Rate my intervals

[Rich753]

Big advantage of power metering is that it gives you a standard load, similar to weights in a strength plan, and yes as you get fitter then your HR against that standard load will decrease - subject of course to all those extraneous factors that make HR unreliable  

[simonp]

Big advantage of power metering is that it gives you a standard load, similar to weights in a strength plan, and yes as you get fitter then your HR against that standard load will decrease - subject of course to all those extraneous factors that make HR unreliable  

Yes, this. Looking at the 2x20 session from last year, which was a lower effort level than on Tuesday, the HR was quite a bit higher. So I've got fitter. I knew that already though due to various PBs seen in powertap data late last year.  That was in April and I had limited time to prepare for LEL. I have 5 months to improve before the Mille Cymru so it's promising.

[inc]

Big advantage of power metering is that it gives you a standard load, similar to weights in a strength plan, and yes as you get fitter then your HR against that standard load will decrease - subject of course to all those extraneous factors that make HR unreliable  

Such as

[Riggers]

Bridget? Do you have any video of your lactating threshold? Purely for scientific purposes.

[simonp]

Big advantage of power metering is that it gives you a standard load, similar to weights in a strength plan, and yes as you get fitter then your HR against that standard load will decrease - subject of course to all those extraneous factors that make HR unreliable  

Such as

FAQ for training with power

[Rich753]

In addition to factors mentioned in the FAQ (excellent, btw) I'd add in time of day, external pressures (job or family related), length/type of warmup, recent training, temperature.

I use HR as a long term indicator - as I get fitter my resting HR drops, my speed for a given HR increases etc, - over say 6 months. 

But week to week, month to month my performance on a standard work load is much more precise and valuable.

[inc]

In addition to factors mentioned in the FAQ (excellent, btw) I'd add in time of day, external pressures (job or family related), length/type of warmup, recent training, temperature.

I use HR as a long term indicator - as I get fitter my resting HR drops, my speed for a given HR increases etc, - over say 6 months. 

But week to week, month to month my performance on a standard work load is much more precise and valuable.

From the excellent FAQ

Three variables to control in any training program are intensity, duration, and frequency; of these, the latter two are easy to quantify objectively – duration is measured in hours, and frequency in sessions per week (the product of the two is volume).  Intensity, on the other hand, has traditionally been measured by perceived exertion (PE) and/or heart rate (HR).  HR is reliable enough at lower (i.e., aerobic-only) intensities, but for more race-specific (i.e., shorter but more intense) training, it becomes a much less effective proxy for intensity. 

Since most of the training mentioned here is aerobic it seem HR IS reliable I don't have a problem with Power meters if I was still racing I would have one but it is just a tool and for exactly the reasons you mention above work, time, family etc I think a hrm will for most people give them exactly the same  training benefits. Training is about adapting to higher loads, a hrm gives a good indication how your body is coping with the overall demand so as you approach your volume limit and the risk of overtraining, with the setbacks that causes, a  hrm  quickly lets you  see that you can't get your hr into the zone, with a powermeter only I think the temptation would be to try and maintain the load dictated for that session by the powermeter.

[Rich753]

When you say "the temptation would be to try and maintain the load dictated for that session by the powermeter" you seem to suggest that is a bad thing.

I take a different view - I think it's a good thing. You improve by pushing your body further than it is comfortable, and if you know that a given workload is within your compass you really should go for it, and HR is really not a good tool for telling when you are overdoing it.

I should add that I take the view that with a well designed, variable training program the dangers of overtraining are massively overstated.

[mattc]

In addition to factors mentioned in the FAQ (excellent, btw) I'd add in time of day, external pressures (job or family related), length/type of warmup, recent training, temperature.

I use HR as a long term indicator - as I get fitter my resting HR drops, my speed for a given HR increases etc, - over say 6 months. 

But week to week, month to month my performance on a standard work load is much more precise and valuable.

From the excellent FAQ
<snip>
  HR is reliable enough at lower (i.e., aerobic-only) intensities, but for more race-specific (i.e., shorter but more intense) training, it becomes a much less effective proxy for intensity. 

Since most of the training mentioned here is aerobic it seem HR IS reliable

...

But, but, what if I want a new toy that costs three times my existing HRM ?

[inc]

When you say "the temptation would be to try and maintain the load dictated for that session by the powermeter" you seem to suggest that is a bad thing.

I think you are reading that part of my post out of context, try reading it again.

I take a different view - I think it's a good thing. You improve by pushing your body further than it is comfortable, and if you know that a given workload is within your compass you really should go for it,

I was talking about the total volume of work, not specific individual sessions

HR is really not a good tool for telling when you are overdoing it.

I should add that I take the view that with a well designed, variable training program the dangers of overtraining are massively overstated.

