2*20

garetjax

Just started to do 2x20 mins at time trial pace on my Tacx Flow.
I am struggling to maintain my target wattage in the second half of the second 20 minute interval. My heart rate goes up and my breathing gets very ragged.

Should I :

1. Stop when I cannot maintain the target watts, and try again next time.
2. Keep trying until the 20 mins are up, watching my wattage slowly decrease.
3. Do the intervals at a slightly lower wattage.
4. Stop. Rest. Then do the last 10 minutes at the correct wattage.

I've been doing 2. figuring it's still a good work-out as I am still in the correct heart rate zone.

Thanks.

rickhotrod

How about increasing your rest period between the 2 sessions? Then slowly reduce the rest period as you get fitter...

phil s

Are you doing your intervals at the top or the bottom of the wattage range? I had always gunned for the top of ranges but read some opinions on another board that you'll get a similarly good training effect at the middle or even bottom of the range without it all being so mentally taxing. Your original question is a tricky one for me to answer, though, as I had to admit defeat and I tend to try and grind on if I'm in trouble and sometimes I blow, sometimes I don't.

nmcgann

I'd go for 3. Maximises the training benefit and finish on a high note by completing the session as intended.

Neil

stjohnswell

My understanding is that they're to be done at 85% of FTP. By backing off a little you maximise benefit and minimise recovery time, which is a win-win.

Check out this great summary on FTP & 2*20s onflammerouge

a_n_t

garetjax wrote:

3. Do the intervals at a slightly lower wattage.

a_n_t

stjohnswell wrote:

Check out this great summary on FTP & 2*20s onflammerouge

"85% of FTP for 20 mins = continuous improvement "

All well and good but how many of us know our FTP?
How does it compare with HR?

nmcgann

stjohnswell wrote:

My understanding is that they're to be done at 85% of FTP. By backing off a little you maximise benefit and minimise recovery time, which is a win-win.

Check out this great summary on FTP & 2*20s onflammerouge

I reckon 85% of FTP is too easy - that is tempo wattage. I was discussing that web page with my coach and she pointed out I was already doing 1-2h continuous sessions at higher %'s of ftp, so what benefit would there be in doing 2x20 at that level?

Neil

BeaconRuth

stjohnswell wrote:

My understanding is that they're to be done at 85% of FTP. By backing off a little you maximise benefit and minimise recovery time, which is a win-win.

Check out this great summary on FTP & 2*20s onflammerouge

I don't think it's ever helpful to state things like "they are to be done at" when it comes to training routines. You might as well state that a piece of string IS 20cm long. Besides, 85% of FTP is extremely easy for a 20-min training effort if you've got a good level of fitness. It might be a good starting point for someone who is just setting out though.

I'm with option 3. You can learn a lot about good pacing for TTs by gaining experience of the feel of the maximum power you can sustain evenly (ie. without yo-yoing up and down or making a big spike at the end) for 20mins.

Ruth

BeaconRuth

Snap!

Ruth

nmcgann

BeaconRuth wrote:

Snap!

Ruth

Smirk....

I'd never go too hard and blow, oh no

Neil :roll:

BeaconRuth

a_n_t wrote:

"85% of FTP for 20 mins = continuous improvement "

All well and good but how many of us know our FTP?
How does it compare with HR?

You don't need to know your FTP. Just do them as hard as you can (if you want a very hard training session). It's worth ensuring that your effort is very even by holding a very steady cadence or speed, though. I mean, only varying by +/-1rpm or so. I've never measured my FTP and I don't think it's held me back. When I can do them 1rpm faster I reckon that's good progress, probably about 10W or so increase.

Ruth

BeaconRuth

nmcgann wrote:

Smirk....

I'd never go too hard and blow, oh no

Neil :roll:

Ruth

Bronzie

a_n_t wrote:

All well and good but how many of us know our FTP?
How does it compare with HR?

Have a look at Coggan's own suggestions here:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... evels.aspx

My understanding is that the 2x20's should be at Level 4.

Using HR as a guide is a bit hit and miss - maybe easier to use Perceived Effort described as:
Continuous conversation difficult at best, due to depth/frequency of breathing. Effort sufficiently high that sustained exercise at this level is mentally very taxing - therefore typically performed in training as multiple 'repeats', 'modules', or 'blocks' of 10-30 min duration. Consecutive days of training at level 4 possible, but such workouts generally only performed when sufficiently rested/recovered from prior training so as to be able to maintain intensity.

To the OP, I agree the best option is to just drop the effort level a little when you next do a session. If you can't sustain the 2nd 20 mins at the same intensity as the first, then you started too high. It is a bit of trial and error but after a few sessions you should be able to dial in the correct level from the start and then increase it a little each time as you make progress.

