intervals

Mark Alexander

I have never really done any interval training before. I was always a little scheptical about the benefits [I'm not sure why] but Irode 40 miles on thursday and the intervals were sprints up the 'hills' instead of grinding out a lesser gear.

I seem to have an average higher than normal for riding in that area. :?

SteveR_100Milers

Mark, lots of cyclists use this approach, which is usually described as Fartlek (Finnish for speedplay or play?? not sure exactly) training. It's far more fun as its usually spontaneous, assuming that fits with your personality though. Soem folks like the rigid application that is turbo intervals, others thrive on a complete lacy of regimentation. Either way, none of it works for me...

chopper1

I was determined never to do intervals, now i think they're great ass they work to increase you speed and help you with change of pace when racing

Alex_Simmons/RST

Fartlek is a classic way of doing Sweet Spot training. Just get out there and thump the ride as you feel up to it.

For many people, they do "intervals" without realising, simply as a result of the terrain they ride on. They may not be structured as such but it can have similar effects as long as they are done at the right intensity and they get sufficient duration of such work.

The problem with such unstructed workouts is knowing whether you are doing the right amount of such efforts (at the right intensity) over the course of a training cycle to continually elicit an overload state required to gain fitness.

SteveR_100Milers

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Fartlek is a classic way of doing Sweet Spot training. Just get out there and thump the ride as you feel up to it.

For many people, they do "intervals" without realising, simply as a result of the terrain they ride on. They may not be structured as such but it can have similar effects as long as they are done at the right intensity and they get sufficient duration of such work.

The problem with such unstructed workouts is knowing whether you are doing the right amount of such efforts (at the right intensity) over the course of a training cycle to continually elicit an overload state required to gain fitness.

#

There is a way between Ric and Mike: a post ride HR analysis. The HRM I (did) have records time in 8 zones, ands it not polar who I would have thought would have worked this out a long time ago. Still ride to PE, but its driven by what I have or havent done previously.

EDITED for puntuation (though not spelling)

toli

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Finnish for speedplay or play??

Swedish actually (one of only two word from Swedish that has made it into the English language, it is usually the other way around), but yes it means "speedplay".
As far as I remember this type of training was introduced by a Swedish athletics coach some 40-50 years or so ago, hence the name.

Alex_Simmons/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

There is a way between Ric and Mike: a post ride HR analysis. The HRM I (did) have records time in 8 zones, ands it not polar who I would have thought would have worked this out a long time ago. Still ride to PE, but its driven by what I have or havent done previously.

Hmmm, not so sure looking at the HR zone distribution of a ride file is all that helpful. It not that helpful with power data either.

Post ride analysis with HR data can be tricky, especially if one is trying to assess the physiological impacts from such data.

OK here are two efforts, Ride A and Ride B, from the same Masters Age Female athlete. Both are of similar duration of approx 20-minutes. Both efforts have an average heart rate of 158 beats per minute. This rider has a "threshold" or time trial heart rate of between 155 and 160 beats per minute.

Ride A


Ride B


On each chart I have added a horizontal line showing 160 beats per minute just so that you can easily compare both.

Also, I have provided the speed shown by the blue line. As you can see the speed fluctuates quite a bit in both rides. Ride A average speed was 32.0 km per hour and RideB was 32.7 km per hour.

Now, if an athlete sent these two files to you, what would you make of them?

What sort of rides were they?
Which one was harder?
What were the physiological demands required for each?

For a bit of fun why don't a few of you have crack at an analysis of each and post your thoughts on the differences (or similarities) between them.

Alex_Simmons/RST

toli wrote:

Swedish actually (one of only two word from Swedish that has made it into the English language, it is usually the other way around), but yes it means "speedplay".
As far as I remember this type of training was introduced by a Swedish athletics coach some 40-50 years or so ago, hence the name.

Do the Swedes have "fartlek zero pedals"?

Ken Night

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Fartlek is a classic way of doing Sweet Spot training. Just get out there and thump the ride as you feel up to it.

.

Hi Alex

I've enjoyed reading your posts the last few months, and keep hearing about "sweet spot training"

I live in a hilly area, and like to treat the hills as intervals, use a turbo for both tempo and interval training. Is sweet spot something I can do in addition to this?

Can you point me towards some information about "sweet spot training"

Alex_Simmons/RST

Ken Night wrote:

Hi Alex

I've enjoyed reading your posts the last few months, and keep hearing about "sweet spot training"

I live in a hilly area, and like to treat the hills as intervals, use a turbo for both tempo and interval training. Is sweet spot something I can do in addition to this?

Can you point me towards some information about "sweet spot training"

Thanks.