Well your opinion seems to be different to most exercise physiologist. If you have never exibited any symptoms of overtraining then you can't be training hard enough '

[inc]

Not all experts support the power meter is best theory. Below is an extract from this Wolters Kluwer Health


A 40-km time trial and V̇o2max test were performed before and after 8 training sessions. There were significant improvements (p < 0.05) in peak power output (GPOWER = 3.5%; GHEART = 5.0%) and 40-km time trial performance (GPOWER = 2.3%; GHEART = 2.1%) for both of the high-intensity groups. Although there were no significant differences between groups for these variables, when the data were analyzed using magnitude-based effects, the GHEART group showed greater probability of a beneficial effect for peak power output. The current general perception that prescribing training based only on power is more effective than prescribing training based on heart rate was not supported by the data from this study

[Rich753]

Well your opinion seems to be different to most exercise physiologist. If you have never exibited any symptoms of overtraining then you can't be training hard enough '

Don't know what you mean by "most exercise physiologists".  All the one I come across seem pretty clear that a well-designed program with adequate rest and nutrition and regular changes in routine should not lead to overtraining.

If you do the same set of exercises week in week out, don't rest properly and don't eat well then yes overtraining is a possibility. 

[Rich753]

Not all experts support the power meter is best theory. Below is an extract from this Wolters Kluwer Health


A 40-km time trial and V̇o2max test were performed before and after 8 training sessions. There were significant improvements (p < 0.05) in peak power output (GPOWER = 3.5%; GHEART = 5.0%) and 40-km time trial performance (GPOWER = 2.3%; GHEART = 2.1%) for both of the high-intensity groups. Although there were no significant differences between groups for these variables, when the data were analyzed using magnitude-based effects, the GHEART group showed greater probability of a beneficial effect for peak power output. The current general perception that prescribing training based only on power is more effective than prescribing training based on heart rate was not supported by the data from this study

This is interesting and I can certainly relate to it for running, which I'm quite experienced in and would be quite happy training with an HRM, as you suggest.

But for cycling, to which I've come late, it's a different story.  For instance I find it quite easy to be spinning very fast, with a high HR, but comparatively low speed, or grinding up a hill with low cadence and heart rate.

Power meter-enabled static bike gives me the opportunity to a) quite precisely judge my training efforts while at the same time b) learning most efficient/effective cadence etc.

I guess you are an experienced cyclist and learnt all this stuff early in your career so now it's second nature to you.  Not the case for me, so I'm very happy to use the technology

[simonp]

5x5 @ 250W tonight (3 minute rests @100W).  Burning legs!  Not a PB for 5-minute power, but I did achieve a PB for 5-minute-power-to-weight ratio. 

[scottlington]

10 mins warmup
14 x 2 mins @ 240W (3 mins rest @ 170W)
10 mins cool down

maintain cadence of 90-100 through out. Trip Comp advised a tad under 1000 Kcal burned 

Did that on Monday and tried the same yesterday.... I managed to get to 9 Intervals before I burned out. Seems that 240W on this programme does it for me and I was able to do the same program at 230W intensity on consecutive days the week before.

[simonp]

10 mins warmup
14 x 2 mins @ 240W (3 mins rest @ 170W)
10 mins cool down

maintain cadence of 90-100 through out. Trip Comp advised a tad under 1000 Kcal burned 

Did that on Monday and tried the same yesterday.... I managed to get to 9 Intervals before I burned out. Seems that 240W on this programme does it for me and I was able to do the same program at 230W intensity on consecutive days the week before.

That sounds like a good work-out.  How's the knee after the problems last weekend?

I managed a 5-minute power of 264W during the 103km on the CTriC club run today.  That's a new PB, higher than my 5-minute intervals I was doing a few weeks ago, and in power to weight is up from 3.41W/kg in October to 3.78W/kg now.  If I can get to 3.93W/kg then that just pushes me into the Male, Cat 4 Racer category (according to the TrainingPeaks software).  I notice also that F.T. power/weight today was also a PB at 2.71W/kg, which is just on the edge of untrained/Cat 5.  Again, a PB.

This training stuff, it works you know.    Looking forwards to a good season at this rate.  Just have to avoid injury and keep building.

[scottlington]

Thanks Bridget - knee is ok. It seems to be distance that does it rather than short intense stuff. I guess a factor is also the distinct lack of distance I have done since LEL. In terms of Audax rides it equates to about 600k since last July - that's not a lot. I'm DNSing the Dean this coming weekend in favour of the Man of Kent. It's 100k shorter and MANY metres less climbing! I need to build up.

Re the intervals - I had a plan when I got the turbo trainer at Christmas to combine Audax events with good strength / power training on the turbo (hence those intervals I decribed earlier) but I think I have come to the (correct) conclusion that my focus needs to be weight reduction first and foremmost. Scales say 97kg - that's way to heavy and really won't be helping with keeping my knee free of issues. Also, overall power is not the most important thing - power to weight is and mine, I suspect, is pitiful. Rather than try to raise my power by x% I would be better off focusing on weight reduction and increase PWR. Double whammy.

[scottlington]

I don't think intervals and weight loss are mutually exclusive. I've found that the higher intensity of working out on the turbo (as opposed to pot-hole dodging in the dark) is helping a lot with the weight loss keeping my weight down.
And exercise that increases your power would probably be building muscle mass that will increase your Base Metabolic Rate and make the weight loss easier.

