# Sticky  2017 Winter Base Training thread



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

There is a bunch of really cool discussions going on in a bunch of threads about this topic. I think it would be nice to put them in one.

Just so we have the same reference point this my take on a Classic base training program for someone who trains about 400hrs annually.

Sample Classic base training. 

Base 1: 3 load weeks, 1 light week. Volume is progressively increase as during the phase. Weekly volumes: 10, 11, 12, 8 respectively.

Base 2: 3 load weeks, 1 light week. Volume is higher. Intensity is added in the form of tempo and fartlek work. Weekly volumes: 11, 12, 13, 8

Base 3: 3 load weeks, 1 light week. Highest volumes of the year. Intensity is threshold work blending to Vo2 max work. Weekly volumes 13, 13, 14, 8.

If you have sufficient time to train classic base training or some variation of it is the most effective way to build physiological capabilities to be a bike racer.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

What changes should be considered if a rider gets ill, say, for a week. Can't even sit on a bike.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

westin said:


> What changes should be considered if a rider gets ill, say, for a week. Can't even sit on a bike.


The answer to that is complex and is different every time.

My general rule is:
Week 0: Sick
Week 1 after sick: return to 75% with minimal intensity.
Week 2: return to 100% volume but still restricting intensity.
Week 3: train as normal

A good flu really throws a wrench in your training. This is why athletes with a good immune system have an advantage.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Going to try and get this thread rolling here.

Here is a sample base week. I have a lawyer who works 50hrs a week doing this, she has no issues completing it and still gets 8hrs a sleep a night. And she is freaking fast, pushing almost 5watts/kg at threshold.

Monday: OFF

Tuesday: Workout 1: Gym 1hr
Workout 2: Structured trainer ride 1.5hrs

Wednesday: Workout 1: Run 30 minutes
Workout 2: Steady aerobic ride or XC ski 1.5hrs

Thursday: Workout 1: Gym 1hr
Workout 2: Structured trainer ride 1.5hrs

Friday: Run 1hr

Saturday: Workout 1: Gym 1hr
Workout 2: Steady aerobic 2hrs

Sunday: Steady aerobic 4hrs

Total hours: 15hrs


----------



## mrbadwrench (Sep 13, 2016)

LMN said:


> Going to try and get this thread rolling here.
> 
> Here is a sample base week. I have a lawyer who works 50hrs a week doing this, she has no issues completing it and still gets 8hrs a sleep a night. And she is freaking fast, pushing almost 5watts/kg at threshold.
> 
> ...


I'm going to try this.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

quax said:


> Which brings me to the second point: I see more and more athletes adopt a "low glycogen" training strategy during base (I train a lot with triathletes and roadies), e.g. conduct 2-3 sessions/week at low glycogen levels.
> 
> This where a spiroergometry comes in handy. What you can see often after racing season with diets around 7-10 g carbs/d.kg is that athletes have lost a great deal of their fat oxidation capacity. This may not be relevant for XCO racing but once race duration goes >90min glycogen sparing may be an issue. Hence, rebuild your fat oxidation capacity with low glycogen sessions during base.
> 
> ...


A lot of mountain bike races around here are 2 to 3hrs in length. Personally I use to really struggle with nutrition in these length of races. A couple of years ago I tried "low glycogen" training during base. I felt this made a real difference in my racing. But man did it make those training rides ugly at times.


----------



## BermudaBrown (May 28, 2012)

quax said:


> [*]AeT: Spiroergometry determined
> 
> [/LIST]


OK - you've got me wondering...

Please tell me about spirogometry, the equipment involved (if any), and just what a spirogometry defined workout might look like!


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Every year when the base training discussion comes up it always seems that people go to the extremes. 

Very few of us have the time to train 20-30hrs per week, I would say even fewer of us are physically capable of training that much. But many of us can in fact train more then 8hrs a week. Some might even be able to hit that 15hr mark once in a while. 

I think all of us can agree that if you are training 8hr a week then doing long steady rides is not the best use of your time. I also think all of us can agree that if you are training 25hrs a week then the large bulk of your training is going to be in the zone1, and zone2 range.

What should interest us as amateur racers is how to mange a 12-15hr a week program. Restricting yourself to steady miles only is going to be only effective for about 4 week and trying to ride hard all the time at that volume will lead to burnout pretty quickly.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

O.k. I will stop contributing to this thread.


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

quax said:


> O.k. I will stop contributing to this thread.


Just as I was about to ask about that spiroergometry you suggested. What did I miss?


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

BermudaBrown said:


> OK - you've got me wondering...
> 
> Please tell me about spiroergometry, the equipment involved (if any), and just what a spiroergometry defined workout might look like!


_"Spirometry involves exercising on a bicycle ergometer or treadmill until you have reached your individual maximum. A breathing mask collects some of the air you inhale and exhale for respiratory analysis with each breath. This enables accurate determination of the oxygen uptake (VO2) and carbon dioxide output (VCO2). Maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) is an important predictor for endurance performance.

Spirometry also determines the respiratory threshold (AT and RCP), allowing precise determination of individual intensity ranges and training ranges for endurance training as well as metabolic pathways (carbohydrate and fat metabolism)."_ *Sportclinic.ch*

https://www.sportclinic.ch/htm/660/...m?Angebot=19410&Bereich=19351&Disziplin=19211

Have a look at this link about it:

https://blog.runningcoach.me/en/2014/08/05/well-trained-fat-metabolism-or-why-less-is-often-more/

It's essentially a ramp test where exercise intensity increases over time. By monitoring the responses to this it's possible to estimate which energy sources are being used at a particular intensity, whether the athlete is able to use fat metabolism for longer, sparing their muscle glycogen reserves for later, or whether they start using muscle glycogen for energy as soon as they begin exercising.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

Parts 2 and 3 of this article make some good points that are worth noting.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/3-mistakes-you-can-fix-with-quadrant-analysis-in-wko4

.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

Endurance racing only for me, no shorter xc stuff, but since that forum seems to have dried up and blown away, I'll ask here:

If my two target races are in mid-July and early August, can anything I do -- "base" or otherwise -- in January and February REALLY have an impact?

And quax, your input is most assuredly desired, in addition to others. Please re-join thread.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

kosmo said:


> Endurance racing only for me, no shorter xc stuff, but since that forum seems to have dried up and blown away, I'll ask here:
> 
> If my two target races are in mid-July and early August, can anything I do -- "base" or otherwise" in January and February REALLY have an impact?
> 
> And quax, your input is most assuredly desired, in addition to others. Please re-join thread.


Often at this time of year we are training to build the ability to train. The work that we are doing now is so we can trainer with higher quality well maintaining our volume in the critical months of March to July.


----------



## BermudaBrown (May 28, 2012)

Thank you WR304 for the info on spirometry. I stepped away from the thread for a couple days and somehow someone offended quax as I was asking about it.

LMN - great info as always. You break down the complex to simple for the benefit of many.

Now - my next question:

A few years ago (OK, a decade and a half ago) when I was actually a fast rider and not just coaching fast athletes we used the FACT system to find lactate balance point and based zones from that. Is spirometry not along the same lines, based on what I've read?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Stickying. I'm always curious to read what you have to say.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## dokker (Sep 25, 2013)

What those 1hr gym workouts include?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

dokker said:


> What those 1hr gym workouts include?


Different things for different people. Gym programs tend to be a little bit more personalized.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

My first A-event is the Cape Epic in March 2017. The training plan I am on is looking to bring more specificity - which, in this case, means higher mileage - the closer we get to the event. And so the typical training pyramid which puts base/foundation/high mileage work first is reversed: we are doing shedloads of interval work, building FTP, peak power etc, right now, and will layer in high mileage in late Jan. 

We are mixing up interval types, but a SS week looks like this...
M: 3x20 SS intervals + 1hr EM
T: 2hr EM
W: 3x20 SS intervals + 1hr EM
R: 1hr EM + core strength workout
F: 3x20 SS intervals + 1hr EM
S: 3hr EM
S: Rest

Do that for 2 weeks, increase to 3x25 for week 3, then 1 week of recovery miles, light interval work.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

"Steady State" or "Sweet Spot?"

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

AndrwSwitch said:


> "Steady State" or "Sweet Spot?"
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


Steady state, sorry for the confusion.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Steady state for us means 96%-100% FTP. I'm sure others use the same term for different ranges.


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

Wow. 3x20 FTP intervals in November


----------



## Choice Cut Nutrition (Nov 9, 2016)

LMN said:


> Often at this time of year we are training to build the ability to train. The work that we are doing now is so we can traine with higher quality well maintaining our volume in the critical months of March to July.


Yes! Agreed. I have found that using zone 1 and 2 training in the baseline phase is essential to building up weekly mileage. That way mileage has already been established when the more demanding phases of training start.


----------



## Choice Cut Nutrition (Nov 9, 2016)

LMN said:


> A couple of years ago I tried "low glycogen" training during base. I felt this made a real difference in my racing. But man did it make those training rides ugly at times.


If you train your body to work off a low carb/ketogenic diet, then yeah, you will rely more on fat oxidation. However, you won't have the same energy for anaerobic expenditures. You will get killed on the sprints every time.

The best way to increase your body's ability to oxidize fat is to raise your lactate threshold.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

@twobigwheels: I don't think the overall load over a 6 month cycle will be much different from normal pyramid structures. I'll just be doing the volume, high EM work later. I must add that I'm not an expert in any of this. I read up as much as I can, but mostly trusting my coach to put it together the right way.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Choice Cut Nutrition said:


> The best way to increase your body's ability to oxidize fat is to raise your lactate threshold.


Can you point me to some literature on this? I am very interested in metabolic adaptations. Is the increased oxidization across the board, meaning your body just burns more fat and less glycogen full stop, or is this just describing the movement of what was previously a glycogen-burning zone to a fat-burning zone, i.e., increased fitness making a certain wattage zone easier for the body to maintain?


----------



## Choice Cut Nutrition (Nov 9, 2016)

winters.benjamin said:


> or is this just describing the movement of what was previously a glycogen-burning zone to a fat-burning zone, i.e., increased fitness making a certain wattage zone easier for the body to maintain?


That is exactly how it works. As we raise our lactate threshold, we are able to put out a greater wattage while maintaining a lower heart rate. The higher our heart rate is, the more we rely on carbs(glycogen) for energy.

Some literature for you. Actually, these are both text books. The first is on metabolic conditioning. Geared toward runners, but the principles are the same. Research is sited throughout the book. I will see if I can sift through and find actual studies that demonstrate this concept. I highly recommend this book to anyone who loves sports science. It goes all through training phases and periodization, and everything you can think of. 
Daniels, J. (2005). Daniels' Running formula: Second Edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

The second book is an in depth overview of biochemistry. Not for the average science lover. Chemistry to the max. Don't bother with it. This stuff was drilled into me in college.
Groff, J. L., Gropper, S. S., and Smith, J. L. (2005). Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism: Fourth Edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Choice Cut Nutrition said:


> That is exactly how it works. As we raise our lactate threshold, we are able to put out a greater wattage while maintaining a lower heart rate. The higher our heart rate is, the more we rely on carbs(glycogen) for energy.
> 
> Some literature for you. Actually, these are both text books. The first is on metabolic conditioning. Geared toward runners, but the principles are the same. Research is sited throughout the book. I will see if I can sift through and find actual studies that demonstrate this concept. I highly recommend this book to anyone who loves sports science. It goes all through training phases and periodization, and everything you can think of.
> Daniels, J. (2005). Daniels' Running formula: Second Edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
> ...


Great, will see if I can get a copy of the Daniels text. Libraries don't really exist here in Zambia, but good ol' Google often has scanned copies.


