maximum possible effort for a 2x20?

neeb

Another possibly daft question from me about 2x20s..

Assuming that 95% of a single 20min maximum effort is a good approximation of FTP, then the maximum possible percentage of FTP at which you should be able to do a 2x20 must be less than 105%. It obviously must also more than 100%. So what is it, 101%, 102%, 103%? I'm thinking that rather than estimating changes in FTP over time by doing single 20min efforts I could just use my maximum effort 2x20s (where I've managed to keep the power the same between the first and second session).

GiantMike

neeb wrote:

Assuming that 95% of a single 20min maximum effort is a good approximation of FTP, then the maximum possible percentage of FTP at which you should be able to do a 2x20 must be less than 105%. It obviously must also more than 100%. So what is it, 101%, 102%, 103%?

The best I have managed is 100.3% then 101.3% FTP. I could have done the first one harder but that would have impacted on the second one so I'd guess that for me a 2x20 at 101% for each is my limit (based on a recent and 20 min max performance test).

neeb wrote:

I'm thinking that rather than estimating changes in FTP over time by doing single 20min efforts I could just use my maximum effort 2x20s (where I've managed to keep the power the same between the first and second session).

I'm not sure a maximal equalised 2x20 sessions would be as accurate as a single 20 max effort. But have a go and let us know what you find out

neeb

GiantMike wrote:

The best I have managed is 100.3% then 101.3% FTP. I could have done the first one harder but that would have impacted on the second one so I'd guess that for me a 2x20 at 101% for each is my limit (based on a recent and 20 min max performance test).

I'd find it reassuring if other people found that 101% is about their maximum, because doing about 100.4% the other day felt very hard. I think I could do 101%, but I'm not sure I could do 102%.

mamba80

Could it be that though 95% is oft used as a figure for ftp based on a 20min test, the reality is that 95% is optimistic ?

okgo

I've heard its nearer 90% than 95, yes.

amaferanga

okgo wrote:

I've heard its nearer 90% than 95, yes.

For some, maybe.

SBezza

The maximum you could do a 20 min effort is going to be dictated by how you mange this effort and how rested and up for it you are. I have probably done intervals at near 105%, but have also struggled to do them at 95% on other days.

Irrespective of what percentage of a 20 min test you take for your FTP, if the 20 min test shows improvement it is very highly likely your FTP has increased, and if you use the same percentage each time, you can realistically set training zones quite happily. FWIW my FTP is about 95% of a 20 min test, certainly close enough to that to use the likes of WKO+ to show progress, training load and training levels from.

doyler78

I think if you tried doing a 2x20 at a pace where both intervals were in the same ballpark I think there could be a tendency to under perform the intervals. Better to concentrate on just one effort and nail it. I've done 2x20 with the first at 105% FTP however the second one suffered badly and was 96% FTP hence why I think just nailing one effort just makes things easier. If you have a particular desire to do 40mins then go all out for the full 40mins and that will be as near your FTP as makes no difference so need to get the calculator out.

neeb

doyler78 wrote:

I think if you tried doing a 2x20 at a pace where both intervals were in the same ballpark I think there could be a tendency to under perform the intervals. Better to concentrate on just one effort and nail it. I've done 2x20 with the first at 105% FTP however the second one suffered badly and was 96% FTP hence why I think just nailing one effort just makes things easier.

I know what you mean, although what I do is hold back slightly on the first interval keeping the power exactly on the target and then see if I can finish the second interval at the same power. If I know I can do that at 101% FTP (or whatever), I might try increasing it by a couple of watts the next time. If I can't quite finish the second session at the same power, then I have a pretty accurate estimate of what my maximum is. I might do a session like that once every week or two (more often I'm doing them at 95%), so it just occurred to me that I could use that to estimate FTP instead of the 20min all out (which I must admit I find daunting, because I always feel I have to push very hard indeed to get a good estimate..)

Setarkos

101% 102% or 102%? Seriously?
Your powermeter is not that accurate and neither is your FTP estimate, no matter how you tested it.
You are supposed to do the 20min intervals as hard as possible, keeping the effort steady - that can change from day to day and requires some experience but isn't that difficult.
For FTP estimates, look up the deadly seven sins.

Alex Simmons wrote:

...
- FTP = 95% +/- 3% of 20-minute maximal average power
...
Of course everyone is different and some may fall outside of these ranges.

There really is no reason to nail it down to the nearest watt. Setting FTP to the nearest 5 watts is sufficient. I only change the FTP setting if there is hard evidence of a change of at least 5-10W.

Alex Simmons wrote:

6) from the power that you can routinely generate during long intervals done in training.

#6 is great for riders that regularly do hard aerobic interval work, especially indoors. The intervals need to be of sufficient duration, I would say at least two efforts of 20 minutes (with a short break between) at time trial power/pace. When done on an indoor trainer, then it is common for longer maximal effort intervals of 30 to 40 minutes be nearly equivalent to FTP. As training progresses over the weeks and months, then changes in sustainable power during these intervals is a great guide to changes in FTP.

