Shorter interval intensities from 2 x 20s
DaveyL
Posts: 5,167
OK, I've started up the dreaded 2 x 20 min intervals. Last week's was utterly vile.
If I fancy doing some shorter intervals (specifically 6 x 4 min and 10-12 x 1 min) is it possible to scale the 2 x 20 wattage onto these to get a ballpark figure for how hard I should be doing them? I can then micro-adjust using the Goldilocks strategy :-)
For example, if I'm doing my 2 x 20s at 350 W, what would be sensible numbers for the 6 x 4s and 12 x 1s?
If I fancy doing some shorter intervals (specifically 6 x 4 min and 10-12 x 1 min) is it possible to scale the 2 x 20 wattage onto these to get a ballpark figure for how hard I should be doing them? I can then micro-adjust using the Goldilocks strategy :-)
For example, if I'm doing my 2 x 20s at 350 W, what would be sensible numbers for the 6 x 4s and 12 x 1s?
Le Blaireau (1)
0
Comments
-
DaveyL wrote:For example, if I'm doing my 2 x 20s at 350 W,
Is that really possible?
I managed 280w x 2 x 20 tonight on my first go at this exercise ... pulse didn't get much over 150bpm but legs were complaining ....0 -
DaveyL wrote:OK, I've started up the dreaded 2 x 20 min intervals. Last week's was utterly vile.
If I fancy doing some shorter intervals (specifically 6 x 4 min and 10-12 x 1 min) is it possible to scale the 2 x 20 wattage onto these to get a ballpark figure for how hard I should be doing them? I can then micro-adjust using the Goldilocks strategy :-)
For example, if I'm doing my 2 x 20s at 350 W, what would be sensible numbers for the 6 x 4s and 12 x 1s?
Hang on while I dig out the Allen/Coggan bible...
...here we are:
Level 4 workouts done at 91-110% of FTP (8 to 30mins intervals)
Level 5 106-120% (3 to 8 mins)
Level 6 121-150% (30s to 3 mins)
So, if you know what your FTP is it's easy. If you're knocking out 20 mins at 350w, your FTP is probably very slightly below this.
4 minute intervals should be done bewteen 106% and 120%, but closer to 120%.
1 minute intervals will probably be bang in the middle of 121% to 150%
I'll leave the maths as homework for you!
Cheers, Andy
ps Watch out for Daddy bear...0 -
Well another approach would be to construct a calculator to determine the Normalised Power from a potential workout.
If the 60-min PNorm > FTP, then you are doomed to failure.
If NP & duration are about equal, then they would be roughly equally stressful workouts.0 -
FTP?0
-
musto_skiff wrote:FTP?
Try Alex's consolidated explanation
It covers jkust about everything :-
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/05/seven-deadly-sins.html0 -
Johnpwr wrote:musto_skiff wrote:FTP?
Try Alex's consolidated explanation It covers jkust about everything :-
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/05/seven-deadly-sins.html
OK - very helpful thanks.
As a guide what are the values of FTP & MAP should I try and aspire to?
I know that question is probably as long as a piece of string but I can manage 270w for quite some time (probably and hour if I could endure the boredom on the Taxc) and a MAP of 360w. These seem to fit with his FTP = ~75% of MAP.
I am 41 and have been riding since Feb 08.
What are the best methods to increase these and what targets can I resoable set myself?0 -
musto_skiff wrote:DaveyL wrote:For example, if I'm doing my 2 x 20s at 350 W,
Is that really possible?
I managed 280w x 2 x 20 tonight on my first go at this exercise ... pulse didn't get much over 150bpm but legs were complaining ....
I'm doing the intervals on a Keiser cycle in the gym. They have a wattage readout. I have no idea if it is accurate - I doubt it - but as long as it is relatively consistent I should be OK. I might end up getting a Tacx soon. I was actually doing the intervals at 356 W but I thought 350 was a reasonably round number to do some calculations from.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
andrewgturnbull wrote:
Hang on while I dig out the Allen/Coggan bible...