----------



## carlostruco (May 22, 2009)

LMN said:


> Going to try and get this thread rolling here.
> 
> Here is a sample base week. I have a lawyer who works 50hrs a week doing this, she has no issues completing it and still gets 8hrs a sleep a night. And she is freaking fast, pushing almost 5watts/kg at threshold.
> 
> ...


Wow!!! This looks pretty much like my typical week right now, except my Fridays are Off for me...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

LMN said:


> Often at this time of year we are training to build the ability to train. The work that we are doing now is so we can trainer with higher quality well maintaining our volume in the critical months of March to July.


LMN, I take it you have observed physiological adaptations from a wide range of training strategies in a wide range of athletes. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on two issues: first, if we're prioritizing specificity as target events near (meaning training stimuli ought to increasingly resemble the types of stresses to be encountered in the race), then for the marathoners volume will theoretically come later in the calendar. Which would seem to imply, as my coach is theorizing, that threshold work comes earlier. This begs questions about how long adaptations 'stick' - e.g., if I raise my threshold by 10% during intensive interval work early in the training calendar, can I maintain that increase once I transition to higher volume, lower intensity work as the target event nears. Or the reverse: if I focus on the high volume, low intensity work early, how much of that will 'stick' and for how long once I move to low volume, high intensity work? Or perhaps there is a different approach altogether that I am not seeing....

Second, and somewhat interrelated: any rules of thumb for integrating strength training for legs with bike training? All of my gym work right now is upper body or stability, mostly because I am uncertain whether it would be counterproductive to do squats, for example, in the same week when I am pushing 3x20s trying to raise FTP. I have a sense that on-the-bike work takes precedence over gym work and so given the choice I hop on the bike, but I don't have any science or trustworthy observations to back this up.

Anyway, those were some long-winded questions but would be grateful for responses from you or anyone else with experience here...


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

winters.benjamin said:


> The training plan I am on is looking to bring more specificity - which, in this case, means higher mileage - the closer we get to the event. And so the typical training pyramid which puts base/foundation/high mileage work first is reversed: we are doing shedloads of interval work, building FTP, peak power etc, right now, and will layer in high mileage in late Jan.


Same approach here. My "focus" 100s are typically in July and August, so shorter, more intense rides in the spring, ramping up to 6 or 7 hour suffer-fests starting in June.

This approach has always worked for me, maybe because I come into spring with a pretty decent base from xc skiing.

Caveat: I'm kind of done with this, having decided to retire from 100s, and switch to 50s. Not sure exactly how to change my approach. Last year, I didn't change anything other than ramping up to ONLY 4.5 hour suffer fests beginning in June. Seemed to work.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

kosmo said:


> Caveat: I'm kind of done with this, having decided to retire from 100s, and switch to 50s. Not sure exactly how to change my approach. Last year, I didn't change anything other than ramping up to ONLY 4.5 hour suffer fests beginning in June. Seemed to work.


Aside from the obvious length differences, are your 50s substantially different than 100s? Just thinking out loud here...if the race characteristics are largely similar, save for the length, then it would make sense that a successful training plan for 100s would work fine with shorter endurance rides for 50s. But If your 50s have more intermittent power bursts or heavier climbs, etc., maybe you'd see benefits from adapting your training stimuli accordingly...


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

winters.benjamin said:


> Aside from the obvious length differences, are your 50s substantially different than 100s? Just thinking out loud here...if the race characteristics are largely similar, save for the length, then it would make sense that a successful training plan for 100s would work fine with shorter endurance rides for 50s. But If your 50s have more intermittent power bursts or heavier climbs, etc., maybe you'd see benefits from adapting your training stimuli accordingly...


Good question. Mostly, the difference has been one lap of a 50 mile loop, versus two. Maybe that's why the same plan, just not as ridiculously long, has worked -- for one year at least.

This year's target race is a different animal, however. Suntop, up near Rainier in Washington. 50 miles, but about a million feet of climbing. Almost as much climbing as most of the 100s I've done. Winning times for the young, fast guys seems to indicate that this is a tough one!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

^^^
I'm hoping to make a comeback this year and include that. If not, maybe just do the Triple Crown route on my own.

I'd speculate that you could spend more time at intensity if you're dropping some volume. Although given what you've said in other threads, you could also not do that. 

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

AndrwSwitch said:


> ^^^
> I'm hoping to make a comeback this year and include that. If not, maybe just do the Triple Crown route on my own.
> 
> I'd speculate that you could spend more time at intensity if you're dropping some volume. Although given what you've said in other threads, you could also not do that.
> ...


A little more intensity is exactly what I added last year, thinking 50s might be a little more intense, given the shorter duration.

Since I'm not much for pushing beyond a certain level, I did this by adding a couple of dirt bike trail climbs that I would never have done previously as part of a 4 hour training ride. Seemed to work.

If you make it to Suntop, let's actually stare into each other's eyeballs and say hi!


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I am not a big fan of reverse periodization. Primarily, because I think most people misjudge what is the key to success in a stage race.

I am always blown aways by just how fast stage races are. Each stage is done at full race pace. There is no pacing. I always go up the first climb on day one thinking "7 more days at this pace, how am I going to survive?" By day 4 pace has slowed down a bit, but not a lot.

I would say that a stage racer like an XC racer needs a very high threshold power. I would say that threshold power is probably the biggest determinant of success. There are definitely other significant factors but having a high threshold power is critical.

Typically endurance work has great residuals (it stays around for a long time) and is relatively easy to maintain. But Vo2 max work and threshold work fades relatively quickly and requires a lot of work to maintain.

For example:
Athlete A: does 2 months of focused vo2 max and threshold followed by 2 months of endurance with some maintenance work on vo2 max and threshold. I suspect you will find decent endurance but relatively poor power at threshold.

Athlete B: does 2 months of endurance followed by 2 months of threshold and Vo2 max with some maintenance work on endurance. I suspect they will have decent endurance and quite good power at threshold.

The other thing to keep in mind is often the reason we do traditional base work is to increase our capacity to train. As a stage racer you need to be able to do a high volume with intensity. Some of the riders I work with in months of march, april, many are doing 20hr+ weeks with a bucket load of hard intervals. They got there by first achieving that training volume without the intensity.

2. GYM
My rule is the gym shouldn't compromise your primary riding focus. I would say that heavy squats and FTP work at threshold a don't go well together. Both require fresh legs and both nuke your legs.



winters.benjamin said:


> LMN, I take it you have observed physiological adaptations from a wide range of training strategies in a wide range of athletes. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on two issues: first, if we're prioritizing specificity as target events near (meaning training stimuli ought to increasingly resemble the types of stresses to be encountered in the race), then for the marathoners volume will theoretically come later in the calendar. Which would seem to imply, as my coach is theorizing, that threshold work comes earlier. This begs questions about how long adaptations 'stick' - e.g., if I raise my threshold by 10% during intensive interval work early in the training calendar, can I maintain that increase once I transition to higher volume, lower intensity work as the target event nears. Or the reverse: if I focus on the high volume, low intensity work early, how much of that will 'stick' and for how long once I move to low volume, high intensity work? Or perhaps there is a different approach altogether that I am not seeing....
> 
> Second, and somewhat interrelated: any rules of thumb for integrating strength training for legs with bike training? All of my gym work right now is upper body or stability, mostly because I am uncertain whether it would be counterproductive to do squats, for example, in the same week when I am pushing 3x20s trying to raise FTP. I have a sense that on-the-bike work takes precedence over gym work and so given the choice I hop on the bike, but I don't have any science or trustworthy observations to back this up.
> 
> Anyway, those were some long-winded questions but would be grateful for responses from you or anyone else with experience here...


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

winters.benjamin said:


> Steady state for us means 96%-100% FTP. I'm sure others use the same term for different ranges.


Are you a CTS client? I know they use that term for what everyone else calls Z4 or Threshold.

If I did 3 x 20 @ 96-100% FTP 3x/week I'd be toast within a month. That's ~300 TSS right there not even counting the Z2 work in each workout.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

tommyrod74 said:


> Are you a CTS client? I know they use that term for what everyone else calls Z4 or Threshold.


Yes I am. It's my first formal coaching experience. I've studied Carmichael texts in the past and used his principles to structure training plans on my own. My move to using a coach instead of carrying on as normal was primarily in search of greater efficiency: I know that textbook approaches won't optimize physiological adaptation since every person is different. And trying to extrapolate how my physiological differences should translate to modifications in Carmichael's principles became (a) too tedious and (b) too speculative for my liking. It's been a good experience. In most of my coaching meetings I am just grilling my coach on 'why are we training this way' or 'why is my body responding that way' and it's been very informative to-date. I am getting stronger, but since I'm a newbie to formal coaching, I'm not sure if that's attributable to my coach specifically or the fact that I'm adhering to a rigorous structured program.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

westin said:


> What changes should be considered if a rider gets ill, say, for a week. Can't even sit on a bike.


My rule is if it's a common cold, with minor congestion, etc., I continue on with low stress endurance work. Once I start feeling physically weak, I stop. I don't resume training until at least three days after I start feeling physically fine. When I do resume, I go straight back to where I left off in the plan. If I can't hit wattage targets, I dial it back until I can.

Training introduces a significant amount of physical stress, and your body may not have the reserves to both recover from this stress and muster and immune response to combat illness. Just to put this in perspective, the Australian track cycling team used to have a rule that if a rider broke a PR during training, that rider would immediately warm-down, go home and take a full week off training. A full week! The theory here is that, even if you don't 'feel' tired, a PR-breaking effort absolutely crushes your body.

Bear in mind that during the time this rule was in place, the Aussies dominated track cycling. I don't have the interview handy with the Aussie coach where he mentioned this protocol but I'll poke around and try to find it if you're interested.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

winters.benjamin said:


> My rule is if it's a common cold, with minor congestion, etc., I continue on with low stress endurance work. Once I start feeling physically weak, I stop. I don't resume training until at least three days after I start feeling physically fine. When I do resume, I go straight back to where I left off in the plan. If I can't hit wattage targets, I dial it back until I can.
> 
> Training introduces a significant amount of physical stress, and your body may not have the reserves to both recover from this stress and muster and immune response to combat illness. Just to put this in perspective, the Australian track cycling team used to have a rule that if a rider broke a PR during training, that rider would immediately warm-down, go home and take a full week off training. A full week! The theory here is that, even if you don't 'feel' tired, a PR-breaking effort absolutely crushes your body.
> 
> Bear in mind that during the time this rule was in place, the Aussies dominated track cycling. I don't have the interview handy with the Aussie coach where he mentioned this protocol but I'll poke around and try to find it if you're interested.


I've read that interview with (I believe) Hamish Ferguson, who was the coach at that time IIRC. He's a smart fellow. I recall the "cool down and head home" part of it but not the "take the week off" part.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

tommyrod74 said:


> I've read that interview with (I believe) Hamish Ferguson, who was the coach at that time IIRC. He's a smart fellow. I recall the "cool down and head home" part of it but not the "take the week off" part.


You're right. It wasn't the Aussies, it was actually Charlie Francis. I read the information in a commentary on the Australian interview, so just got the two mixed up! The commentator was Lyle McDonald, here's the link: All You Need to Know About Training Part 2 - : Bodyrecomposition

"In the 80's, Charlie Francis talked about how his guys would often need a 10 day break after hitting a new big PR; the strain on the system is enormous. And if you keep hitting more and more in the same workout, it's damn near exponential."

Sorry for misleading!