Absolutely, sweet spot is really another way of saying solid endurance through to threshold training, typically tempo level to sub-threshold level efforts. It can be done in many ways - fartlek, training races, tempo rides, interval workouts, etc.

Frank Overton has written the best desciptions.

See here for part 1:
http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspot.html

and here for part two:
http://www.fascatcoaching.com/training_ ... tdeux.html

Also, I show the sweet spot intensity band as it relates to both the Coggan and Stern power training levels here:

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... ining.html

cervelorider

Ken Night wrote:

Hi Alex

I've enjoyed reading your posts the last few months, and keep hearing about "sweet spot training"

I live in a hilly area, and like to treat the hills as intervals, use a turbo for both tempo and interval training. Is sweet spot something I can do in addition to this?

Can you point me towards some information about "sweet spot training"

Hi Ken,
I use the turbo and road for SST with great results, and would suggest trying a turbo workout.
After w/u, target an intensity somewhere between 2x20 and tempo, and hold it for an hour. Out on the road aim for 1.5hrs.
I try to do these sessions at just below 50mile TT pace.
Hope this helps.

SteveR_100Milers

Alex, I can only conclude that Rider A is in fact dead, since if his threshold 160 bpm, then if that at *worst* is 90% MHR, means his Max HR is 178 BPM, which rider A seems to have hit or even exceeded a few times!

Since there is no threshold level quoted for rider B then no comparison of relative effort can be made.

Either way, I can't understand Alex why analysing a normal ride with random *intervals* or fartlek to see how much time was spent in Z4 say for example for a given rider isnt a valid piece of data?
My log was a excel spreadsheet into which I entered the breakdown of total ride time into the 5 zones (and the 3 custom ones that I set to specific Joe Friel zones) So some weeks I was say trying to make sure I did 2 hours in 80-90% then I'd know if I had or not. To be realy honest, whether I did or not had little influence in practice as to how I rode the following day, I'm afraid I use the ride if / how I feel on the day. And not surprising it doesnt work that welll either!

cyclingjosh

steve, you are confusing the two different lines! the red is the heart rate and the blue is the speed in KPH. I think you might have been looking at the blue as heart rate. The heart rate is pretty much constant on 160bpm for both riders. Steve i agree with you, it is impossible to compare the two without knowing the threshold for rider B. However presuming that the thresholds are the same, i would say even though rider b was faster, they were both exactly the same level of hardness. J

cyclingjosh

oops, just realised that both rides were from same person! so both have same threshold, i think that both rides= same intensity.

Alex_Simmons/RST

cyclingjosh wrote:

oops, just realised that both rides were from same person! so both have same threshold,

This is correct.

Alex_Simmons/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Alex, I can only conclude that Rider A is in fact dead, since if his threshold 160 bpm, then if that at *worst* is 90% MHR, means his Max HR is 178 BPM, which rider A seems to have hit or even exceeded a few times!

Since there is no threshold level quoted for rider B then no comparison of relative effort can be made.

I suggest you re read the post. It is the same rider, a female, and on each chart are shown both heart rate (the red line) and speed (the blue line).

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Either way, I can't understand Alex why analysing a normal ride with random *intervals* or fartlek to see how much time was spent in Z4 say for example for a given rider isnt a valid piece of data?

I make two points:

1. Use of a distribution chart of a ride file, especially one that is unstructured such as a fartlek ride, can be quite misleading as an indicator of how much time is spent at any particular zone. This is true for power data as much as it is for heart rate data.*

2. heart rate has a significant lag time and as such may provide a misleading indicator of the nature of stresses encountered/undertaken.

Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing the use of heart rate as a general guide to aerobic intensity. All I am saying is it is helpful to know the limitations of the tool being used, just as it is important to understand the limitations when using a power meter or perceived exertion.


* for example, in such a fartlek ride every time you stop pedalling or back off from hard pedalling after an effort such as a short rise, your heart rate takes some time to fall out of zone. How long it takes to do that is dependent on a lot of things including how much you back off, your general state of fitness, and your level of fatigue. But let's say it takes your heart 30 seconds to drop below that zone. Do 30 such efforts up all the small rises on your ride, and suddenly you have acquired 15 minutes of ride time in a higher zone, when in fact you were not pedalling that hard. Likewise, when you start pedalling hard, heart rate takes time to respond and the speed of that response is also quite variable. Do the two effects cancel each other out? Who knows?

The reason distribution profiles are misleading with power data is actually quite different but my point is simply to recognize the limitations of interpreting the data.

ut_och_cykla

toli wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Finnish for speedplay or play??

Swedish actually (one of only two word from Swedish that has made it into the English language, it is usually the other way around), but yes it means "speedplay".
As far as I remember this type of training was introduced by a Swedish athletics coach some 40-50 years or so ago, hence the name.