Setarkos

doyler78 wrote:

I think if you tried doing a 2x20 at a pace where both intervals were in the same ballpark I think there could be a tendency to under perform the intervals. Better to concentrate on just one effort and nail it. I've done 2x20 with the first at 105% FTP however the second one suffered badly and was 96% FTP hence why I think just nailing one effort just makes things easier. If you have a particular desire to do 40mins then go all out for the full 40mins and that will be as near your FTP as makes no difference so need to get the calculator out.

The reason why you do 2x20' and 40' is to be able to push a little harder and exert a higher trainings stress.

What you're doing with your second interval if you do 105%/96% is increasing fatigue while barely increasing trainings stress, ie. a waste of time and energy.

neeb

Setarkos wrote:

101% 102% or 102%? Seriously?
Your powermeter is not that accurate and neither is your FTP estimate, no matter how you tested it.

Yes, that occurred to me. And yet there is a really big difference in perceived effort between 95% FTP and 100% FTP, based on my current figures. But maybe 5% is the smallest unit worth measuring given power meter accuracy etc.

Setarkos wrote:

You are supposed to do the 20min intervals as hard as possible, keeping the effort steady - that can change from day to day and requires some experience but isn't that difficult.

Should that always be the case? If I'm doing them at 95% that's not as hard as possible, but it's quite a lot less stressful if I'm doing them several times a week. Would I get more benefit doing them harder, less often? I think this came up in another thread, where the issue was is there any point doing 2x20 at 95% when you could do 1x40 at the same intensity.. I'd still find it less stressful doing 1x40 at 95% than 2x20 at 100%.

amaferanga

Setarkos wrote:

What you're doing with your second interval if you do 105%/96% is increasing fatigue while barely increasing trainings stress, ie. a waste of time and energy.

2x20 @ 105% and 96% FTP is excellent training. Certainly not a waste of time and energy. It's not how I'd do it, but if it works for him....

okgo

Isn't the reason most people do it below FTP so they can get more sessions in?

doyler78

Setarkos wrote:

doyler78 wrote:

I think if you tried doing a 2x20 at a pace where both intervals were in the same ballpark I think there could be a tendency to under perform the intervals. Better to concentrate on just one effort and nail it. I've done 2x20 with the first at 105% FTP however the second one suffered badly and was 96% FTP hence why I think just nailing one effort just makes things easier. If you have a particular desire to do 40mins then go all out for the full 40mins and that will be as near your FTP as makes no difference so need to get the calculator out.

The reason why you do 2x20' and 40' is to be able to push a little harder and exert a higher trainings stress.

What you're doing with your second interval if you do 105%/96% is increasing fatigue while barely increasing trainings stress, ie. a waste of time and energy.

In order to be able to train at 105% of FTP your mind has to be able to go there and there is nothing like doing it in order to get the mind ready. The idea that the only useful workout for threshold development is at SST because it allows for greater repeatability due to less training stress is flawed. It teaches you only to train at that intensity. When you come to do the hard stuff you then find that you can't actually do it because your head freaks out. It pays to train at a whole range of intensities as the mind and body are then prepared for what is to come and surely that is the most important essence of training.

Setarkos

neeb wrote:

Should that always be the case? If I'm doing them at 95% that's not as hard as possible, but it's quite a lot less stressful if I'm doing them several times a week. Would I get more benefit doing them harder, less often? I think this came up in another thread, where the issue was is there any point doing 2x20 at 95% when you could do 1x40 at the same intensity.. I'd still find it less stressful doing 1x40 at 95% than 2x20 at 100%.

Well, the point of training is to tell you body that it isn't good enough so that when you are resting it overcompensates and gets better. So it always depends on what you train for.
If your goal is mainly to increase your threshold (for one-day events) I would aim for more than 100% in my 20' interval because the message to your body is: 100% isn't good enough.
Doing them at a lower intensity but more often and back to back might be good if you train for stage races...
For me block training is most rewarding. That means you do loads of L5 for 2 weeks rest a week and then do loads of L4 for 2 weeks That's just one of many examples but periodisation is certainly important and if you keep doing 20min intervals at 95% regularly every week I don't think you're going to get much out of it...

doyler78 wrote:

In order to be able to train at 105% of FTP your mind has to be able to go there and there is nothing like doing it in order to get the mind ready. The idea that the only useful workout for threshold development is at SST because it allows for greater repeatability due to less training stress is flawed. It teaches you only to train at that intensity. When you come to do the hard stuff you then find that you can't actually do it because your head freaks out. It pays to train at a whole range of intensities as the mind and body are then prepared for what is to come and surely that is the most important essence of training.