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

winters.benjamin said:


> You're right. It wasn't the Aussies, it was actually Charlie Francis. I read the information in a commentary on the Australian interview, so just got the two mixed up! The commentator was Lyle McDonald, here's the link: All You Need to Know About Training Part 2 - : Bodyrecomposition
> 
> "In the 80's, Charlie Francis talked about how his guys would often need a 10 day break after hitting a new big PR; the strain on the system is enormous. And if you keep hitting more and more in the same workout, it's damn near exponential."
> 
> Sorry for misleading!


IIRC, the Aussies would also cool down and go home if they hit a PR in the weight room (squats, leg press). Of course, the system stress for a 2.5-3x bodyweight squat is probably pretty big.


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

tommyrod74 said:


> If I did 3 x 20 @ 96-100% FTP 3x/week I'd be toast within a month. That's ~300 TSS right there not even counting the Z2 work in each workout.


+1

Unless your FTP is underestimated. Calculated by 8 min test's?


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

We retest every month, or more frequently if something abnormal is observed. 8 min tests are default, but have done 20 min as well.


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

winters.benjamin said:


> We retest every month, or more frequently if something abnormal is observed. 8 min tests are default, but have done 20 min as well.


What percentage do you use for calculating FTP from 20 min test?

I am not doubting you do this workout & ride at a high level - but the way a lot of people perform FTP test (myself included at one point - 95% of 20m test) - this workout would be brutal 3x a week - IF they are really going all out on 20m test.

My point being that, many (myself included) riders go into 20min test in a rested/best case scenario, and come up with a artificially high FTP #, (like compared to wanting big # for bench pressing). I can bury myself in a 20 min test,,,but cannot perform 95% of 20 min # as FTP # day in and day out at 52 years young.

How well do your 8m tests compare to 20m tests for FTP?


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

twobigwheels said:


> What percentage do you use for calculating FTP from 20 min test?
> 
> I am not doubting you do this workout & ride at a high level - but the way a lot of people perform FTP test (myself included at one point - 95% of 20m test) - this workout would be brutal 3x a week - IF they are really going all out on 20m test.
> 
> ...


I'd argue that thise doesn't produce an artificially high FTP, but an accurate one - to ride at 100% FTP for 1 hour should require going in fit, well rested, and well motivated - certainly not something one could do regularly, any more than one could expect to max out a 1 hour tine trial regularly (the same thing, basically).

FTP fluctuates daily, in a sense, based on fatigue levels. That's normal, and why most threshold-level interval workouts target repeats at 88-95% FTP if the intervals are ~20 minutes in duration. That's a reachable target, even when somewhat fatigued, for most.

LMN will likely chime in here.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

tommyrod74 said:


> I'd argue that thise doesn't produce an artificially high FTP, but an accurate one - to ride at 100% FTP for 1 hour should require going in fit, well rested, and well motivated - certainly not something one could do regularly, any more than one could expect to max out a 1 hour tine trial regularly (the same thing, basically).
> 
> FTP fluctuates daily, in a sense, based on fatigue levels. That's normal, and why most threshold-level interval workouts target repeats at 88-95% FTP if the intervals are ~20 minutes in duration. That's a reachable target, even when somewhat fatigued, for most.
> 
> LMN will likely chime in here.


FTP test are something that I am try to wrap my head around lately.

I have always followed the standard protocol.

-Make sure they are well rested
-20 minute w.p. , 5 minutes best effort, 5 minutes easy. 20 minutes best effort. 20 minute w.d.
-Set FTP at 95% of 20 minute value.

But lately I have had a couple of athletes where they can't hit the training zones that match. I just had one rider absolutely smash his test at the start of training. It was within 10 watts of his all time best (which was shocking when I looked at his fall). I set his training zone and quickly found that he couldn't even come close to training in those zones. I had to cut his estimated FTP by almost 25 watts in order for his perceived effort to match his training zones.

I think because he has a high Vo2 max he does he really well on a 20 minute test, even when he is out of shape. But if the test was actually an hour in length then he would drop off dramatically.

When setting an FTP I think we have to remember that our value is probably off by +-5%. What ever number we use we have to be prepared to adjust if other data indicates that it is off.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

^^^
Did your guy have a particularly high five minutes result relative to his FTP?

I've bumped into some chatter about doing an FTP calculation based on a short and a long test, like a five minute and a twenty minute. The idea is that having both results lets me calculate an equation in terms of energy spent over time. If both tests are true best efforts done adequately rested, both will use all of an athlete's anaerobic energy capacity. So the relationship of the two tests shows what that, and the athlete's aerobic capacity, are. I want to say it's the Monod model? Certainly this isn't something I've thought up myself. 

CP = (AE) + (FTP)t

It's kind of a clunky model since it requires two high-quality data points. But I think everybody expects to see some athletes with flatter power curves, for whom a 20-minute FTP test will tend to underreport, and with power curves that get a lot higher going to the short durations, who are likely to have more trouble with intervals running longer than 20 minutes at expected critical or near-critical power for those durations.

I can't say it's ended up informing my training much. I'm really not that serious at the moment. But it was interesting to play with the numbers and it also points to interesting ways to keep someone's FTP up to date if he's "racing into shape" and recording season bests at different durations more often than it's practical to calculate FTP. Also at a slightly more robust way to get an FTP from a power curve if there's a decent amount of competition contributing data. Basically to take the entire power curve, convert the first hour into joules and seconds, then best-fit a line.

Looking at it in the other direction, if I have some fairly good test results, I can predict what what my critical power should be at any given duration. If there are low spots in my power curve, maybe I want to do a couple sessions focusing on big efforts at that duration. Though power curves are a pretty great visualization, so partly it's that the math interested me. 

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

twobigwheels said:


> What percentage do you use for calculating FTP from 20 min test?
> 
> I am not doubting you do this workout & ride at a high level - but the way a lot of people perform FTP test (myself included at one point - 95% of 20m test) - this workout would be brutal 3x a week - IF they are really going all out on 20m test.
> 
> ...


I hope this answer isn't too disappointing but I haven't been doing the math on 8m vs 20m results. I talk to my coach about whether my numbers are getting better or worse, and we test and adapt accordingly. In the first few months I really dug into the details and calculations to make sure I trusted his analyses. He earned my trust (for whatever that is worth) and I've since backed off on scrutinizing every last detail of the training. I do know that when we test, we usually test when I am rested.

The 3x20s are rough, 3x25s nearly impossible. My coach and I frequently talk about motivation levels and health, and I've asked him to push me to the limit of what is productive in the time that I have to give to training. I think he is doing a good job of that. The training sessions are not fun. They hurt and never seem to get easier, although FTP is climbing so I look for my gratification in that. I should also add that pulling off a 3x20 might be easier for me given my physiology (which I don't know enough about to really comment on), while power intervals might be easier for others. I really don't know enough about FTP or other physiological indicators to know where to hang one's hat in terms of predicting good cycling performance. For me I sort of mash up FTP and the normal suite of related workouts (tempo, steady state, etc.) plus just getting out and racing against other people and watching closely for what is happening when I get dropped. And there are plenty of opportunities for me to observe myself getting dropped.

Couple more comments: I am not a high-level rider. I consider myself to have average fitness. My willpower is pretty strong, and I think that is what carries me through the hard sessions. Like I said, no matter how much my fitness climbs, tough workouts are tough.


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

tommyrod74 said:


> I'd argue that thise doesn't produce an artificially high FTP, but an accurate one - to ride at 100% FTP for 1 hour should require going in fit, well rested, and well motivated - certainly not something one could do regularly, any more than one could expect to max out a 1 hour tine trial regularly (the same thing, basically).
> 
> FTP fluctuates daily, in a sense, based on fatigue levels. That's normal, and why most threshold-level interval workouts target repeats at 88-95% FTP if the intervals are ~20 minutes in duration. That's a reachable target, even when somewhat fatigued, for most.
> 
> LMN will likely chime in here.


Not arguing - just saying.
What I thought was my FTP wasn't artificially high - it was wrong.

I guess my point was more on the way to calculate FTP. I just thought (think) that to perform 3x20's @ 96-100% of FTP 3x per week is on the freakish (genetically gifted) side of the ladder (unless FTP is underestimated - rider not going all out on test - or on the other hand who even knows how the "FTP number" is even calculated)

I thought I was an exception (not being able to consistently train in zones based on 95% of 20m test), until I researched it on the Google Wattage Forum and found out I wasn't (according to coaches on the forum).

"In my experience, FTP is rarely as high as 95% of 20-minute maximal power. 88-93% is not an uncommon range." Alex Simmons
Alex's Cycle Blog: The seven deadly sins

Like LMN stated below, even with 5 min best effort (to build some fatigue?), some client's zones are still to high (I did NOT do 5 min best effort's before my 20m test's - I guess I wanted the biggest # possible...).



LMN said:


> -Make sure they are well rested
> -20 minute w.p. , 5 minutes best effort, 5 minutes easy. 20 minutes best effort. 20 minute w.d.
> -Set FTP at 95% of 20 minute value.
> 
> ...


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

LMN said:


> -Make sure they are well rested
> -20 minute w.p. , 5 minutes best effort, 5 minutes easy. 20 minutes best effort. 20 minute w.d.
> -Set FTP at 95% of 20 minute value.


5 min best effort - You are looking to come within a few % of 5min PR?

Looking build some fatigue in?


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

twobigwheels said:


> Not arguing - just saying.
> What I thought was my FTP wasn't artificially high - it was wrong.
> 
> I guess my point was more on the way to calculate FTP. I just thought (think) that to perform 3x20's @ 96-100% of FTP 3x per week is on the freakish (genetically gifted) side of the ladder (unless FTP is underestimated - rider not going all out on test - or on the other hand who even knows how the "FTP number" is even calculated)
> ...


If I have an indication that an athlete has disproportionately better short-term power output than longer term, I tend to go with 88-92% of the 20-minute number as FTP. Many XC riders who haven't trained on the road at longer, steadier durations have really well developed anaerobic abilities but relatively poorly developed aerobic abilities, and I feel that skews the test a bit high relative to FTP.

As Simmons states (paraphrasing), though, it's not really necessary to nail down FTP to the exact watt. The intervals based on FTP will tell you if/when it needs to be adjusted upwards or downwards.

And there is a big difference between not being able to do 2 x 20 min @ 95% FTP 1-2x per week, and not being able to do 3 x 20 min @ 95-100% 3x/week. The first scenario might mean FTP is set too high; the second I know I'd have trouble if performed with on a chronic basis.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

From the perspective of someone who has limited knowledge here on the maths, and limited experience coaching individuals, can you coaches chime in on:
1) Which FTP calculations and tests seem to provide the most consistent and coherent training stresses among your athletes? I.e., different calculations/tests will introduce different biases into the resulting zones. So from your personal experiences, which methods tend to result in zones that *seem* right? 
2) Ignoring the debate around reverse periodization or standard periodization for the moment, what types of intervals do you prescribe for maximizing increases in power at threshold? Not many people are signing up for 3x20s from the sounds of it, so what would a better regimen be, and how might we compare results from one to the next? Again, it would be most interesting to me to hear from your personal experience with athletes...


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

twobigwheels said:


> 5 min best effort - You are looking to come within a few % of 5min PR?
> 
> Looking build some fatigue in?


I hope to see 5 minute PR.

Building some fatigue is part of it. But as a mountain bike racer what matter is what you can do after you have done a 5 minute all out effort (starts). For a lot of people the inability to handle a hard start is their single biggest limiter.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

LMN said:


> I hope to see 5 minute PR.
> 
> Building some fatigue is part of it. But as a mountain bike racer what matter is what you can do after you have done a 5 minute all out effort (starts). For a lot of people the inability to handle a hard start is their single biggest limiter.