Ombudsman
smorgasbord
abba
volvo
fartlek
(all the sk....words are old norse (sky, skirt), many of the sh... words, beck, fell, ness, thorpe...by place names. And thank norse that we don't have silly plural endings like brethren and oxen everywhere... one bike many biken anybody?

Alex_Simmons/RST

No takers yet?

SteveR_100Milers

Trick question Alex?

The both look equally hard, and lord knows what the rider was doing? I first thought maybe a track, since the speed curves follow a repetitive pattern. A looks harder from a speed perspective, but that assumes solo riding and on a flat route...

I get your point about measurement in zones,
Ironicallly, the HRM that gave me that analysis has died, and all I use is now a simple old polar one that tells me average and max, even that is possibly superfluous to my needs.

Alex_Simmons/RST

No trick question.

Both rides, while obviously primarily aerobic in nature due to their length, are quite different. One is a flat criterium with plenty of corners and speed changes, the other a solo time trial on a rolling circuit. However the speed changes for the crit are due to acceleration/decelerations whereas for the TT it was simply a factor of terrain.

The power demands for each are actually quite different and have differing physiological requirements. The overall power demand for the crit was higher by 5%. It was naturally spikier than the TT as well.

Now of course when you look at such data yourself - you know what sort of ride it was and hence have a fair idea of the particular demands. But if you are looking to HR to tell you something more, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

As such, there is actually very little we can glean from the HR data for both of these rides, other than "they were hard efforts".

SteveR_100Milers

Interesting stuff. I would have expcted a much greater spikiness with a crit ride perhaps, whereas a TT would be pretty much flat. I havent raced a crit, closest is the track for me. My track HR graphs looked way different from my TT ones.

Then again, accept the data might not be much use if you are analysing someone elses performance, but what about your own? You'd know what type of ride you had done, and you would soon build up a profile for that type of ride. Wouldn't comparing your individual ride profile to the banked *average* have some value?

oldwelshman

One thing that surprised me was the consistency of the HR.
You say that you cannot tell much from HR?
I would say the rider must have been comfortable due to evenness of HR.
In a race, my hr for a hard race is 150 av, but if an attack goes and we string out, ot for climb, I get up to 160 to 170.
If I have a go off the fron I also go up to 160 to get the gap so I would say from the hr in both cases, though the speed fluctuates her effort does not change that much ( 3 to 5bpm) so not that hard really, unless she can ride at HR max for entire race

Alex_Simmons/RST

oldwelshman wrote:

One thing that surprised me was the consistency of the HR.
You say that you cannot tell much from HR?
I would say the rider must have been comfortable due to evenness of HR.
In a race, my hr for a hard race is 150 av, but if an attack goes and we string out, ot for climb, I get up to 160 to 170.
If I have a go off the fron I also go up to 160 to get the gap so I would say from the hr in both cases, though the speed fluctuates her effort does not change that much ( 3 to 5bpm) so not that hard really, unless she can ride at HR max for entire race

or maybe they are close to their limit and suffering to hang on and since HR has a ceiling, it's really hard to tell. Power has no ceiling.

Alex_Simmons/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Interesting stuff. I would have expcted a much greater spikiness with a crit ride perhaps, whereas a TT would be pretty much flat. I havent raced a crit, closest is the track for me. My track HR graphs looked way different from my TT ones.

Then again, accept the data might not be much use if you are analysing someone elses performance, but what about your own? You'd know what type of ride you had done, and you would soon build up a profile for that type of ride. Wouldn't comparing your individual ride profile to the banked *average* have some value?

Yes, I made that point in my earlier post. However, just be aware of the limitations of any measure being used.

I posted two files with speed and HR data from the same rider that for all intensive purposes looked very similar. Yet they were from very different types of rides requiring different things from the rider. I'm not sure how you can then work out from such data what was going on other than they were hard (for that rider).

oldwelshman

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

One thing that surprised me was the consistency of the HR.
You say that you cannot tell much from HR?
I would say the rider must have been comfortable due to evenness of HR.
In a race, my hr for a hard race is 150 av, but if an attack goes and we string out, ot for climb, I get up to 160 to 170.
If I have a go off the fron I also go up to 160 to get the gap so I would say from the hr in both cases, though the speed fluctuates her effort does not change that much ( 3 to 5bpm) so not that hard really, unless she can ride at HR max for entire race

or maybe they are close to their limit and suffering to hang on and since HR has a ceiling, it's really hard to tell. Power has no ceiling.

In that case it would be interesting to see the power output on the same graph.
It still seems a bit odd to me to see such a consistent hr in a race, ok for a TT, would be good, but most people have varying HR in a race, I would be surprised if they were almost maxed out for a whole race