxes.
And remember, they are ZONES, nut a sngle number. Basically, anything from 95-100% will get you the work you need.
+1 to Al. The nice thing is there is the range. If you are feeling abit off song you can still hit 95% and know you are getting the work done. No guilt needed!
Yes, use the zones stated in the training plan and ignore the box on the left.
If there's a disconnect between RPE/HR and Z4 Zones from the Data Tool, which wins?
For instance, I've got a pretty good read on when I'm in the top of my aerobic zone, and when I've pushed it over into anaerobic work. While comfortably at the top of my aerobic zone (still able to converse with hubby, still in my HR zones), I can run mile repeats at an 8:20 pace. The data tool gives my Z4 pace as 8:44, which would feel significantly slower and to me would not seem to be in the top of my aerobic zone.
This was true even right after I tested with my 5k run, giving me my new zones. The 5k test felt pretty accurate to me, didn't feel like I left anything out there.
I always thought that Z4 meant right at the top of your aerobic zone, about to go anaerobic and most training manuals say that in Z4 training you should be right on the edge of going anaerobic. So if my 5k pace is 8:20, which is a pace I can easily hold for mile repeats where you get rest in between, why would my Z4 intervals be at 8:44, a much slower pace and one that's sure not to be at the top of my aerobic zone, near my threshold??
I've looked for some explanation of this in the wiki and other documents, but if I'm missing it somewhere, please let me know!
For me, there is no way I could hold the 5k run test for 3x1 mile intervals, which also build to 2x2 mile intervals later in the block. My Z4 pace for these workouts feels a little easier then the 5k test, but not by too much.
Robin, I've seen your posts in the NOS and thought that maybe you are still working up your run endurance...?
@ Robin - I have a similar experience with the run zones. If I'm feeling good, I might allow myself to go over (faster than) the run zone for a given workout. But the key metric then becomes: "Can I hold the same pace for all of the intervals, possibly even going a little harder on the last one?" If not, then I've chosen too fast a pace. And a secondary metric is, "What about the upcoming workouts?" If I find myself too fatigued over the next several days, then, again, I've let myself get too quick for my own good.
So, I'm learning that maybe it's OK to feel the run intervals are too "easy", given their place in my overall training program. Training for an IM, absolute burning top end speed is less important than the ability to roll out those intervals, day after day, week after week, at a slightly slower pace.
And you have to remember that it's a model, so everyone is somewhat different. There will be some people that have great short speed but a slower endurance speed, and others who have great endurance but slower short speed. You will notice this more as you do more races and tests. For example, a lot of us use a half marathon time to set paces for races but use 5k times to set paces for all the training work.
Thanks for all the food for thoughts. @Jennifer, that was a helpful link to some HR threads.
@Al, that's good information to use when assessing these intervals, thanks a bunch. So far, most of my intervals have been descending, with the last ones faster than the first. And so far, I haven't run into any walls with the training, been able to hit the workouts in the OS schedule without a problem. So I'm guessing/wondering if that means I'm okay doing them at my RPE instead of at the given pace?
@Daniela, that might be the case. Coming off of a non-season, I'm still coming back up to potential, so maybe this is just the outcome of that and as I approach my former speed/pace and re-test, the RPE and my paces will come into alignment. And I'm sure the 2 x 2m intervals will definitely feel harder!
As a general rule, going faster than the prescribed pace is a risk. If you can keep it up day after day, week after week, and not get fatigued or injured, then, yeah, it's OK. But it increases the risk of fatigue, over-training, and injury, without much real value on race day, IMO.
However, what I hear you saying, is you are coming "off the couch" when it comes to running. So your body will be ramping up its capacity for going fast, and you may need to fine tune your VDOT in between tests. I had that same experience last year, when I started from nothing after no running for 4 months. I went from 0 to 60 in the first 6 weeks, and had to literally increase my pace in the intervals each week. I tried to be judicious and patient as I went from 7:30 intervals to 6:40. I'll be having the same experience next month, after my recovery from IM AZ, followed by 6 weeks devoted to skiing and a minor surgery.
But, as usual, Al knows exactly what he's talking about.
Do what you need to do to complete the next interval. Sure it would be best if you went z1, but it really isn't important. I may walk for say 20 steps then start jogging. Don't worry about the pace at all. It's the time at threshold that matters.
I'm with Tuck on the recovery - whatever it takes in terms of pace and/or time to be able to hit all thie intervals at the prescribed pace. On the treadmill, I set it at 0.5%, many others use 1%.
"Be aware that any speed of running on a treadmill is slightly less demanding than it would be on a track or level road, yet because of the greater chance for heat build-up you might get an equal or even higher heart rate. To adjust for the lack of work that you would experience by running against a headwind, I advise adding a 1 to 2 percent grade (I prefer the 2 percent grade) to the treadmill; this also reduces landing shock slightly and is better than adjusting the workload by running faster than you would during overground running."
OK, so I guess that brings me to the crux of my question. I do understand that there are risks to overdoing it by going too fast on the intervals. But are there also risks to underdoing it? I mean if I can run my VO2 intervals at 7:35 pace as I did today, and the prescribed pace is 8:18, then that's really not going to be a "VO2 Max" workout if I run it at that 8:18 pace. So then is there really no value in pushing the pace to where I feel that it's in the right zone, or if I kick back and accept the lower zones that the data tool is giving me, am I going to be short-changing my run fitness? Right now it feels like it won't be "threshold" or "VO2" work on the run if I hold to the slower paces. I don't want to put in mileage in the no-man's land of slightly fast but not-fast-enough training. Does that make sense?
On the recovery point, if it's a VO2 type inverval (where "full recovery" is usually noted), I'll walk if necessary for a while and then jog, and then pick up the pace until I feel ready, and not get too worked up about how far it is. I run on a measured track indoors typically, and I usually end up going 300 m between 200s and 400-500 m between 400s, and today I went 600-700 m between 1000s (walking, jogging, running all included in that distance).
On the threshold runs, I walk less, and more of them have fairly proscribed intervals of rest (e.g., 4 min or 1 mile or whatever). Most of the time, those intervals work fine for me...and like others, I really don't care how fast I'm going at all during them. It's all about feeling comfortable and getting ready for the next one.
As Al has pointed out, running faster than the prescribed pace raises the risk of injury.
Billet's research shows there is no measurable benefit from doing the VO2 max intervals faster than prescribed — suggesting there isn't much to be gained from going 'too fast' in the VO2 max intervals while doing so increases the risk of injury. (Billet uses a test to set her VO2 max intervals, but they would likely be close to the Daniel's IP pace).
Robin, Al is correct. He basically says exactly what Daniels says in his book. I don't have the book right in front of me so I will paraphrase. "Running faster than your prescribed paces adds nothing to your fitness and only serves to increase your likelihood of injury."
But Stephen is right. Retest. Don't wait. If you can run faster, prove it
Thanks all for the thoughtful replies to my questions! I will try and schedule a 5k test soon, and between now and then I will try really hard to be good and pay attention to prescribed paces