Warm Up 2.0 (On the Bike, At Least)
Okay, so after reading Sami's post about his secret sauce to a sub-9 Ironman, my interest was piqued on several fronts. We discussed it here on the forums for a while, and Sami actually answers quite a few questions on his blog. Turns out he's a pretty nice guy (and a bigger guy at that, like in 180s, etc). But I digress.
The biggest thing that intrigued me was what he called his weekly mini-tests to gauge progress and fitness. Not once every 8 weeks like we do here on EN at say FTP, but rather an incremental effort at a lower %FTP that gave him some feedback. A test that he could do almost every time he rode.
Think about it…instant feedback on every session before you download your file. And not related to can you push 95%, 97% or 98% of your FTP for 15 minutes, but rather where a (perhaps?) more relevant level of fitness might be.
So I did what comes naturally. I made something up.
For the last 8 weeks I have modified my trainer warm up to be 15 minutes instead of 8 minutes. I now do:
* 2' super easy
* 2' steady
* 2' standing big gear
* 2' steady
* 4' at 80% of current FTP
* 3' super easy
And that fifth bullet is what I have been tracking. For me this is about 250 watts right now. It's remarkable that my ability to sit on that number, and the heart rate I get after about 2 minutes of 80% effort, really tell a story about my workout that day.
IOW, I used to show up after waking up and say "I feel great, let's crush it" and have a bad ride. Or I'd feel awful and have a great one. Very little correlation between my perceived workout ability and the real thing.
But with this 4' review, I can tell instantly if my day will be good, bad or ugly.
I think Sami actually does 8' to 10' of such an effort as part of his outdoor rides, so I might modify this as I move outdoors. But for now I am curious to hear what you think?
I am not saying this would replace an FTP test by any means, but rather that it would be a daily indicator of how you are doing (vice the summation of an entire workout or workouts). It could show fatigue (low watts, decoupling of HR, etc), as well as if an FTP bump might be due (lower HR for same watts).
Let the discussion begin, thanks!
Comments
In my opinion this will work most of the time, most of us usually know after a few minutes whether we have it or not for the day. Also I see that 4 minutes at 80% like a primer for your body, something to really get the blood flowing and then the easy rest to kinda regroup and reset. I know I have had some of my best 5k times when I am hammering then literally stop and walk for 10-15 seconds and then get going again.
So what would you do when you are doing your 4mins at 80 and you know you don't have it today? Bag it? Modify the workout?
Coach, I'm not clear on what metric you are using to tell you what the upcoming workout will be like. I'm also not clear on how this is used to give you incremental progress between tests - specifically, should one alter the training program based on the fndings? (Maybe it's too early in the morning and I should re-read the post. Wait a minute until I go do that.)
All right, I'm back, It looks like HR is what you are looking at. Personally, I've noticed with both running and biking that, as I ramp up my season after a longer recovery phase, or re-boot the season in the middle after a big race, that my HR/power (or pace) ratio during the main set will predictably and rather steadily decrease over the course of 6 weeks or so - same wats or pace, lower HR as the days and weeks go by. That does tell me the training is working without the need for an interim test. It's reassuring to watch, but it doesn't alter my training program.
As to predicting what the specific workout will be like, I still don't understand quite what you are getting at, so my two questions above remain.
It would make the warm-up less boring, for sure!
Normal trianer warmup is 15-17 minutes for me. With a little bit of everything in it - but the majority of it is 75-85% of FTP. I start easy, work up to 80% wtih some standing, then hold 75%- 80% for a while, then do 10-20 sec spurts of z4-z5 intervals both sitting and standing, back to 80-85% for 4-5 minutes, then last minute easy --- then hit 1st scheduled interval. Usually I can tell from this warm-up whether I'm gonna hit my numbers, be on the low end or high end. If I'm feely really really good - I can get away w/10 minute warmup -but that is rare.
My warmup depends on what my workout is normally. If I am headed into V02 intervals for example I do:
5' Z1/z2
3X30" 100+ cadence
3X3' Z3
1X1' Z4
Then V02 intervals........
That is about a 20' WU that averages out to be about 75%.....
SS
...a slight digression on your actual topic, but the point remains that this idea of VERY frequent but not-too-demanding testing is out there in lots of places.
For the record, my bike warmup is:
5 minutes whatever I feel like
5 minutes of 1 minute FTP, 1 min easy, 1 min FTP, 1min easy, 1 min FTP
5 min easy/recovery, building to about 85%
I usually find, especially when I've been working hard elsewhere in the week, that it's really hard to hit that first FTP minute, but it comes around by the third...and then I'm ready to go by the time I start. I adopted this after finding out that the 85% type warmups weren't working for me...I would often feel terrible for the first part of the hard intervals.
I am not sure what quantitative metric I could apply to my warmup, since the work part of it is so short.
My WU that I've used for 99% of my indoor workouts for the past 4 years....
5' Easy
4x30" spin-ups (30" RI)
1' Easy
3x2' (1' RI) @ moderate (~80-85%)
1' Easy
Totals 20 minutes.
* Testing for "progress" doesn't have to mean an FTP effort for 2x20 or a 5k TT.
* Those are benchmarks we use but are often too far apart or too affected by current fatigue load to be 100% accurate.
* There _should_ be an incrementally easier way to measure your daily fitness potential to help you determine the best way to complete the given workout.
My theory is that if I plot my AP and avgHR for the 4' warm up over time, that I will see:
* increased ability to hold set watts (lower VI)
* decreased HR for the same watt level
* a correlation between a set wattage / HR and my actual workout performance.
thoughts?