I'd read the thinking was that the 5 minute effort would burn out the anaerobic work capacity, leaving the 20 minute effort as an almost totally aerobic effort. I'd guess you could take off a varying % of the 20 minute test to account for any anaerobic contributions.

FWIW, I find it's easy to adjust FTP (and thus zones) up or down based on athlete feedback from interval workouts. It's not a big deal.

I'd also say that testing FTP monthly seems to be excessive. You know where FTP is trending from workout data; no need to interrupt training to test over and over again.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

tommyrod74 said:


> I'd read the thinking was that the 5 minute effort would burn out the anaerobic work capacity, leaving the 20 minute effort as an almost totally aerobic effort. I'd guess you could take off a varying % of the 20 minute test to account for any anaerobic contributions.
> 
> FWIW, I find it's easy to adjust FTP (and thus zones) up or down based on athlete feedback from interval workouts. It's not a big deal.
> 
> I'd also say that testing FTP monthly seems to be excessive. You know where FTP is trending from workout data; no need to interrupt training to test over and over again.


I only test FTP two or three times a year. Once at the start of training, once at the end of the base period and perhaps once some other point in the year.

I have found by looking at interval data I can usually do a pretty good guess as to what there FTP would test at.


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

tommyrod74 said:


> I'd argue that thise doesn't produce an artificially high FTP, but an accurate one - to ride at 100% FTP for 1 hour should require going in fit, well rested, and well motivated - certainly not something one could do regularly, any more than one could expect to max out a 1 hour tine trial regularly (the same thing, basically).





tommyrod74 said:


> If I have an indication that an athlete has disproportionately better short-term power output than longer term, I tend to go with 88-92% of the 20-minute number as FTP. Many XC riders who haven't trained on the road at longer, steadier durations have really well developed anaerobic abilities but relatively poorly developed aerobic abilities, and I feel that skews the test a bit high relative to FTP.


I'm confused.

One day you say "I'd argue that thise doesn't produce an artificially high FTP, but an accurate one - to ride at 100% FTP for 1 hour" concerning my statement regarding 20m test @ 95%.

The next day "If I have an indication that an athlete has disproportionately better short-term power output than longer term, I tend to go with 88-92% of the 20-minute number as FTP."


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

twobigwheels said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> One day you say "I'd argue that thise doesn't produce an artificially high FTP, but an accurate one - to ride at 100% FTP for 1 hour" concerning my statement regarding 20m test @ 95%.
> 
> The next day "If I have an indication that an athlete has disproportionately better short-term power output than longer term, I tend to go with 88-92% of the 20-minute number as FTP."


Sorry for the confusion. I can see how that was misleading.

The athletes for whom I've needed to use a lower % of the 20 minute test as an FTP estimate (and remember, it's always an estimate, even when you've done a 60 minute test) are the exception, not the rule.

At a 300 watts test number, it's the difference between 264 watts and 285 watts as an FTP estimate, at the extremes. If I'm asking a client to do 2 x 20 intervals @ 90% FTP, the larger estimate has them doing intervals at 266 watts or so - still well below their test number. This is one reason why I have them aim for lower zone 4 for these workouts - very attainable most every day, but plenty (in sufficient volume) to stimulate adaptation.

If i could rephrase my earlier statement, I'd say that either estimate yields a very usable estimate for coaching purposes - creating interval workouts, and measuring improvement over time. I wouldn't call it an "artificially high" FTP estimate, because 1) I'm not comparing FTP estimates between clients (though I might compare test numbers between clients - eliminating the estimation); 2) I don't have clients do 20 minute intervals @ 100% FTP (though I sometimes will at shorter durations, like 4 x 8 intervals); and 3) no matter the estimation error (and there is always some degree of error in an estimation), it's a useful number for tracking improvement as long as the same protocol is followed each time. Also, any good coach is using athlete feedback to adjust interval intensities that are based on an FTP estimate, which is only a starting point.

To add: regarding your earlier statement that your FTP "wasn't artificially high, but wrong", I'd posit that while that may be correct, it will never be exactly right, and if you are adjusting workout targets as you go, it really doesn't matter much at all, as it's a starting point for basing interval workouts. Even an overestimation of 7% (the maximum in this case, if using 88-95% as a range) yields a perfectly good starting number if not trying to nail 100% FTP in long intervals on a regular basis, which many (most?) coaches feel is unnecessary.

I hope that clears up my philosophy on it.


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

^^^
Thanks for your detailed explanation!


----------



## scottg (Mar 30, 2004)

LMN said:


> I hope to see 5 minute PR.
> 
> Building some fatigue is part of it. But as a mountain bike racer what matter is what you can do after you have done a 5 minute all out effort (starts). For a lot of people the inability to handle a hard start is their single biggest limiter.


I'm not a serious racer but I like being in the best shape I can and I like to enter a few races a year. 3 years ago I had my best season ever. For some reason that year I was able to go very hard at the start and then recover and go again (even when the recovery was still a climb as the initial climbs are often 30 minutes or more). I did practice it a bit but it was also the same year I skate skied a ton and I guess I'll try to do more of that.

What is the best way to improve at recovering from those initial (or repeated) hard efforts? For me it's not just to improve my racing but, more importantly, to make going hard on my own more rewarding and achievable. Big miles are not an issue for me, I can go out anytime and ride 3-4 hours relatively hard, as long as I don't max out. A few years ago I could also mix in the max efforts. And, in racing around here, big efforts are needed on the starts to get in a decent group once the initial road or doubletrack climb turns to a steep technical singletrack.

I don't use a power meter, and won't be investing in one, but use a heart rate monitor.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

scottg said:


> I'm not a serious racer but I like being in the best shape I can and I like to enter a few races a year. 3 years ago I had my best season ever. For some reason that year I was able to go very hard at the start and then recover and go again (even when the recovery was still a climb as the initial climbs are often 30 minutes or more). I did practice it a bit but it was also the same year I skate skied a ton and I guess I'll try to do more of that.
> 
> What is the best way to improve at recovering from those initial (or repeated) hard efforts? For me it's not just to improve my racing but, more importantly, to make going hard on my own more rewarding and achievable. Big miles are not an issue for me, I can go out anytime and ride 3-4 hours relatively hard, as long as I don't max out. A few years ago I could also mix in the max efforts. And, in racing around here, big efforts are needed on the starts to get in a decent group once the initial road or doubletrack climb turns to a steep technical singletrack.
> 
> I don't use a power meter, and won't be investing in one, but use a heart rate monitor.


The pro coaches will have better insights, but just as a general rule: if there is something I want to excel at (starts, attacks on climbs, etc.) I make a point of practicing that over and over in training. Some of these 'skills' require certain types of fitness which various training programs can target with specificity, but as one of my past coaches used to say 'if you want to be a better biker, you need to ride your bike a lot.' This isn't meant to oversimplify your question, rather to suggest that the body adapts to the strain you put on it. So in addition to the structured training programmes that provide you a bigger engine overall, if you want to get better at tempo-threshold-tempo scenarios, then doing tempo-threshold-tempo repeats in training will probably help.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

scottg said:


> What is the best way to improve at recovering from those initial (or repeated) hard efforts?


What you are looking to improve is lactic clearance. Developing the a good aerobic base is first and most important step. The bigger your base is the quicker you will be able to clear and anaerobic effort. Combine this with some target interval workouts and you will be at your best.

But most importantly you have to know yourself. Personally I have pretty strong anerobic kick, if I want to I can get the hole shot in just about any start I do. However, getting the hole shot is probably the worst possible race strategy for me. If I go that hard I am nuked and will generally stay nuked for the race. I have to really measure my aerobic efforts and use them sparingly.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

LMN said:


> I have to really measure my aerobic efforts and use them sparingly.


How do you measure this during a race? Power meter? And how do you 'budget' your race effort in advance? I suspect, for example, one can afford to burn more matches more quickly on a XCO-length race (I don't race these shorter courses) and still finish well, whereas marathon distances obviously need to be rationed out. It would be good to know if there are accessible metrics that can get one into the ballpark (e.g., 'anyone short of a cyborg will max out at 400 TSS per day').

A bit off-topic for winter base discussions I suppose, but hopefully the audience will forgive me.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

scottg said:


> I'm not a serious racer but I like being in the best shape I can and I like to enter a few races a year. 3 years ago I had my best season ever. For some reason that year I was able to go very hard at the start and then recover and go again (even when the recovery was still a climb as the initial climbs are often 30 minutes or more). I did practice it a bit but it was also the same year I skate skied a ton and I guess I'll try to do more of that.
> 
> What is the best way to improve at recovering from those initial (or repeated) hard efforts? For me it's not just to improve my racing but, more importantly, to make going hard on my own more rewarding and achievable. Big miles are not an issue for me, I can go out anytime and ride 3-4 hours relatively hard, as long as I don't max out. A few years ago I could also mix in the max efforts. And, in racing around here, big efforts are needed on the starts to get in a decent group once the initial road or doubletrack climb turns to a steep technical singletrack.
> 
> I don't use a power meter, and won't be investing in one, but use a heart rate monitor.


I have my athletes do 2 x 20 efforts as follows close to race time:

Minute 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 - 105% FTP
All other minutes - 85% FTP

This forces them to recover from supra-threshold efforts while still riding at high tempo.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

winters.benjamin said:


> How do you measure this during a race? Power meter? And how do you 'budget' your race effort in advance? I suspect, for example, one can afford to burn more matches more quickly on a XCO-length race (I don't race these shorter courses) and still finish well, whereas marathon distances obviously need to be rationed out. It would be good to know if there are accessible metrics that can get one into the ballpark (e.g., 'anyone short of a cyborg will max out at 400 TSS per day').
> 
> A bit off-topic for winter base discussions I suppose, but hopefully the audience will forgive me.


FYI moved this particular question to a different thread to keep the base training one on-point.

http://forums.mtbr.com/xc-racing-training/race-strategies-power-management-1028631.html#post12928774


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I'll go back and reread the thread, probably a couple of times. But in my short term laziness...

Was it mentioned why FTP tests aren't done for an hour if shorter tests aren't reliable? I suppose I should start doing FTP tests at home. But I haven't followed a structured training plan since the last time I ran a marathon about 4 years ago, all short and long distance events have been done "seat of the pants" due to other obligations.

Going to put in 100% of my efforts into the XCO season next year. Probably my one and only year of getting my ass kicked as a "Pro" (I'm not pro level).


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Sidewalk said:


> Was it mentioned why FTP tests aren't done for an hour if shorter tests aren't reliable?


Doing a full and proper 1 hour steady state maximum effort is HARD. Not only would you need to come into it reasonably rested on a micro-taper to perform to your potential, but most riders that aren't elite athletes will also need recovery from the effort. In summary, it has the potential to be quite disruptive to training schedules.

Doing a 20 minute effort - with the necessary calculation to derive estimated FTP - allows for more frequent testing so that you can adjust your zones more frequently to match any changes in fitness. All hopefully without any material interruption to your schedule.

If you have the stomach for a full 1 hour test, it's not a bad idea to do 1 per year, if for no other reason than to compare to your 20 minute tests to see if you are an outlier that requires some unusual % to convert to FTP i.e. for your conversion from 20 minutes maybe you are a freak with 96% conversion, or maybe you can only do 90%? Either way, having a real figure to work with for your conversion % between 20 minutes and 60 minutes can be helpful, instead of a guesstimate based on literature or experiences of others.