Not sure, why you quoted me there but I completely agree with you. I would always implement a few 4x5 sessions in an L4 block. I also find 30/30 in various versions extremely beneficial as well as crossing threshold every minute, alternating between 105% and 95% for example.

doyler78

Setarkos wrote:

What you're doing with your second interval if you do 105%/96% is increasing fatigue while barely increasing trainings stress, ie. a waste of time and energy.

Because this seemed to suggest that you felt doing anything that wasn't SST was a waste of time and energy. My point was that it wasn't therefore I fail to see how in that statement you agree with me :?

Alex_Simmons/RST

Setarkos wrote:

For FTP estimates, look up the deadly seven sins.

Alex Simmons wrote:

...
- FTP = 95% +/- 3% of 20-minute maximal average power
...
Of course everyone is different and some may fall outside of these ranges.

There really is no reason to nail it down to the nearest watt. Setting FTP to the nearest 5 watts is sufficient. I only change the FTP setting if there is hard evidence of a change of at least 5-10W.

just on this one, I've amended the ranges slightly - in the case of 20-min power, the typical range is amended to 93% +/- 3%

Setarkos

doyler78 wrote:

Setarkos wrote:

What you're doing with your second interval if you do 105%/96% is increasing fatigue while barely increasing trainings stress, ie. a waste of time and energy.

Because this seemed to suggest that you felt doing anything that wasn't SST was a waste of time and energy. My point was that it wasn't therefore I fail to see how in that statement you agree with me :?

Well then maybe we have different notions of SST. 2x20' @ 105%/96% is not SST to me but classic L4. SST is done at slightly lower intensity (which is allowed to vary a bit) but longer.
My point is that if you exert yourself in the first interval doing 105%, the second at 96% is not really increasing the training stress on your aerobic threshold because of the drop in power but the perceived level of exertion and your cortisol level rise disproportionally to your training stress.
Look up Allen/Coggan saying (paraphrased): It's always that last interval, the last 5 minutes of your interval that count, which have to be done at the right intensity.
Doing 2x20' @ 105%/96% compares to overpacing yourself in an interval starting to high and then fading towards the end - what happens quickly if you train by heart rate, because it rises with a delay.

neeb

Setarkos wrote:

Well, the point of training is to tell you body that it isn't good enough so that when you are resting it overcompensates and gets better. So it always depends on what you train for.
If your goal is mainly to increase your threshold (for one-day events) I would aim for more than 100% in my 20' interval because the message to your body is: 100% isn't good enough.
Doing them at a lower intensity but more often and back to back might be good if you train for stage races...

That makes sense to me, although it's contrary to stuff I've read about "sweetspot" training that suggests that the best way to increase FTP is to do the 2x20s at a slightly lower intensity, more often.

I'm coming round to the idea of only doing the 2x20s at higher intensity and saving the 95% efforts for longer, continuous sessions.

Setarkos

Sweet spot is indeed very beneficial but 2x20' is not really sweet spot training...
You can do sweet spot intervals (eg. 3x20' or 4x15' at ~90%) and follow them up with a ~40min tempo interval.
Classic SST is simply keeping the gas on for 1.5-2.5 hours, trying to stay somewhere around 90% but not being to anal about pacing, play with hills, corners and certain sections of your route, don't overdo it to early and try not to go over 100% but not below 80% either.
SST is the modern (and slightly refined) term for "fartlek" (something common in Scandinavia for decades).

Addendum:
Sweet spot is ideal for a weekly routine if you don't have anything coming up soon because it is not as stressful as classic L4 so you can do it more often and more regularly without overdoing it.

If you want to boost you FTP for an event,
you increase volume (not intensity) for four weeks implementing SST and L4 (starting eight weeks before the event)
then do a 2-week L5/(VO2max) block (4x5', 8x3', hill reps, 30/30), eg. 2 days on (2 workouts a day L5/L5 - L5/L2) - 1 day off (rest or 1h recovery).
Then 1 week "L4-follow-up", 4x5 at 105%-110%, 3x15 L4, 2x20 L4 (listen to your body and don't overdo it in this phase)
1 week taper (lower volume and intensity), high cadence, whatever works for you.
Race

But doing this will result in a slight decline in form after 1-2 weeks, then you can do a transition to a second peak.

amaferanga

Setarkos wrote:

Sweet spot is indeed very beneficial but 2x20' is not really sweet spot training...
You can do sweet spot intervals (eg. 3x20' or 4x15' at ~90%) and follow them up with a ~40min tempo interval.
Classic SST is simply keeping the gas on for 1.5-2.5 hours, trying to stay somewhere around 90% but not being to anal about pacing, play with hills, corners and certain sections of your route, don't overdo it to early and try not to go over 100% but not below 80% either.

Do you actually have a power meter? In the real world, with hills, corners, junctions, etc., if you want to average anywhere near 90% FTP then you'll need to spend a fair bit of time above FTP.