So. As I track for each OS bike workout watts/HR during the standard warm-up "test" decribed in your initial post, if this number is lower than usual on a given day, then odds are my workout potential is lower.
E.g., if I usually do the warm-up test @ 200 watts, with an HR of 120, then one day my HR is 125, I can expect that maybe I'm not ready for a full bore workout. OR, if I am usually pushing 200 watts/120 HR, but can only make 180/120, same thing.
One worry is self-fulfilling prophecy issues - I might give up sooner if I know my W/HR is too low that day. Another is the known variability of HR - by time of day, previous workout that day, etc. But I can see how it might be helpful to avoid drilling oneself into a deep pit.
Interestingly the "EN standard warmup" (which no one here seems to do...maybe I should re-think my warmup...) is 10' easy followed by 3x3'(1') @z3. That sounds pretty similar to Coach P's list of bullets -- a bunch of easy-ish riding followed by 80% work -- in this case 3' not 4' but pretty similar until you repeat it 2 more times, and as Coach P points out, the first 2 minutes are the most telling. And of course if the HR or RPE indicates that the workout is going to be tough, it doesn't really change what I do...you gotta still do the workout...!!
When I think of "testing" fitness on the bike very regularly, I'd expect something at the end of the workout not at the beginning. For example, average watts on a 2' all-out at the end of a 3-hour EN ride where all the FTP work was done in the first hour. Any ideas will be riddled with methodological issues of course, but just a thought.
Very interesting. I've also been doing a variation on a theme for warm-ups:
10 minutes whatever I want (with a strong "no peeking at the power meter" rule) for the first five minutes
5 minutes drills
5 minutes 3x1 minutes
Interestingly, I've noticed if my legs naturally drift to 80%+ after the five-minute mark, the rest of the workout is usually easier to hit. Maybe I'll try working in a short test there - way less anxiety than those 2x20s.
Patrick, I like the idea of more frequent and even daily tests. My concerns with HR as being the main factor which will indicate a god day or a bad day is HR variability can be impacted by so many things, time of day , hydration, sleep levels, caffeine, stress mental / training ….on the list goes.
I wonder if you also tracked you RPE level for the 4’ section of the warm-up also and see if that gives a better pre-workout indicator than HR for the 4’ section. Track both for a month and see what you see.
William is right that Dr Philip Skiba recommends frequent shorter tests to provide the data needed for Raceday to be able to model you as an athleate. These are maximal tests from 2 – 10 min. In a nut shell he comes down to the best indicator of performance capability is performance. So on the bike 2 and 5 min tests seem to be used if one is not willing to do a longer test. On the run 1k and 5k tests. Testing every 2 weeks is suggested.
Below is from the Raceday user guide on testing.
Appendix II: The 2-minute Test
Practically any endurance event takes a combination of aerobic and anaerobic
metabolism. Scientists have shown that it is possible to accurately model very short
(about 10 second) events using math that ignores the aerobic contribution to the
power generated. In other words, because performance in the 100M dash relies
mostly upon preexisting ATP and creatine phosphate stores, we can ignore
whatever minimal effect aerobic metabolism might have on this task. Likewise,
scientists have also shown that it is possible to accurately model events longer than
about 2 minutes (i.e. an 800M track event) by ignoring the anaerobic contribution
to the energy required, because the preponderance of the energy required comes
from aerobic sources.
Does anaerobic capacity effect short term power output? Of course. We aren’t
suggesting otherwise. You could significantly increase 2 minute power by training
anaerobic capacity regularly. However, someone training for longer events
probably focuses more on aerobic training. (Most of our triathletes almost entirely
exclude anaerobic capacity training). Thus, we make the following assumptions:
1. Anaerobic capacity is essentially constant.
2. Most of the variation/improvement comes from changes in aerobic energy
systems.
These are rather dangerous assumptions to make to be sure, and you can only make
them if you are well versed in the athlete’s training and know that anaerobic
capacity training is truly minimal. If the athlete is making drastic changes to
training with respect to anaerobic capacity, the danger is greater. Keep this in mind.
In point of fact, you should always attempt to have the athlete do the test that is
most closely related to his or her event. For instance, we have had good luck
modeling 10 minute power maximal power output in Iron distance triathletes by
having them ride a 10 minute TT on a regular basis. However, for those athletes
unwilling to do such long tests, a short test is about the best you can hope for, and
the data has still proven extremely valuable.
Couple observations about this:
To summarize, I like this idea of doing a warm-up that is longer and *could* be a little more challenging.
So what would be the suggested "Daily Test"? Is it the 4' @ 80%? Or, would a 2' max effort be better?
When I wake up tomorrow to do my 2 x 15', I have 330 on my brain and on the wall, but my body might have other plans. Is is possible to use a short effort (my choice was 4' indoors, could be 10' outdoors) at a specific wattage, noting HR / RPE / that buzz in your legs to adjust expectations? Sure TSS is cool to model / look at over time, but I'll listen to my legs first every time.
I have had days where I have felt awful and dreaded getting on the bike...but the warm up was great...and I was encouraged, so I stuck my numbers and had a great session. The inverse has also been true, and my "test" warm up was an early warning sign for me...
I thing the biggest application of this (for me) will be heading outside, when I have a 3.5 hour ride on the play with 75' at FTP and lots of 80-85% time...if my 10' warm up test sucks, I can make my adjustments BEFORE I dig an even bigger hole.