Be forewarned that a full 1 hour effort can be challenging to pace properly in actual power output if you haven't done it before a few times.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Circlip said:


> Doing a full and proper 1 hour steady state maximum effort is HARD. Not only would you need to come into it reasonably rested on a micro-taper to perform to your potential, but most riders that aren't elite athletes will also need recovery from the effort. In summary, it has the potential to be quite disruptive to training schedules.
> 
> Doing a 20 minute effort - with the necessary calculation to derive estimated FTP - allows for more frequent testing so that you can adjust your zones more frequently to match any changes in fitness. All hopefully without any material interruption to your schedule.
> 
> ...


I did it once before just picking a targeted wattage on my trainer for the hour. It really sucked at the 50 minute mark. So that makes sense. I'm pretty well rested from taking it easy the past week recovering from a back injury, so I guess now is the time to try 

Any of you experts have a link to read on how to pace for an hour assuming I have improved an unknown amount? Should I just pick a slightly bigger target and see if I can hold it?

I'm trying to read as much as I can right now and create a plan for myself until I can budget in a coach soon.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Last time I did a 20-minute test, I cheated a little and picked a wattage corresponding to a 10% improvement. You'll feel it pretty quickly if that's too much. 5% would be a more conservative guess. All the usual pacing stuff still applies - going harder on the halves if I feel like I can maybe handle it.

Did you say how many hours/week you're planning?

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Last time I did a 20-minute test, I cheated a little and picked a wattage corresponding to a 10% improvement. You'll feel it pretty quickly if that's too much. 5% would be a more conservative guess. All the usual pacing stuff still applies - going harder on the halves if I feel like I can maybe handle it.
> 
> Did you say how many hours/week you're planning?


I'll probably look for 15-25 hours, with 20 being pretty manageable. I've average 15 this year without structure, just commute and fun riding. I'm thinking about keeping a similar schedule, and just adding a couple indoor sessions during the week.

Benefit of living in SoCAl, year round riding. Disadvantage of living in SoCal, disincentive to train when you can just go ride!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Part of me is envious, and part of me wouldn't want to ride that much even if I could.

The Mountain Biker's Training Bible by Friel lays out how to build up a periodized plan based on annual hours targets. It follows the traditional high-volume base then taper approach. Supposed to start working well for people looking for 500 hours/week and up.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Part of me is envious, and part of me wouldn't want to ride that much even if I could.


I love doing stuff. I'm one of those who just refuses to be bored. If I am ever bored, it is usually because I forced myself to be to just give myself a break. Otherwise, my life is slammed with **** to do. That said, I need to go outside and feed the horses lunch and clean out their water...

Luckily my wife gets it, and lets me do just about what ever I want. The plus side is, she knows I am WAY too busy to be screwing around behind her back, which is her biggest fear 



AndrwSwitch said:


> The Mountain Biker's Training Bible by Friel lays out how to build up a periodized plan based on annual hours targets. It follows the traditional high-volume base then taper approach. Supposed to start working well for people looking for 500 hours/week and up.


I need to look into that one. I am mostly thinking I just need to work with a coach who could be smarter then me and tell me what to do for once


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> Any of you experts have a link to read on how to pace for an hour assuming I have improved an unknown amount? Should I just pick a slightly bigger target and see if I can hold it?


I'm not an expert but if you don't have a good sense of where your wattage is supposed to be you could either (a) do a pre-test of sorts just to get in the ballpark - for this I would ignore your power meter, hit a steady pace that is 7/10 perceived effort and hold it for 15 min. By the end if it feels like 9/10 then you're probably pedaling within a few percentage points of your threshold (no science to back this up, just my personal experience) Or (b) just do the 20 min test using perceived exertion as per above: start at 7/10 and hold the pace but ignore your power meter. The CTS method - similar but using 2x8min tests instead of 1x20min - gives similar guidance but instead starting at level 8 given the shorter time span.

As to what you can do with 20 hours/week, unless you're doing something with reverse periodization, Carmichael and Friel both advise toward large volume, low wattage in the 'foundation' or early stages, so I think no matter how precise your test is most of your rides will be on the low end of your perceived effort right now. So that should buy you some grace on getting it right, so to speak.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> I'm not an expert but if you don't have a good sense of where your wattage is supposed to be you could either (a) do a pre-test of sorts just to get in the ballpark - for this I would ignore your power meter, hit a steady pace that is 7/10 perceived effort and hold it for 15 min. By the end if it feels like 9/10 then you're probably pedaling within a few percentage points of your threshold (no science to back this up, just my personal experience) Or (b) just do the 20 min test using perceived exertion as per above: start at 7/10 and hold the pace but ignore your power meter. The CTS method - similar but using 2x8min tests instead of 1x20min - gives similar guidance but instead starting at level 8 given the shorter time span.
> 
> As to what you can do with 20 hours/week, unless you're doing something with reverse periodization, Carmichael and Friel both advise toward large volume, low wattage in the 'foundation' or early stages, so I think no matter how precise your test is most of your rides will be on the low end of your perceived effort right now. So that should buy you some grace on getting it right, so to speak.


Luckily in my case I had a loose starting point. I had the chance to do a lactate threshold test years ago as a part of a product development study so I had my FTP from that when I first got big into tri. So I took a rough guess on how much I improved and targeted that, and came up close. I had a little left at the end but it was close enough for a good starting point, I'll retest next time I feel rested.

I'm using the free demo period to test out Zwift so I don't have to buy a power meter. I'll get the subscription and use their winter training plan and see how it goes.

I've had tons of volume this year, so that should handle the high mileage, low watt prereq (I did a 170 mile roadie, 12 hour MTB race, and 130 mile road ride in a month before taking an of week).

I'll take any tips though. The hardest part now is training for effect, instead of fun. And worse, training to train in the morning before work when I'm most rested, as my wife and I have late bed times


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

You guys are really, really overthinking this.

There's no need to do a 60-minute test, because there's no need to get your FTp set "perfectly". 

Just do a 20-minute test, and pace it well. Take 90-95% of that number and call it your FTP. 

The only way you'll overestimate it is if you take too big a %. If you want to be conservative, use 90-92% or so.

The only downside to slightly underestimating it is that your intervals will be slightly too easy. As you'll be upping your interval wattages as you get fitter (whether you test or not, there's no NEED to test frequently as you know you're getting fitter as the intervals are getting easier), that will take care of itself after a few workouts (which will STILL be productive, in any case).

Test soon. Pick a dang number. It's just a starting point anyway. Get started training.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

tommyrod74 said:


> You guys are really, really overthinking this.
> 
> There's no need to do a 60-minute test, because there's no need to get your FTp set "perfectly".
> 
> ...


You're late to the game. It was already settled that a one hour test is ill advised. I did a 20 minute test and already started training based on those numbers. I'll update that occasionally.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Sidewalk said:


> You're late to the game. It was already settled that a one hour test is ill advised. I did a 20 minute test and already started training based on those numbers. I'll update that occasionally.


Good. I didn't see any indication you had moved forward, so I posted what I did.

Most people overthink FTP, it's a moving target anyway, and close enough is close enough.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

tommyrod74 said:


> Good. I didn't see any indication you had moved forward, so I posted what I did.
> 
> Most people overthink FTP, it's a moving target anyway, and close enough is close enough.


Lot of good info though with the discussion. So hopefully handy for others reading.

I'm going with the 95% number based on a few reasons:
1. As an ultra distance racer new to XCO, my body is used to longer efforts (ultra running, 140.6, and ultra distance MTB).
2. I'm okay with adjusting down if it's too much.
3. Zwift auto calculated it 

What's the consensus on retesting? Weekly, monthly? After every super moon?


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Sidewalk said:


> Lot of good info though with the discussion. So hopefully handy for others reading.
> 
> I'm going with the 95% number based on a few reasons:
> 1. As an ultra distance racer new to XCO, my body is used to longer efforts (ultra running, 140.6, and ultra distance MTB).
> ...


I don't test more than 3-4 times a year; often as few as 2 times a year.

Using a weightlifting analogy -

If you test your bench press 1RM (one rep max) to begin training, then begin doing workouts based on that max - say, for example, 5 x 5 reps @ 90% 1RM, that might be a good starting point.

If, after a week or two, it gets too easy to complete the 5 sets, you might increase the weight by 5 lbs.

This goes on for a few months. You keep getting stronger, and therefore raising the workout weights.

You know you are getting stronger without taking time to max out and retest 1RM, because you are by now lifting > than your starting 1RM for 5 x 5 sets.

Since the only reason to test 1RM is to set workout target weights, and you're already doing that based on current workout progress, and you know you are getting stronger - why bother to retest 1RM?

Now - switch to cycling, where a 20 minute test requires (ideally) that you go into it well rested to max it out. What's the point in interrupting training to retest? It will only either 1) confirm what you already know, or 2) discourage you if you happen to have an off day on the test day.

So I don't test myself or my athletes frequently. I can tell by the intervals they are able to complete where their FTP is to a very near approximation, and that's more than enough for a useful number.

I'd further argue that the intervals you can complete week in and week out are a better index of fitness than a one-time test that you may or may not maximize.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I'd assumed that the way intervals protocols always get harder over successive weeks (assuming a static FTP) already handled that.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

The plan I'm following on Zwift is 12 weeks. So I'll retest after that. That'll be a couple of months before the XCO season kicks off. 

Thanks everyone.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> Lot of good info though with the discussion. So hopefully handy for others reading.
> 
> I'm going with the 95% number based on a few reasons:
> 1. As an ultra distance racer new to XCO, my body is used to longer efforts (ultra running, 140.6, and ultra distance MTB).
> ...


No no no, after every TWO super moons, and only on Thursdays. 

If you're not after a specific FTP target or otherwise obsessive about the percentages, one way to keep it simple is just keep an eyeball on your HR zones over time. If Zone 4 intervals in wattage terms starts lining up closer to Zone 3 heart rates consistently, then it's likely your fitness has improved and you can push your wattage higher. I wouldn't recommend using HR zones exclusively (cardiac drift and all of that) but if you keep an eye on both you can approximate your adaptations without having to formally test.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Friel describes an FTP confirmation workout in one of his blogs. Basically a series of four minute intervals at increasing wattage. You use heart rate data to decide which one represents FTP. It had pretty good agreement with where I think my FTP is and it's not as arduous a workout as a 20-minute test.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

I don't test anymore because you've really got to be mentally ready to give it your all to go all out without racing. If I find myself in a mindset to work on improving my FTP, I know from historical data what my FTP should be so I just pick a wattage that I should be able to hold for 20 minutes and go to work. If the first interval seems too easy I increase the wattage for my next interval or if it was too hard I decrease my wattage and just go from there for my next 2x20 workout. 

As mentioned by others, if you are healthy, training and recovering properly, you will notice that you can increase the wattages in your work intervals as time goes by while having the same perceived effort you had in the initial phase of beginning your journey of increasing your FTP.


----------



## steelhmr (Sep 30, 2011)

tommyrod74 said:


> Good. I didn't see any indication you had moved forward, so I posted what I did.
> 
> Most people overthink FTP, it's a moving target anyway, and close enough is close enough.





tommyrod74 said:


> I don't test more than 3-4 times a year; often as few as 2 times a year.
> 
> Using a weightlifting analogy -
> 
> ...


Great stuff! I agree 100%. I have continually raised my "training FTP" on the trainer every week so far this offseason, even if just by 1 watt. This raises my wattage targets on the workouts and ensures that I finish the workouts with a higher avg and normalized power - therefore improving my fitness level. The best feedback I get are on the workouts with an IF of 0.9 or above and my RPE in response to them. I'll know my FTP is improving if my avg and normalized power keep increasing or, to a somewhat lesser extent, my RPE is (slightly) lower.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> No no no, after every TWO super moons, and only on Thursdays.