Jeff Jones

3 definitely. You just think you're fitter than you are

Example: I did an hour on the turbo yesterday (not done that in 2.5 years but I was desperate). I didn't have anything fancy to measure power but I did have a heart rate monitor. But instead of trying to stick to a given HR, I put it in the 53x17 and maintained a cadence of 100, which was fairly easy to do even without a computer.

My HR gradually rose throughout the session - slowly getting up to 170 in the first 30min and creeping up to 180 by the finish (max is about 195). So I figured I was working at the right level. The trick was not starting too hard, despite feeling fresh.

The other trick was not dying of boredom after 10 minutes.

stjohnswell

It is what it is - does every session need to be hard? Maybe I'm just wussing out, but I save hard for the joylessness of shorter intervals. :oops:

(by the way, i'm here to learn - not to coach)

nmcgann

stjohnswell wrote:

It is what it is - does every session need to be hard? Maybe I'm just wussing out, but I save hard for the joylessness of shorter intervals. :oops:

(by the way, i'm here to learn - not to coach)

You know, that's a good point. It's easy to make each session so horrid that it's a real struggle to face doing more. Trying to get a balance between fun and challenging is never easy, but as my wife never fails to remind me - hobbies are supposed to be enjoyable

Neil

Bronzie

Jeff Jones wrote:

My HR gradually rose throughout the session........

Here's one I made earlier:



The first 20 min interval started after a 15 min gradual warmup.

Anonymous

I have serious issues on the trainer!

My RPE is soooooo much higher on the trainer.

I've been struggling to do 2x20s on the trainer, when I got outside today my normalised power for the whole ride (1hr 49) including warm up and cool down was 15 watts higher than my FTP.

The ride was 25mins warm up, 1hr at High L2/Low L3 with a 20 second sprint every 5 mins and cool down to get me home.

Bizarre.

Bronzie

NapoleonD wrote:

My RPE is soooooo much higher on the trainer.

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2009/01/ ... ining.html

Fit a big flywheel and fan - and Bob's your Aunt...............it's still horrible to ride for more than 30 minutes

BeaconRuth

NapoleonD wrote:

I've been struggling to do 2x20s on the trainer, when I got outside today my normalised power for the whole ride (1hr 49) including warm up and cool down was 15 watts higher than my FTP.

Er, I think in that case you haven't correctly established what your FTP is. Why don't you test your FTP out on the road if that's where you're better at delivering the power?

Ruth

phil s

Just in answer to some of the later posts regarding RPE indoors and outdoors I remember reading somewhere a suggestion for an adjustment of your FTP for indoor training. I don't buy into that myself but it was an interesting thought. For me the biggest limiting factor on any indoor ride is the heat and prickly feeling, and I also shift around a whole lot more on the bike even though my position is good and I don't shift around on outdoor rides. Fact is, when you get hot and sweaty and prickly it's plain hard mentally. Buy a big fan - my next purchase will be a drum fan - and make sure you have plenty to drink.

Alex_Simmons/RST

3.
If you can't complete, you're either are too fatigued in the first place or you are attempting to ride at too high an intensity.

HR is not a great indicator, unless you are disciplined and know what it does for you. Search previous threads - I have posted about the HR drift that occurs in such efforts.

Generally those that pace by HR start too hard and fade, even though HR remains steady/high, the power falls. This is not good for two reasons. i. your efforts are quite possibly (but not necessarily) sub-optimal from a training adaptation point of view and ii. pacing that way is defnitely sub-optimal if riding a TT, i.e. it is slower overall, so best to train the ability to maintain a consistent power output.

Much better to use power, or a proxy such as speed or cadence on a turbo that's got a consistent resistance curve. You'll then get to know what HR does.

chrisw12

Generally those that pace by HR start too hard and fade, even though HR remains steady/high, the power falls. This is not good for two reasons. i. your efforts are quite possibly (but not necessarily) sub-optimal from a training adaptation point of view and ii. pacing that way is defnitely sub-optimal if riding a TT, i.e. it is slower overall, so best to train the ability to maintain a consistent power output.

Is it? Say you had a big hill at the start of your target tt? I'm joking there by the way, as I know that would be an exceptional circumstance.

What I don't understand though Alex is that your advocating that you train with iso power but you are setting up race models where you are advocating variable power depending on terrain. So is it really a bad thing to train off heart rate and go out too hard?