...here we are:
Level 4 workouts done at 91-110% of FTP (8 to 30mins intervals)
Level 5 106-120% (3 to 8 mins)
Level 6 121-150% (30s to 3 mins)
So, if you know what your FTP is it's easy. If you're knocking out 20 mins at 350w, your FTP is probably very slightly below this.
4 minute intervals should be done bewteen 106% and 120%, but closer to 120%.
1 minute intervals will probably be bang in the middle of 121% to 150%
I'll leave the maths as homework for you!
Cheers, Andy
ps Watch out for Daddy bear...
Thanks for the advice, Andy. I seemed to recall that I could roughly work out FTP as my 20 min intervals would be 105% of FTP . That would make my FTP (on that bike anyway) 340 W (my intervals were 356 W).
So, 4 min intervals somewhere betweem 360 and 408 W (!) and 1 min intervals, say 470 - 480 W. Jeez. I'll give it a try...
PS I'm 194 cm and 108 kg, so I'm not afraid of Daddy Bear!Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Well another approach would be to construct a calculator to determine the Normalised Power from a potential workout.
If the 60-min PNorm > FTP, then you are doomed to failure.
If NP & duration are about equal, then they would be roughly equally stressful workouts.
I'm afraid you've lost me (not difficult!).Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Beating Alex to itmusto_skiff wrote:As a guide what are the values of FTP & MAP should I try and aspire to?
- this is the link that normally gets posted when this question is asked:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/pow ... ing_v4.xls
It's based on your power/weight ratio as power alone is rather meaningless - compare your FT (functional threshold power in watts) divided by weight (kg) - the categories stated relate to US racing categories I think rather than UK but are very similar.
Of course, having a high power/weight ratio does not guarantee that you will win bike races, but it's a pretty big step in the right direction.0 -
Bronzie wrote:
Beating Alex to itmusto_skiff wrote:As a guide what are the values of FTP & MAP should I try and aspire to? - this is the link that normally gets posted when this question is asked:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/pow ... ing_v4.xls
It's based on your power/weight ratio as power alone is rather meaningless - compare your FT (functional threshold power in watts) divided by weight (kg) - the categories stated relate to US racing categories I think rather than UK but are very similar.
Of course, having a high power/weight ratio does not guarantee that you will win bike races, but it's a pretty big step in the right direction.
That's pretty handy ... FT = FTP I assume, and the 1 minute = MAP
If so then my MAP from the ramp test is well down on the 1 min column?
If I didn't do a ramp and just went balls out for a minute I could do much better I think; is that what the 1 min is?0 -
What would be intersting on that table would be to add target times for 10 & 25m TT's on the right hand side ...0
-
To the OP, here is anoter suggestion, which works if you have a speedo off the rear wheel, and an exponential resistance trainer (such as a fluid one). Target your speed that you need to achieve for say a 10TT, then ride at that speed for 5 miles. Gradually increase the distance at that speed until you are riding 10 miles. I guess you could start at a higher speed and shorter distance but it will take longer obviously. I'm going to try this rather than the monotony of simply bashing he pedals for 40 minutes, which I'll do outdoors.0
-
SteveR_100Milers wrote:To the OP, .
Sorry for hijacking the thread :oops: just so many questions ...0 -
Sorry - that's with my roadie head on - for flat time trials it's raw power and low drag that counts - weight is not so important. Increase your FTP and your times will drop accordingly.Bronzie wrote:Of course, having a high power/weight ratio does not guarantee that you will win bike races0 -
musto_skiff wrote:SteveR_100Milers wrote:To the OP, .
Sorry for hijacking the thread :oops: just so many questions ...
:-) No worries - there has been plenty of useful stuff generated by you asking for much broader info than I was looking for - all very helpful!Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Providing you pace the TT correctly....Bronzie wrote:
Sorry - that's with my roadie head on - for flat time trials it's raw power and low drag that counts - weight is not so important. Increase your FTP and your times will drop accordingly.Bronzie wrote:Of course, having a high power/weight ratio does not guarantee that you will win bike races
Losing weight usually lowers one's CdA*, since you are thinner.