That sucks, Thursday's are my mountain bike nights. That means getting up early on a night I plan to stay up late! You're trying to kill me here!



winters.benjamin said:


> If you're not after a specific FTP target or otherwise obsessive about the percentages, one way to keep it simple is just keep an eyeball on your HR zones over time. If Zone 4 intervals in wattage terms starts lining up closer to Zone 3 heart rates consistently, then it's likely your fitness has improved and you can push your wattage higher. I wouldn't recommend using HR zones exclusively (cardiac drift and all of that) but if you keep an eye on both you can approximate your adaptations without having to formally test.


Okay, I'll keep an eye on that. I'm not too worried, I honestly feel I'm nearly maxed out on my fitness now anyway. I'm looking for "marginal gains" now. Maybe being able to sprint 30 seconds longer, or sprint 50 watts higher, or 10 more watts FTP over the next year. Not huge numbers. So I'm not too afraid of my FTP changing so much that my training zones go to crap after 12 weeks.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> If Zone 4 intervals in wattage terms starts lining up closer to Zone 3 heart rates consistently, then it's likely your fitness has improved and you can push your wattage higher. I wouldn't recommend using HR zones exclusively (cardiac drift and all of that) but if you keep an eye on both you can approximate your adaptations without having to formally test.


Okay, now I am working on sorting out zones. I.m looking at TrainingPeaks and it has a chart that shows zones. I did a session on the trainer today that was 15 minutes at zone 4 according to TP (with 8 second max power sprints in between), and my HR zone was at the high end of zone 3 tempo (131-138, most of the time I was 137/138). Does that sound right? So if I were to repeat that workout (or something similar) and found my HR at the low end of zone 3, say 132 then that would be a sign I need to bump up the FTP?

Or are my numbers ****? Only thing I have to go on right now is the 20 minute FTP test and a lactate threshold test I did a few years ago (not really reliable data there anymore).

Now back to chores 

Oh, and three hours on a trainer sucks!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Sounds like you're due for another LT test even if you don't want to retest FTP right now.

Mine has dropped a few beats in the last few years. Enough to throw off Zone 3.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> Okay, now I am working on sorting out zones. I.m looking at TrainingPeaks and it has a chart that shows zones. I did a session on the trainer today that was 15 minutes at zone 4 according to TP (with 8 second max power sprints in between), and my HR zone was at the high end of zone 3 tempo (131-138, most of the time I was 137/138). Does that sound right?
> 
> Oh, and three hours on a trainer sucks!


One session won't tell you much. If I am fresh and motivated, it takes a few Zone 4 wattage intervals to get my HR to Zone 4. The more data points the better....

I agree - 3 hrs on a trainer is rough mentally. I need some serious distractions to stay on for that long (movies, etc.)


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

^^^
For me, when I'm well rested, my heart rate is more volatile, not less. It goes up to match an interval's effort level fast, but I also recover fast. I bet I decouple less too as the workout wears on.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## craigebaker (Nov 19, 2010)

Is it okay to just limp along until January before I go back to normal volume levels? My volume has been down 25-50% starting in October. I was hoping to limp along until January before I started trying to get back to normal levels. Is it okay to wait that long for a June peak or should I have already started raising volume?


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

craigebaker said:


> Is it okay to wait that long for a June peak or should I have already started raising volume?


I think this largely depends on what 'raising volume' means in your context. The time-crunched approaches - relatively high intensity low volume plans, generally under 12 hours per week or thereabouts - usually only decrease in volume for a couple of weeks in between cycles. Taking more time off is a risk.

If you're on a less restrictive program time-wise, then I would say the sooner the better on volume if your body can handle it (and you'll be the best judge of this). Building a big base engine using traditional methods - high volume, low intensity - takes time.


----------



## carlostruco (May 22, 2009)

Based on this then, I am screwed!!! My first race is in February...and the bastards who made the schedule put my favorite course, which I usually win, on that date!!! 

Should I start ramping intensity? I have not done a single interval or hard effort since my FTP test on Oct. 29


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

carlostruco said:


> Based on this then, I am screwed!!! My first race is in February...and the bastards who made the schedule put my favorite course, which I usually win, on that date!!!
> 
> Should I start ramping intensity? I have not done a single interval or hard effort since my FTP test on Oct. 29
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I can't say whether you are screwed or not. If you are working with a coach, they probably have a plan which factors your physiology and schedule of events. Since I don't have a good sense of either, it's not my position to say whether you're doing it the right way or not. I know that as a general rule, building a base through low intensity, high volume methods takes high volume (obviously) which takes time. Carmichael's time-crunched method generally peaks around week 8 or so, and you can hold for a few weeks thereafter before entering another cycle.

Rutberg has a great review of traditional vs time-crunched off-season approaches to building the base: Why Base Training in Winter Will Never Make You Fast - CTS

I'm not an expert though, you may want to PM some of the more established coaches around here if you want a thorough review of your events and training strategy.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

carlostruco said:


> Based on this then, I am screwed!!! My first race is in February...and the bastards who made the schedule put my favorite course, which I usually win, on that date!!!
> 
> Should I start ramping intensity? I have not done a single interval or hard effort since my FTP test on Oct. 29
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm older, age 48, and try to keep some intensity year round because I don't have time to do a lot of volume to build a big base. I also adhere to the belief that with advancing age if you don't use, you'll lose it. Joel Friel's new book, Fast After Fifty, discusses this I believe. Also the legend, Ned Overend, also advocates keeping intensity in his workouts year round and he's 60+ years old.

Just food for thought. Everyone is different so do what works for you.


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

carlostruco said:


> Based on this then, I am screwed!!! My first race is in February...and the bastards who made the schedule put my favorite course, which I usually win, on that date!!!
> 
> Should I start ramping intensity? I have not done a single interval or hard effort since my FTP test on Oct. 29
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, I would start ramping intensity. Worse thing you could do is hit panic button and ramp to quickly.

If you don't already, I would download the "Cycling Annual Training Plan Form" from http://www.trainingbible.com/resources/
Write in your race date and start working backwards to plan

Obviously there is a conspiracy going on where someone wants you out of shape for that race


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

carlostruco said:


> Based on this then, I am screwed!!! My first race is in February...and the bastards who made the schedule put my favorite course, which I usually win, on that date!!!
> 
> Should I start ramping intensity? I have not done a single interval or hard effort since my FTP test on Oct. 29
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd say it depends on your weekly TSS load in recent weeks.

If you're doing a big volume of Z2, and you've been racing for a few years, you don't necessarily need to do intervals before racing.

I've gone into the first race of the season the past few years having ridden no structured intervals (but with 550-700 TSS week-in and week-out) and won.

A big CTL means aerobic improvement in all zones, even if you haven't been targeting them specifically.

This would also prevent an early peak that would be problematic for a long season of racing.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Stonerider said:


> I'm older, age 48, and try to keep some intensity year round because I don't have time to do a lot of volume to build a big base. I also adhere to the belief that with advancing age if you don't use, you'll lose it. Joel Friel's new book, Fast After Fifty, discusses this I believe. Also the legend, Ned Overend, also advocates keeping intensity in his workouts year round and he's 60+ years old.
> 
> Just food for thought. Everyone is different so do what works for you.


I think this is somewhat true, though I don't think it necessarily has to be structured intensity in the base period - just being OK with going hard occasionally and not staying strictly in Z1-Z2 with no exceptions.

Trail riding with friends (always ends up being competitive) makes this happen without really trying.


----------



## carlostruco (May 22, 2009)

twobigwheels said:


> Yes, I would start ramping intensity. Worse thing you could do is hit panic button and ramp to quickly.
> 
> If you don't already, I would download the "Cycling Annual Training Plan Form" from http://www.trainingbible.com/resources/
> Write in your race date and start working backwards to plan
> ...


Actually, I don't doubt that could be true. That event organizer hates me!!! I have always won that race and also heavily criticized him for damaging and removing natural features of the course.

And yes, I have the spreadsheet and The Bible...plus the Allen and Coggan book...

Thanks!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## carlostruco (May 22, 2009)

tommyrod74 said:


> I'd say it depends on your weekly TSS load in recent weeks.
> 
> If you're doing a big volume of Z2, and you've been racing for a few years, you don't necessarily need to do intervals before racing.
> 
> ...


Good point here...and that is what I've been doing so far. I am around 600 TSS a week averaging 13-15 hours without intensity. I have another test next week...I'll see where I stand then...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rocketfuel (Jun 16, 2004)

The past winter was a lot of sweetspot (around 60 mins) and some higher intensity inteval work during winter, most done indoors. Do I miss out on something when not doing longer 4 hrs rides outdoors? 

I can't stomach longer (90+ mins) rides indoors.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

There's supposed to be something different about those long duration steady state rides, that contributes to developing your aerobic fitness in a way a shorter ride can't, even a high intensity one.

I can't stomach spending four hours on a trainer either. 

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

tommyrod74 said:


> I think this is somewhat true, though I don't think it necessarily has to be structured intensity in the base period - just being OK with going hard occasionally and not staying strictly in Z1-Z2 with no exceptions.
> 
> Trail riding with friends (always ends up being competitive) makes this happen without really trying.


This exactly...have someone to chase. It helps get some intensity in without feeling the mental burden of interval work.

Or if you don't have anyone to chase, then star a bunch of Strava segments and chase after the KOM once per week or so. That can be fun and enraging all at the same time.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

rocketfuel said:


> Do I miss out on something when not doing longer 4 hrs rides outdoors?
> 
> I can't stomach longer (90+ mins) rides indoors.


I think everyone is different but I know that I develop 'tolerances' for training volume, and this sets somewhat of a ceiling on what I can handle in one session. This isn't necessarily all about CTL and what is in my legs, but also how many times I can fight back the demons in my mind, how good I am about eating, how my neck and upper body respond to manhandling my bike for long periods of time, etc. For a super current example, I've been putting in roughly 11-15 hours per week and hitting 600-800 TSS for the last two months. I went out for a 4 hour EM ride last week and totally hit a wall right at about 3hr 15min. All of my training for the past two months has been in 3hr or less envelopes. So now my coach is throwing multiple 4 hour sessions per week at me. The CTL on paper is easily manageable but there is obviously more than this to riding a bike, at least for me anyways.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

So I'm thinking about abandoning following the Zwift training plan and instead going with a mix of real riding (mostly long distance) and Zwift racing. The intensity of the races is pretty close to what I feel in a real race. 


And in my race last night, after I finished Zwift said I beat my tested FTP, so I guess I pushed a little extra. That was of course after a full work day on my feet with 18 commute miles 

I'll did a 3 hour session on the trainer last weekend, so I know I CAN do it. But if I have the weather and opportunity I think it's best I stick to the real world.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I didn't like Zwift's packaged plans that much either. To me they look like outdoor plans transposed to the trainer. If I'm going to work out on my trainer, I want to knock it out faster and probably fewer days a week. So higher intensity is kind of a no-brainer.

Luckily, Zwift's workout editor is pretty easy to use. I'm planning to do Time Crunched workouts if I do structured workouts. I also haven't had to use the trainer enough yet to get bored of the island, let alone London.

And yes - if you like riding bikes, why would you stay inside on a trainer over riding a bike in weather that doesn't suck?

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## rupps5 (Apr 9, 2010)

I have some of my athletes substitute a zwift race for a threshold day during winter training because of what Sidewalk mentioned


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Friel describes an FTP confirmation workout in one of his blogs. Basically a series of four minute intervals at increasing wattage. You use heart rate data to decide which one represents FTP. It had pretty good agreement with where I think my FTP is and it's not as arduous a workout as a 20-minute test.
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


Do u have a link for this confirmation test or more details?

