FTP Pacing Advice Needed
I'm wrapping up the VO2 phase of the Adv OS plan. So only one FTP workout per week on Saturday. Looking at some of my past 2-3 FTP workouts 2 X 20' I am seeing a trend with pacing that concerns me.
Here's what I'm seeing in my wattage graph.
Interval #1 - pretty much even pace @ FTP - maybe 97-98%. A good looking profile.
Interval #2 - 1st 10' even pace @ FTP, no swings in pace; but 2nd 10' (like almost at the 10' mark) pace starts to fall off. And then it's this wild up/down trend over the next 9' to keep things in check. Results in about a 3-5% drop in NPW for the whole interval.
I realize that the issue here is I am running out of gas early. I am hydrated properly and fueled as well. One observation is that this issue is more apparent when doing this workout indoor vs. outdoor.
How should I be pacing it on Int #1 so I don't stuggle halfway through Int #2?
Comments
A study with elite cyclists a few years back (sorry, I don't have the reference) showed that cyclists who were told to do the first 3-5 minutes of a 40 min TT at about 10-15% LESS than their expected race pace ended up having a higher overall NP and faster time. Tis was a cross over study, so they were comparing cyclists to themselves as well as witing and across the groups.
Message - the first 4 minutes of the FTP test should be done EASIER than hyour goal FTP. In the last 10 minutes, I use the following "tricks" to keep my effort up - pay attention to my breathing; focus on cadence, not watts; and when all else fails, count breaths or (worse) pedal strokes.
So as Al said dial it back a little in the beginning. Remember it is a zone. You still get the training effect at .95!
Hard to not feel like a pu$$y not hitting 100%. I did 95 and then 94.6 this morning on both 20s. Way more controlled. Way better pacing.
Probably not great over a long training block. 95 just seems more manageable to me...that may just be me though.
Jim,
The more OS work I do the more I also have no issues with the 95% number. This is especially true when you get further in to the OS and the cumulative fatigue starts to build. The key for me is realizing it early or even before I get on the bike. Of course when I am feeling good I have no issues with hitting the 100% but you also have to hit the run targets as well.
As for the indoor aspect I also find that not hammering the end of the 1st interval helps. Sometimes this hammering may only be a picking it up from 95 to 98 or 100. Just keep it at 95 for the first 20' do the 4' break and start out at 95% again on interval #2. Other alternatives include a little longer break say 5' or perhaps break up the second 20' in to 2 quatlity 10' intervals.
Beyond that for me the 2X20's are a mental game especially in the 5-10 minute period of the second internval. If I make it to the last 10' I'm usually good. Also realize that pushing watts indoors are different the the outdoor watts for most take that into account as well.
Gordon
@Tucker - No not really. Much of what I'm referring to is indoor vs. outdoor results. We've had an unusual drought here in Utah this winter and I've been outside 1-2 X per week. Most of my FTP work was outside until about a week ago. I've had to adjust my numbers down to account for being inside. I know that this (inside vs. outside) in of itself is a point of debate here and on other forums. I've found through two OS years that my inside numbers are going to be about 10 watts lower than outside. I've done all the tricks to create conditions that are perfect to match my outside watts when I am on the trainer. It rarely happens.
So no, I'm more interested and satisfied when I have days like yesterday on the trainer where I pace it right and have a good profile that's steady and tracks upwards towards the end.
Thanks for your perspective and advice on this. I appreciate it.
I display on my Joule Current Watts (with a 3 second record rate), Normalized Power and Intensity Factor (this is the number that tells me the precise percentage) - all of this is for the current Interval.
Show-off.
And now I'm back to feeling like a pu$$y.
8' - .98
10' - .97
12' - .94
10' - .97
Jim,
I might argue that you are still beating the same drum. You started at .98 again. Perhaps you were not as steady as you would have liked but the last interval at .97 was a strong comeback. Also overall only one interval under .95 is still a very strong workout but you are also looking for a more even effort. I'm not sure this will happen especially later in the OS as we keep hammering ourselves.
I don't recall your FTP but just using mine 236, .98 is 231 and .95 is 224. That 7 watts is a big factor. Try the .95 or perhaps take 1 extra minute rest after the 2nd interval.
Again still strong work.
Gordon
@Tucker. On the workout today avg. power worked great for the 2x20. Post ride showed normalized and average almost spot on but for the VO2 intervals, avg. power and normalized were different. Would it be best to use actual power for those intervals?
Yup, since the NP formula uses (I think) a rolling 30 sec avg power as an input, the first 30 secs of the interval will have a lower power being used than is actually being generated on an instantaneous basis. If you're going 2.5 min, looking at the last 2 min of the VO2 interval should show a much better correlation between avg and norm power.
Something interesting I've noticed about VO2 intervals with equal length rest intervals @ 60% ... The NP of the two combined, for me, is just about my FTP. I use that as a check on whether I'm doing the set right. Getting the intensity of the recovery phase is important for getting benefit from the workout. That recovery phase is meant to maintain the stress, not be a total rest.
@Al-- Once again, something you write is so simple but allows me to realize something else I have been doing wrong... I have been using the "off" periods of my VO2 sets as a light spin to be ready to kill the next "on" period. I have been doing 2min on/off and usually force my last "on" to go to 2.5 min. I would sometimes change it up by keeping my "on" periods at 2 min but shrinking my "off" periods to 1 or 1.5 mins, but it does seem to make more sense to do these "off" periods with a little more effort.
I know what Al is talking about and I just have a hard time keeping the pressure on the pedals @ 65% during the OFF segment. I do what I can to keep it up there but after a few sets I'm pretty worked.
Better pacing this morning on 3 X 10'.
.946
.97
1.01
The only asterisk is that these are 10s not 20s and the RI is a pretty cushy 4'. I'll take it though.
I have had the same question and I decided for myself that it was best to hit it right on 120%. I other words, if I'm given the following options:
A. 1' @ 123%
B. 1.5' @ 120%
C. 2' @ 118%
D. 2.5' @ 115%
Then "B" is the best answer. I'm best to choose whatever duration will allow me to be closest to that 120% consistently and across all intervals in the workout. That last part is key, "all intervals" not just the first few or the last few...but all of them.
I have no idea if I am right. Just my guess.
The time I got the most out of a cycle of VO2 intervals was when I did them outdoors. Up a hill which took me about 2:20-2:30 to climb. It was variable steepness, so I was not at the exact same wattage thruout, as I might be on a trainer. But my average watts was in the range of 118-126% for each interval. About 2x each in 4 consecutive weeks, and I really boosted my FTP and more importantly from my perspective, my ability to do longer rides (1-2 hours) at higher effort (80-85%) several times a week.
When I do a cycle of VO2 max intervals indoors, I will do the first week at, say 60-75 sec on, equal amt off, and add 10-15 seconds each session to get to 2:20-2:30 in the last of six weeks. And I try to do all intervals @ 120% +/-
My point is, I think the idea of these intervals is to keep appying a slightly harder stress over the course of the training cycle, and that might require progressively longer intervals as well as longer total work time. To me, the idea is that each workout should feel equally hard, and that requires upping the ante gradually over time. If I'm not increasing the workload some way over the course of the six weeks, I suspect I'm not getting any training (improvement) value. Keeping the wattage stable, and fiddling with the interval length and ttotal work time is the way I approach it.