Indeed and that wasn't what I was getting at. I meant that my focus would not be on improving my LTR or peak power or whatever you want to call it (so I won't be measuring it, I won't be setting targets for it or monitoring it etc). I will still do the intervals and, yes, i would expect them to have some positive effect in terms of an increase in strength, power and endurance, but my primary focus and benchmark will be weight.

A lot of what I have read has suggested that intervals are just as good for burning fat as longer, lower intensity rides so I see not reason to shift away from intervals in the turbo trainer. I'll use Audax rides for that.

[Greenbank]

*reads thread*
*reads thread again*

Going to see what the stationary bike in our work gym is like. Hopefully it has a power readout so I can do some intervals at lunch...

I've got a rough idea of my FTP based on PowerTap data. I've done an hour at 184W but that was part of a longer ride, and I was far from pushing myself to the limit for that hour, but it's the best data I have so far.

What do people do as a training routine, and at what (no pun intended) power? (relative to your own FTP, absolute power values are meaningless given my different FTP)

From what I can tell:-

2x20 is:-

10 minute warmup at up to 50% FTP
20 minutes at ~100% FTP
recovery at 50W for as long as necessary
20 minutes at ~100% FTP
cooldown at 50W

5x5 is:-

10 minute warmup at up to 50% FTP
5 sets of:
  5 minutes at 110% FTP
  2 minutes recovery at 50W
10 minute cooldown at 50W

With a bit of fine tuning of the percentages based on how close they put me to MHR.

I might give 5x5 a go today. 110% of 184W is 202W. That's a good place to start.

[amaferanga]

....
What do people do as a training routine, and at what (no pun intended) power? (relative to your own FTP, absolute power values are meaningless given my different FTP)

From what I can tell:-

2x20 is:-

10 minute warmup at up to 50% FTP
20 minutes at ~100% FTP
recovery at 50W for as long as necessary
20 minutes at ~100% FTP
cooldown at 50W

5x5 is:-

10 minute warmup at up to 50% FTP
5 sets of:
  5 minutes at 110% FTP
  2 minutes recovery at 50W
10 minute cooldown at 50W

With a bit of fine tuning of the percentages based on how close they put me to MHR.

I might give 5x5 a go today. 110% of 184W is 202W. That's a good place to start.

Firstly I wouldn't expect the gym bike power figures to be particularly accurate.  Also, working at such intensities requires a big fan pointing directly at you otherwise it'll feel a lot harder than it should.

But anyway, my two pence worth:

Warm-up: Include some higher intensity in your warm-up to get your legs ready for working at FTP.  I would usually do 2 or 3 1min intervals up around FTP.

2 x 20: 90-105% FTP

Recovery: No need to ease off as much

5 x 5: 2 minutes recovery for a 5 minute effort at 110% FTP isn't enough IMO.  Better to have longer recovery periods and complete the interval set at your target wattage.  


But you don't really know your FTP yet.  Best establish that with your chosen protocol before doing any training based around it.

[simonp]

I use 100W in recovery for both 5x5 and 3x15 or 2x20. On the 5x5 it's 3 mins rest and on the LT one 10 minutes.

I think the gym power meters I've used give high readings but it's hard to be sure.

[Greenbank]

Ta. Will lengthen the recovery on the 5x5. There is a big fan in the gym, hopefully it won't be in use by anyone else.

Stationary bike is all I have. I'm in a first floor flat and my downstairs neighbours may not be too happy with the noise of a turbo trainer.

Best 3min is 259W and best 20 min is 194W which, according to the GoldenCheetah calculator gives an FTP of 183W, which ties in with observed data. I'm far from full cycling fitness yet though so I'm not too worried, it was more a first stab at intervals...

[Greenbank]

Right. Did 5x5 (with 3 minute rest between each) trying to keep the stationary bike power reading at 200W.

Either the machine is under-reading (most likely) or I'm finding 200W relatively easy.

HR only up to 163bpm (185bpm is my usual max when cycling) during each interval.

Will try 5x5 @ 210W next time to see if that makes a difference.

Good news is that I don't find them boring at all!

[mattc]

Right. Did 5x5 (with 3 minute rest between each)
...

Good news is that I don't find them boring at all!

It's the 20min runs that do the most good - and are a lot less interesting

[nmcgann]

Right. Did 5x5 (with 3 minute rest between each) trying to keep the stationary bike power reading at 200W.

Either the machine is under-reading (most likely) or I'm finding 200W relatively easy.

HR only up to 163bpm (185bpm is my usual max when cycling) during each interval.

Will try 5x5 @ 210W next time to see if that makes a difference.

Good news is that I don't find them boring at all!

HR isn't a very useful measurement for 5min intervals as it changes throughout, but it looks to me like you aren't doing these hard enough to achieve Vo2 adaptations.

In comparison, I usually hit 95% of MHR by the end of the 2nd or 3rd interval in a set like these and rests are 4-5mins.

No, boredom isn't generally a problem in vo2 work