* Coefficient of Drag x Fontal Area, measured in m^2 and typically between 0.2 and 0.4.0 -
DaveyL wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Well another approach would be to construct a calculator to determine the Normalised Power from a potential workout.
If the 60-min PNorm > FTP, then you are doomed to failure.
If NP & duration are about equal, then they would be roughly equally stressful workouts.
I'm afraid you've lost me (not difficult!).
OK - that would take more time to explain than I have right now....
Maybe later 0 -
No, MAP would be approx 3 minutes MMP.musto_skiff wrote:That's pretty handy ... FT = FTP I assume, and the 1 minute = MAP
If so then my MAP from the ramp test is well down on the 1 min column?
If I didn't do a ramp and just went balls out for a minute I could do much better I think; is that what the 1 min is?
1-min MMP is much higher than MAP.0 -
Times would make no sense since you also need to know:musto_skiff wrote:What would be intersting on that table would be to add target times for 10 & 25m TT's on the right hand side ...
- course elevation profile
- environmental conditions (temp, barometric pressure, humidity)
- general altitude band (impacts on air density)
- wind speed and direction relative to rider on the course
- a rider's biomechanical profile (CdA, mass, mass of bike & other equipment, clothes)
- road and equipment factors (Crr, drivetrain efficiency)
- pacing strategy used/to be applied
Given the above, it is possible to predict a rider's TT time*.
However, if you are interested in typical power ranges for such events relative to MAP, then see the table listed here:
http://www.cyclecoach.com/pageID-downlo ... _zones.htm
* as an example of what I mean - see this sample output from a Time Trial Optimisation model I have developed to aid a rider in choosing how hard they should go on certain sections of a TT to minimise the time taken for a given maximal Normalised Power.
Of course no one is expected to follow such a model precisely but I can assure you, for anyone who is not experienced at pacing their TTs well, or has not seen a course before, then this type of information can be very useful.
0 -
Gosh, this is all so difficult!
In practical terms, I know some of the posters on here are doing sportives and some are targetting the Marmotte next month
There is no typical rider I know, but a broad illustration would help my understanding
What sort of time would you expect on the Marmotte for "the typical rider"-say 75kg 175cm, putting out various wattages at FTP , say 220, 270, 320?
Or any well known sportive event here in the UK?
Secondly, what percentiles would you put these athletes in?“It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best..." Ernest Hemingway0 -
Ken Night wrote:Gosh, this is all so difficult!
In practical terms, I know some of the posters on here are doing sportives and some are targetting the Marmotte next month
There is no typical rider I know, but a broad illustration would help my understanding
What sort of time would you expect on the Marmotte for "the typical rider"-say 75kg 175cm, putting out various wattages at FTP , say 220, 270, 320?
Or any well known sportive event here in the UK?
Secondly, what percentiles would you put these athletes in?
Well I have modelled the Marmotte ride specifically for a client.
With long rides like the Marmotte, it helps to have some reference to a mean maximal power for a longer duration than 1hr - but in the absence of that, then an estimate based on power declining by ~ 7.5% as duration doubles is what I'd go with.
Also depends on how much extra weight will be carried.
I can tell you what is possible but the outcome very much depends on a rider's pacing strategy and abilities over long duration efforts like this. Getting pacing wrong can easily add an hour as you face the Alpe d'Huez having already bonked badly. :shock:
If the 75kg rider is capable of the duration, paces well, fuels properly and has trained appropriately (and carries say 12kg extra mass as bike, clothes, goods and shackles) then for the Marmotte I'd say riders with various FTPs could potentially complete the course as follows:
320W < 7:30
270W ~ 8:30
220W > 9:45 :shock:
But these are SWAGs only!0 -
er, every ride is different and so would times - no disrespect o UK sportives but they ain't exacylt the French AlpsKen Night wrote:Or any well known sportive event here in the UK?
Secondly, what percentiles would you put these athletes in?
I don't know what you mean by percentile for athletes? With respect to what?