I mean No disrespect, but i am a Friel follower and never came across this workout


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2008/08/ftp-confirmation-test.html

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

^^^
Nice Find!


----------



## rocketfuel (Jun 16, 2004)

AndrwSwitch said:


> There's supposed to be something different about those long duration steady state rides, that contributes to developing your aerobic fitness in a way a shorter ride can't, even a high intensity one.
> 
> I can't stomach spending four hours on a trainer either.
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


Yeah, I should probably try to get the longer rides planned, they give a nice hardness to the rest of the body and probably mind too. Neck, hands and so on needs to get used to the longer rides. Noticed during a marathon that I had fitness for about 2 hrs, the last 20 mins was a real struggle...


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

rocketfuel said:


> Yeah, I should probably try to get the longer rides planned, they give a nice hardness to the rest of the body and probably mind too. Neck, hands and so on needs to get used to the longer rides. Noticed during a marathon that I had fitness for about 2 hrs, the last 20 mins was a real struggle...


Carmichael claims that the high-intensity, short duration work buys you about 3 hours of racing with the folks using long duration training methods (source is in the Time Crunched book, can't find an online link). Anything above 3 hours requires the long duration methods. But there is more to it for me than CTL and overall fitness: racing hard for 3 hours is rough on my body. I can go faster/harder if I'm used to the pain, and longer rides do this for me.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

winters.benjamin said:


> Carmichael claims that the high-intensity, short duration work buys you about 3 hours of racing with the folks using long duration training methods (source is in the Time Crunched book, can't find an online link). Anything above 3 hours requires the long duration methods. But there is more to it for me than CTL and overall fitness: racing hard for 3 hours is rough on my body. I can go faster/harder if I'm used to the pain, and longer rides do this for me.


Here's the link: Busting the Myth of Winter Aerobic Base Training - CTS


----------



## pmiska (Nov 10, 2006)

Beating the ftp test dead horse a bit more...

The biggest thing is to test in a consistent manner so the data is comparable. If you use different protocols you will get different results even if you tested back to back... 

I'm a TrainerRoad user and I tend to really like their 8 minute test protocol as it is very repeatable and has some built in self correction ability...

First they have you so several efforts to burn off excessive glycogen to make the efforts more aerobic in nature. Second an 8 minute effort is easier for most to pace correctly. Third you get two shots and their calculation seems to averages the two. Botch one effort and you are not totally screwed... overshoot on one and you can correction the second. 

As others have mentioned, the value is never really perfect and can and should be adjusted periodically. I "like" testing for the consistent data comparison. Guess that's the engineer in me... 

Note, their 8 minute test sets ftp at 90% of the 8 min power. Their 20 min test takes 95%. I believe this is consistent with Allen and Coggan's methodology.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

First test and tune race today. Racing the Southridge Fontana XC series as a chance to practice, adjust some nutrition, etc before the Kenda Cup and US Cup series starts. Pretty hard course, but fun too (UCI C3 course). I think it is effectively the same course every race, so I have something to compare to.

I felt like I did a pretty poor job managing my pace, but not upset since I was experimenting. Then I look at my lap times and see that lap 1 was only 1:30 faster (28:04) then 2 and 3. Two and 3 were virtually identical (29:30, 29:28). So that's a good start. Hopefully I will have some new wheels before the next round, and I will race with nutrition next time instead of water only.

https://www.strava.com/activities/824674413


----------



## gontxo_nos (Jun 12, 2013)

Actually:

Mon: 1hr @ FM + 10' EM
Tue: 2hr @ FM
Wed: 2hr @ FM + 3x8' SS [4'R]
Thurs: 2hr @ FM
Fri: 1hr @ Z2 + 3x6' CR [3'R]
Sat: 3hr free with MTB @ EM
Sun: Rest day or Recovery Ride


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> First test and tune race today. Racing the Southridge Fontana XC series as a chance to practice, adjust some nutrition, etc before the Kenda Cup and US Cup series starts. Pretty hard course, but fun too (UCI C3 course). I think it is effectively the same course every race, so I have something to compare to.
> 
> I felt like I did a pretty poor job managing my pace, but not upset since I was experimenting. Then I look at my lap times and see that lap 1 was only 1:30 faster (28:04) then 2 and 3. Two and 3 were virtually identical (29:30, 29:28). So that's a good start. Hopefully I will have some new wheels before the next round, and I will race with nutrition next time instead of water only.
> 
> https://www.strava.com/activities/824674413


How did you feel? And did you learn anything from the HR data? Looks like a fun fast course.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> How did you feel? And did you learn anything from the HR data? Looks like a fun fast course.


Overall pretty well. I don't think I had much left and in retrospect paced pretty well.

Not much specifically from the HR data. It does seem to line up pretty well with my RPE though.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

So I don't want to throw a whole thread together for this and I think this fits in here but we recently got spin bikes at work and I've been throwing in some rides on 'em. (yay less running, more riding!)

I'm going to preface this with I don't think I'll ever be anything other than a sport class racer, but I would like to do more races and just generally be better faster stronger playing around on the bike.

I've found some good info on ftp routines (2x20's etc)and those feel pretty good. Through running and riding I feel for not really ever pedaled 20-30miles at a time I can throw down pretty decent sustained power for cardio load.

So I guess what I'm asking is are there any good spin intervals for stuff like VOMAX? I have problems when trying to emulate what would be a real world situation, 380w+ for 10 minutes and recover. My legs have no problem at high power, but they tax my cardio to failure. This is my real world failure point too, plenty of legs without the lungs to support it.

I've been riffing on long low rides too, which I'm sure will help with general cardio endurance.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Lol, I couldn't touch 380 W for ten minutes. I'm probably a lifetime sport class rider too, but when I'm in shape I'm more of a W/kg guy.

Short answer is yes, of course there are intervals at VO2max.

There are different ways I see them prescribed. I read Allen and Coggen recently. They recommend just doing a workout by feel the first time and then figuring out your repeatable max effort for the duration from your data. VO2max intervals aren't usually ten minutes long. I think by ten minutes, a lot of people are on to a different energy system anyway - I usually see it described as 3-8 minutes. So I see three minute and five minute intervals prescribed different places.

The other way these are prescribed is with respect to your FTP. Say 110% or 120%. I think for most people that will be a lower power target than what they might come up with following Allen and Coggen.

I'm sure Friel has something too.

An example might be 6x3 at whatever target with a three minute rest at really low effort. You'd warm up and cool down on either side. Hill repeats are often a VO2max thing too, I think.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Lol, I couldn't touch 380 W for ten minutes. I'm probably a lifetime sport class rider too, but when I'm in shape I'm more of a W/kg guy.
> 
> Short answer is yes, of course there are intervals at VO2max.
> 
> ...


I was just throwing 380 out there as I don't know what a real world equivalent would be for actually climbing a hill and I was surfing through some power data on strava (which makes me feel like a wuss)

I've been doing 3x10's and 2x20's at about 240w, going to try to get to 270 by the time spring time hits (at least that's the goal.)

I guess a lot of this seems foreign to me with all the digital data. Old school run training (which I'm familiar with)has a lot to do with perceived effort and actually being able to x task at y speed. I train for 5 and 10k's and though there are a lot of cross training benefeits, The cardio requirements feel very different, especially a 5k vs a 20mile bike race, though some of the interval training is similar.

Just red through your power intervals thread, good stuff in there didn't see that before.

But like I said, I'm more interested in just generally being more fit and having more fun on everyday rides. I can't see myself ever doing any more than sport class races either.

Thanks


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

mattyice said:


> I was just throwing 380 out there as I don't know what a real world equivalent would be for actually climbing a hill and I was surfing through some power data on strava (which makes me feel like a wuss)
> 
> I've been doing 3x10's and 2x20's at about 240w, going to try to get to 270 by the time spring time hits (at least that's the goal.)
> 
> ...


380 watts for 10 minutes is pretty impressive regardless of weight, FWIW.

If you can do 240 for 20 minutes, you can probably handle 260-270 for 10 minutes, or thereabouts.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

tommyrod74 said:


> 380 watts for 10 minutes is pretty impressive regardless of weight, FWIW.
> 
> If you can do 240 for 20 minutes, you can probably handle 260-270 for 10 minutes, or thereabouts.


I tried a 10x3 at 270, I cleared the first one, lasted about 2 minutes on the second and didn't try the third. But I guess this is one of the things I should be working on, more consistent power.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Ten minute or three minute intervals?

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Ten minute or three minute intervals?
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


10min x 3 sets


----------



## CulBaire (Jan 18, 2004)

mattyice said:


> So I guess what I'm asking is are there any good spin intervals for stuff like VOMAX? I have problems when trying to emulate what would be a real world situation, 380w+ for 10 minutes and recover. My legs have no problem at high power, but they tax my cardio to failure. This is my real world failure point too, plenty of legs without the lungs to support it.


There are plenty of good intervals you could do improve Vo2Max, each has their merits and the detractors. I find these intervals hurt like hell so I tend to favour the shorter harder and longer easier over the 3min to 5min intervals which if done at the right intensity will leave you feeling like you want to vomit after the last set. There are a number of good articles about the benefits of doing 30sec on/off over other longer duration intervals the basis of which is they maximise time at Vo2Max but have the least amount of actual work; I find the shorter intervals fantastic for Crit Racing which is generally ON the GAS, OFF the GAS!!!...

3 x [10 x 30sec on / 15sec off]
5 x 3mins @ >120% FTP 
4 x 5mins @ ~115% FTP
3 x 8mins @ ~110% FTP

As a rule, I will do shorter intervals closer to a peak.

FWIW my 3 x 8mins are done around 370-380w I was hoping to get them to 400w before my "A Race" in late March but I am not liking my chances.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

mattyice said:


> 10min x 3 sets


100 W would be a big gain at pretty much any duration.

Leaving that aside, I think you just need to do what I did - play with intensity until you find a level you can sustain.

I notice you don't talk about FTP at all. Do you use any kind of benchmark to figure out your intensities? I suppose you don't necessarily have to...

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

AndrwSwitch said:


> 100 W would be a big gain at pretty much any duration.
> 
> Leaving that aside, I think you just need to do what I did - play with intensity until you find a level you can sustain.
> 
> ...


If I'm reading and understanding everything right a persons ftp would be a proper 20x2 correct?

Thanks for the info CulBaire!


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

mattyice said:


> If I'm reading and understanding everything right a persons ftp would be a proper 20x2 correct?
> 
> Thanks for the info CulBaire!


What I've heard is that power at 20min will be approximately 95% of power at 1 hour. And that a 2x8 session (this is the CTS method) will be approximately 90% of power at 1 hour. So if you can throw down 330w for 2x8, your FTP could be in the 300 range. 330w at 20 min, and it could be in the 313 or so range.

I'm not a pro, and I don't consider myself a top athlete, so take this next part FWIW: I've found my mental state has to be really sharp and positive to go into one of these tests. Even the 2x8s...I mean, I'm careening around like a drunk, hyperventilating and seeing stars when I get to the end of those sets. So when my coach tells me it's time to test, it takes me a couple of days to get myself into the right mental state where I can suit up and walk myself right over that cliff.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

mattyice said:


> If I'm reading and understanding everything right a persons ftp would be a proper 20x2 correct?
> 
> Thanks for the info CulBaire!


Two intervals of twenty minutes at FTP is certainly a classic workout. But the typical twenty minute FTP test has one twenty-minute test block. And like winters mentions, people usually knock 5% off of that as an estimate of their actual FTP.