If you don't mind me asking, you're giving some very authoritative sounding training advice, but as I understand it you're a 4th Cat. Are you a coach or something who's just turned to road racing?

okgo

Why does his category make any difference to his training advice?

amaferanga

okgo wrote:

Why does his category make any difference to his training advice?

It doesn't. But he sounds like he has a lot of training experience so being new to racing seems odd.

It's a genuine question btw.

okgo

If you read a bit more on that other thread you will see he has raced quite a bit in another country, so that might explain it.

bahzob

Training for amateurs is remarkably straight forward.

For if you can maintain effort (watts>speed>RPE>HR) "X" for time "y" as a PB then any training efforts for time "y" should aim to get as close to time "X" as possible while being able to complete the target number of intervals.

So if you can do 300W for 20 mins then your goal should be to get as close to 300W as you can if doing 2x20s, while still being able to complete both 20 mins. After a few attempts you will soon get to know what you can achieve, say 290W. From then on the objective is treat this as a PB and beat it (it can help to have separate PBs for the first and second interval and experiment with varying these especially making the second higher than first, e.g. try 288W>293W).

You can certainly do the intervals at less effort and will get fitter as a result. However the process will be slower and will likely yield a lower end result in terms of fitness peak.

Also training not only prepares the body, it prepares the mind. If you wimp out in training then you will most likely wimp out when competing too.

Regarding Sweetspot training: This is a good idea but is clearly now starting to become more of problem than a solution as folk are clearly getting confused.

SST is only really needed overtraining is a potential risk. This is because it is a good compromise between loading up training stress while minimising recovery needs.

For the majority of amateurs overtraining is not a risk. They simply do not spend enough time training and frequently have recovery days forced on them due to the effects of RL.

So you should not be aiming to do SST for intervals less than 60 minutes if getting fitter is your main objective.

This does NOT mean you should avoid the sweetspot zone altogether.

An excellent training routine at all times of the year, including winter is to do solid 60min+ sessions at steady power. In this case the rule I cited above applies. You will be aiming to do these at the highest power possible which will be,by definition, just short of whatever your FTP happens to be i.e. the sweetspot zone. So you could well end up doing a steady 90 mins of SST. This will be way better training in all senses than 2x20 mins at just short of FTP.

amaferanga

okgo wrote:

If you read a bit more on that other thread you will see he has raced quite a bit in another country, so that might explain it.

Ah ok, fair enough I hadn't seen that. I was just curious. Explains why he won his 'first' race then.

amaferanga

bahzob wrote:

Training for amateurs is remarkably straight forward.

For if you can maintain effort (watts>speed>RPE>HR) "X" for time "y" as a PB then any training efforts for time "y" should aim to get as close to time "X" as possible while being able to complete the target number of intervals.

Guff. I stopped reading after this.

neeb

Basically, I'm snowed in all winter and mainly just trying to keep up / build on the fitness to put me in the best position possible come spring. No point doing the VO2 max & anaerobic stuff at the moment, I assume...

If longer sessions at less than FTP are the way to go, then the best way for me to motivate myself to do them is to use the tacx RLVs, e.g. a simulated climb of Mt. Ventoux is basically 90mins of SST. But I'll maybe also try to do a 2x20 at maximum effort (100% FTP or just over) once a week?

okgo

amaferanga wrote:

okgo wrote:

If you read a bit more on that other thread you will see he has raced quite a bit in another country, so that might explain it.

Ah ok, fair enough I hadn't seen that. I was just curious. Explains why he won his 'first' race then.

His 2nd

But lots of people win their first race, it isn't difficult if you're at a much higher level of fitness than the average 4th cat. Or in his case had the power and a bit of tactical nous, I only had the former, still don't think I've got much of the latter

Back onto 2x20 I've been doing mine at around 85% of my best 20 mins, so 90% of my FTP is we are basing it on 95% of max 20 min effort. Does this sound too low then?

bobones

bahzob wrote:

An excellent training routine at all times of the year, including winter is to do solid 60min+ sessions at steady power. In this case the rule I cited above applies. You will be aiming to do these at the highest power possible which will be,by definition, just short of whatever your FTP happens to be i.e. the sweetspot zone. So you could well end up doing a steady 90 mins of SST. This will be way better training in all senses than 2x20 mins at just short of FTP.

How often are you recommending we do these 1+ hour time trial efforts? Are we supposed to do them on the turbo in winter? Sounds like a whole lot of fun.

So many people here are giving advice that sweetspot training is a waste of time, but I've read elsewhere that 2x20 @ 85% FTP, day in, day out is a great way to go to build FTP. Here are just 2 references Flamme Rouge and Slow twitch forum - read posts by user nslckevin (Kevin Metcalfe).

Are these guys talking rubbish then?