I know that you did say 'possibly (but not necessarily) sub-optimal from a training adaptation point of view' and I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just wondering since iso power is probably not the best way to race, is it the best way to train (in a lot of situations)

Toks

A few more 2 x 20' anecdotes

* Try and really tune into the 'feel' (RPE) factor'. It really helps
* It should feel like your almost on the edge and if you pushed it up a notch or two ( 20 secs say) it woud take a lot of gasping and quite a bit of time to recover - unlike a tempo/sweet spot ride where you could take it up a notch for quite few minutes before you enter the 'this feels bloody hard zone'
* Some days you will really nail it and cope admiirally despite the ever so apparent discomfort
* Some days the first 10 mins will feel like an hour - really horrible!
* Your breathing will be anything from quite noticeable to laboured and panty
* 10 minutes into the second set you may want your mummy
* Once you've done a few of them you'll notice the trainer warm up midway through the second set -raise your cadence or hit a gear higher to counter this lovely feeling
* Some days music, TV will not be enough of a distraction - those again are horrible days
* Some days the burning in your quads will almost be audible - cry if you must but don't stop
* Every now and then you'll have a session where you just stop even though you don't want to. Don't worry it happens to everyone
* For me at least when I'm bang on my FT I struggle to even gulp down water
* If you can mumble more than a couple of sentences your not riding hard enough.
* Don't even think about trying one without a good fan.
* Don't keep looking at the time - it purposely runs slower for nutters that do 2 x 20's
* Films can be a good distraction but the concentration required to watch em can add to the fatigue

garetjax

Sounds like the consensus is option3. Thanks for the replies.

With regards my FTP: If I do a 10-mile TT on my turbo i average around 255watts ( nothing great I know). So I reckon my FTP is about 95% of this (242). I aimed to do each interval at 245ish watts but did go higher than intended in my first interval.
- I notice HR creeps up as watts stay the same. I don't really go on HR but use feel and try to imagine i am in a time trial.
- Other thing i've noticed is that if i reduce the "slope" or resistance of the tacx flow turbo from +3 to 0 i can average a higher wattage for a 10-mile test; however, I always set it at +3 as to me it mimics the road.

thetrotter

Bronzie wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

My RPE is soooooo much higher on the trainer.

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2009/01/ ... ining.html

Fit a big flywheel and fan - and Bob's your Aunt...............it's still horrible to ride for more than 30 minutes

Absolutely. I used to find the same until I got a trainer with a big flywheel (Kurt Kinetic) and a fan. Now I find it much easier to replicate TT pacing indoors.

Anonymous

Cheers Dave, I'll look into that...

Alex_Simmons/RST

chrisw12 wrote:

Is it? Say you had a big hill at the start of your target tt? I'm joking there by the way, as I know that would be an exceptional circumstance.

What I don't understand though Alex is that your advocating that you train with iso power but you are setting up race models where you are advocating variable power depending on terrain. So is it really a bad thing to train off heart rate and go out too hard?

I know that you did say 'possibly (but not necessarily) sub-optimal from a training adaptation point of view' and I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just wondering since iso power is probably not the best way to race, is it the best way to train (in a lot of situations)

I'm not suggesting that intervals have to be iso-power. Just that starting too hard and fading is sub-optimal.

All you end up doing is reducing the total time at an intensity level that will induce the desired adaptations (and that's what matters). In particular, the time at the end of such efforts is really important as that's the end of an effort that really induces the improvements (and is when the RPE is highest). Far better to start a little conservatively and finish strongly.

And as far as TT pacing goes, iso-power is very nearly the fastest way to ride them (even on a variable gradient course). Of course it is faster to vary the output according to the terrain, however, not by as much as people think, or more importantly, than they typically do. Indeed the general trend for many is to ride at too variable a power when TTing and as a result lose time. Very common for people to ride up gradients too hard and not push sufficiently on the declines/flats.

Of the many TT power files I have analysed for pacing optimisation (from Pros to club level), in all but a very few cases, the rider would have gone faster had they ridden it at a quasi iso-power - at the intensity level they were actually capable of sustaining on that day.

Starting too hard and fading is the most basic TT pacing mistake. So why train that way?

Anonymous

Alex,

So what you are saying to someone like me is that in a TT it's best to stick to one power level the whole time, even if it means going s-l-o-w-l-y up hill and pushing at the same power at Warp factor 5 downhill, basically average power will be as close as possible to normalised power?

Makes sense to me anyhoo.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Well it depends a bit on the terrain but put it this way - that is a very good place to start your pacing journey on most courses.

In reality you will still probably generate more power on the inclines and a bit less on the declines (it's hard not to) but overall a relatively low ratio (getting down towards 1.00 but certainly less than say 1.05) of normalised to average power is typically an outcome of good pacing. A low ratio doesn't mean good pacing, just that it is a typical outcome of good pacing.

This assumes of course that it represented your best effort on the day.

As an example of a course where variable pacing strategy is a far better option, I have modelled the demands of a hilly TT course I have coming up in ~ 10-11 weeks from now (national paracycling champs). Here's the course:



As you can see, that's not exactly a flat TT. In this case the optimal power demands on various parts of the course are quite different, sort of hard tempo level on the flatter bits, VO2 Max on the climbs and endurance level going down (recovery on the very steep decline). In this instance the use of a variable pacing strategy would save me 30+ seconds over iso-power. Even with such a variable power demand, my ratio of NP to AP would still only be 1.04.