So your twenty minute mean maximal power should be a bit higher than what you'd do in the usual 2x20. And you can probably do a little bit more in 2x20 than your FTP if you hate yourself, since it's only forty minutes and you get a break in the middle.

Think of doing one 5k as fast as you can vs. doing two, with a break, at a little less than 100% of your 5k pace.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## CulBaire (Jan 18, 2004)

winters.benjamin said:


> What I've heard is that power at 20min will be approximately 95% of power at 1 hour. And that a 2x8 session (this is the CTS method) will be approximately 90% of power at 1 hour. So if you can throw down 330w for 2x8, your FTP could be in the 300 range. 330w at 20 min, and it could be in the 313 or so range.
> 
> I'm not a pro, and I don't consider myself a top athlete, so take this next part FWIW: I've found my mental state has to be really sharp and positive to go into one of these tests. Even the 2x8s...I mean, I'm careening around like a drunk, hyperventilating and seeing stars when I get to the end of those sets. So when my coach tells me it's time to test, it takes me a couple of days to get myself into the right mental state where I can suit up and walk myself right over that cliff.


There are a number of means of FTP testing, some better than others but the "reduction factor" percentages (for lack of a better term) are variable between person to person, not everyone will have an FTP of 20mins PPO x 0.95, similarly not everyone wants to bury themselves for an hour doing an FTP test; Alex Simmons has written about this quite extensively on his blog (link Alex's Cycle Blog).

For Example: 
My CTS Test result puts me at 337w FTP 
My 20min Test puts me at 329w FTP
My MAP Test puts me at 345w FTP
My 1hr PPO puts me at 313w FTP

My take away from this is 3 different tests, and one 1hr PPO from a race all yield different results, however I have noticed a pretty direct correlation with (MAP x 0.75) and 20min PPO. Also, you'll find when you work with power for a while the importance of testing becomes less and less as you have more and more data to rely on. Personally, I rarely carry out any sort of tests but I know when I am in form, and when I am not. Also worth noting that FTP isn't everything, MTB is heavily reliant on AWC (W'bal) and repeatability.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

CulBaire said:


> Also worth noting that FTP isn't everything, MTB is heavily reliant on AWC (W'bal) and repeatability.


+1 on this ^^^

If you have a decent software package (GoldenCheetah is free and it works pretty well) you can really drill down to your specific weaknesses as an athlete. And in my opinion, training should largely be about (a) figuring out what you want to do (e.g., ultra endurance, xco eliminators, etc.), (b) determining where your body needs to be to do that thing well, and (c) putting in consistent work to get your body there. These software packages, or a good coach, or both, will really help out with (c) especially.


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

With the "20 min test" (from Training and Racing with a Power Meter) a lot of people forget about the "5 min All Out" effort to 'warm up' before the "20 min test".
https://dennismellonfitness.com/2017/01/06/excerpts-from-training-and-racing-with-a-power-meter-7/

On another note:
"In my experience, FTP is rarely as high as 95% of 20-minute maximal power. 88-93% is not an uncommon range." Alex Simmons
Alex's Cycle Blog: The seven deadly sins


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

CulBaire said:


> There are a number of means of FTP testing, some better than others but the "reduction factor" percentages (for lack of a better term) are variable between person to person, not everyone will have an FTP of 20mins PPO x 0.95, similarly not everyone wants to bury themselves for an hour doing an FTP test; Alex Simmons has written about this quite extensively on his blog (link Alex's Cycle Blog).
> 
> For Example:
> My CTS Test result puts me at 337w FTP
> ...


At the end of the day, as we don't decide who wins races by mailing in our FTP/kg...

It's only a number to 1) use to build appropriate interval workouts and 2) gauge improvement over time.

As long as the method you use allows you to do these things, it's OK.

Once you've established a starting number for FTP, adjusting it upwards (as intervals based on that number become too easy) without retesting is fine.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

Lots of good info here, thanks guys.

AndrwSwitch: doing 2 5k's with a rest in between is just a 10k ha. But no I wouldn't expect the two to be the same.

Tommyrod74: That's kind of where I'm at mentally. Using a computer and a stationary bike is all foreign to me so I'm just trying to build workouts and gauge inprovement, set goals, etc.

Just spinning for 25 miles is foreign to me.

Thanks again guys, lots of good stuff to work with until the snow pack melts.




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I don't take a break during a 10k 



tommyrod74 said:


> At the end of the day, as we don't decide who wins races by mailing in our FTP/kg...
> 
> It's only a number to 1) use to build appropriate interval workouts and 2) gauge improvement over time.
> 
> ...


I just recently got a Wahoo Kickr Snap (wheel on trainer) so I actually have real...ish (haven't tested accuracy, but feels right) power numbers. But since I haven't had an opportunity to retest, knowing I can't put in the effort right now, I just put in a number that sounds right. I have been hitting all the training goals, but it hurts, so I figure I am on the right track.

One of the guys I raced against as a Cat 1 last season just put his FTP test on his road bike during a climb on Strava. According to his numbers, his FTP and watts/kg are higher then mine, but I beat him all season.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Sidewalk said:


> I don't take a break during a 10k
> 
> I just recently got a Wahoo Kickr Snap (wheel on trainer) so I actually have real...ish (haven't tested accuracy, but feels right) power numbers. But since I haven't had an opportunity to retest, knowing I can't put in the effort right now, I just put in a number that sounds right. I have been hitting all the training goals, but it hurts, so I figure I am on the right track.
> 
> One of the guys I raced against as a Cat 1 last season just put his FTP test on his road bike during a climb on Strava. According to his numbers, his FTP and watts/kg are higher then mine, but I beat him all season.


Watts/kg come into play more on courses with steeper climbing; even then, efficiency and bike handling play as big a role in XC racing.

As long as the numbers from your Snap are precise (meaning you get consistent power numbers) the actual accuracy isn't as big a concern, because you can still gauge improvement.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

tommyrod74 said:


> Watts/kg come into play more on courses with steeper climbing; even then, efficiency and bike handling play as big a role in XC racing.


Exactly my point.



tommyrod74 said:


> As long as the numbers from your Snap are precise (meaning you get consistent power numbers) the actual accuracy isn't as big a concern, because you can still gauge improvement.


I hope so, would defeat most of the purpose. Going to borrow my friends pedals to compare soon.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Sidewalk said:


> I hope so, would defeat most of the purpose. Going to borrow my friends pedals to compare soon.


If you compare the numbers from pedals to the numbers from a trainer, a few things to keep in mind:

1) Pedal-based systems (assuming all systems are accurate, which is a big assumption) should read slightly higher than any other system because they are measuring forces closest to the source of output (the foot). Followed by crankarm-based systems, then spiders, then spindles, finally hubs.

2) When comparing 2 systems against one another (with no reference standard that you know is 100% accurate to compare both to), all you'll know is how similar their data are, not which (if either) is closest to accurate. You can't even really say that one or the other is consistent (precise), as both systems could be drifting with time at the same rate.


----------



## HEWSINATOR (Oct 9, 2006)

CulBaire said:


> For Example:
> My CTS Test result puts me at 337w FTP
> My 20min Test puts me at 329w FTP
> My MAP Test puts me at 345w FTP
> My 1hr PPO puts me at 313w FTP .


This is likely pretty close to desired result/expected trend. I think of FTP as a theoretical limit. Very hard to achieve on a true hour test. So, I use 8 minute test protocol to determine, and train to, that limit. Going out and riding/pacing as hard as you can for 20 minutes is very tough; let alone for an hour.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

tommyrod74 said:


> If you compare the numbers from pedals to the numbers from a trainer, a few things to keep in mind:
> 
> 1) Pedal-based systems (assuming all systems are accurate, which is a big assumption) should read slightly higher than any other system because they are measuring forces closest to the source of output (the foot). Followed by crankarm-based systems, then spiders, then spindles, finally hubs.
> 
> 2) When comparing 2 systems against one another (with no reference standard that you know is 100% accurate to compare both to), all you'll know is how similar their data are, not which (if either) is closest to accurate. You can't even really say that one or the other is consistent (precise), as both systems could be drifting with time at the same rate.


Yes, I know.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Last practice race of the season today. Pulled a total rookie move and didn't double check my fasteners. Kind of sore from a hard fun road ride on Thursday, and having been off the MTB for about a month couldn't find a groove. But I was mostly there to test my new wheels before next weekend. So on top of not being able to get good numbers, I also didn't properly torque my rear brake disc and had to walk the the second half of the first lap after my disc nearly fell off. Got to the pits right as the Pro field lapped me, torqued the bolts, and did a second lap.

Good news is, the wheels work.


----------



## trek551 (Mar 28, 2009)

Hi everyone, I need advice on how to proceed with my base training. I increased my volume this winter by 40% (up to 10-12hr/w) and all is going great. A bit too great. I am now hitting the same intensities with the powermeter as my best periods last year. It’s probably accurate too as theses are the same hours I did last year during my peak. I decided to keep the sweet spot intervals but reduce the Z5 intervals with more hours at tempo pace until mid April. My weekly total will be 12-15hr. I believe that will generate a bigger overall peak for my big A race which is a 24hr solo at the end of June. Has anyone been in this spot before and what did you do?

Thanks

Here’s what my weeks looks like (FTP of 285W was set last year):
Monday: Sweet spot 5 x 10min 256W + 5 min easy 180w 90tss
Tuesday: Endurance 200W with 4-5 bursts of 1 minute at 350W. 75tss
Tuesday evening: Gym 1hr
Wednesday: Lower Z5 4 sets x 7 x 90 sec at 310W with 60 sec easy 180W. 4 min rest between sets. 105tss
Thursday: off or same as Tuesday
Friday am: same as Monday but increase by 2 watts. 
Friday evening or Saturday: Endurance rides to get my total weekly TSS goal between 450 and 650. Trying to increase 5 to 10% for every comparative week.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

2.5 months to my A race, time to recap my winter/early spring training.

as already alluded to in a different thread I ran a >20hrs/week programm this winter/early spring. I came from 12-15hours/wk.

After 30years of riding/racing I just wanted to know what a pro style winter training is like. I must say I'm impressed, really, really impressed. I see now 

Basic outline

Nov-Dec: long rides, often running and bike mixed. Always at least 4 hours. Low intensity (below AeT). Every 10 days vo2max intervals.

Jan-Feb: introduction of Tempo/SST workouts.

Mar-Apr: polarized block: 80% below AeT and 20% vo2 (time not number of workouts)

Since this week end: A-race-specific training, lots of steady climbing at sub-threshold level. I have two A races within 2 weeks, a 3 hours and ~11hours race. Age group podium planned for both races.


So far 3 races: age group podiums and overall top 5 rankings (starting fields were high level). 

What has changed? Endurance and repeatibility. I've stopped doing FTP tests, personally, I do not see any value in them. However, I assume my top end speed has decreased. But I can hammer up the climbs after 4 hours like after 1 hour. I really believe the theory that high volumen-low intensity builds tons of mitochondria. And these help with the endurance/repeatibility aspect. Yes, you can build mitochondria with HIIT as well, but over a month you simply accumulate more stress when riding >20hours/week at slow speed. With HIIT there is an upper limit your body can tolerate.

Really liked the polarized block, did mainly Billat's 30/30s workout. 4-5min steady are not really my cup of tea.

Here long distance and mid distance racers start at the same time. What really impressed me: in all races I was able to go with the mid-distance racers, e.g. I would have gotten almost the same results at mid-distance. I have the speed to go with them in the beginning and the endurance to sustain in the end.


As already said before, I've never experienced such a direct impact of training on my race performance. I really understand now why pros train in a certain way and what the benefits of high volume, low intensity in winter are.


----------