Racers are ranked by where they finished, not by their power output.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
No, MAP would be approx 3 minutes MMP.
1-min MMP is much higher than MAP.
Interesting, never heard anyone mention that before but just checked WKO and its pretty much spot on.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
Someone who did the Marmotte for the last 4 years very kindly sent me their WKO files to help me prepare this year.Ken Night wrote:Gosh, this is all so difficult!
In practical terms, I know some of the posters on here are doing sportives and some are targetting the Marmotte next month
There is no typical rider I know, but a broad illustration would help my understanding
What sort of time would you expect on the Marmotte for "the typical rider"-say 75kg 175cm, putting out various wattages at FTP , say 220, 270, 320?
Or any well known sportive event here in the UK?
They make interesting reading. FTP was in the order of 320W (70kg rider) but as mentioned this becomes less of a factor for rides like Marmotte.
FWIW a 7:04 result last year was done at an average 199W, normalised 235W.
Breaks down into
21 minutes from start to Glandon at 199W/235NW
80 minutes up Glandon at 245W/258NW
65 minutes to Telegraphe at 120W/184W
50 minutes up Telegraphe at 251W/252W
8 minutes rest to the Galiber at 100W/141W
75 minutes up Galibier at 241W/243W
65 minutes to the Alpe at 88W/152W
60 minutes up the Alpe at 263W/267W (this is the tricky part!)
Interesting thing about above is that power for overall ride and power for each of the climbs is not great shakes for someone with 300W+FTP. Problem is doing them back to back especially the last hour.
For sportives here in UK FTP gives only a very rough guide on ride time. Key variable on most courses (without killer climbs like Hardnott) is your ability to find and stick with a group thats (slightly not too much) better than you. Plus of course not getting lost or having mechanicals.
That said FWIW from personal experience, that FTP of 300W/70kg and ride average of 220W 250NW over 5-6 hours gives 30kph average speed riding solo (e.g. this years Wessex days 1/2). Riding mainly with a group over similar terrain 180W/220NW should give similar speed (e.g. Tour of Ireland) though if group works well similar should be a lot faster. On flat Tour of Ireland day when group stuck together we averaged 36kph.
FWIW an example that power can be misleading in terms of time on long group events: On stage 3 of 2006 TDF Jens Voigt did a breakaway and rode 5 and a bit hours at 42kph at 283W/338NW far beyond the capacity of most mortals. Christian Vandevelde rode same day in the bunch averaging 189W/268W (pretty average) and finished ahead of him.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
Thanks very much guysAlex_Simmons/RST wrote:I don't know what you mean by percentile for athletes? With respect to what?
Racers are ranked by where they finished, not by their power output.
By percentiles, I mean, percentile where finished in the field
It's how I rank myself in sportive events. Not scientific, but representative I feel-you have to take into account the likely quality of the field-ie the Marmotte made up of goodish club riders, whereas a local sportive might have a lot of "challenge" riders
the reason for this is that the gold standard varies so much in terms of the percentage of riders awarded it.bahzob wrote:[Someone who did the Marmotte for the last 4 years very kindly sent me their WKO files to help me prepare this year. .
I've enjoyed your posts, and the info you provide above is absolutely fascinating
FWIW here are some observations on my own results-sorry about the formatting-if you have patience, you'll see the "columns"
Event Time Overall %age % got gold
2008
EDD 6h 44m 9.8 15.6
Dartmoor 6h 17m 5.6 7.0
2007
FWC 7h14m 22.6 15.6
WRC 7h 6m 10.9 22.1 (15% in 2008)
Etape 8hr 43 18. 2.87
Marmotte 8hr 49m 29 38.42
2006
Etape 7h42 16.8 4.94( puncture on Alpe)
I know you're targetting a good time on this years Marmotte-hope you find the above as useful as I found your information
I'm targetting gold at the Dragon on Sunday-looks tough for a 50year old!
Didn't you do the Dragon last year-and the Iron Mountain?“It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best..." Ernest Hemingway0 -
Thanks v much. As per post on Marmotte thread maybe see you Sunday.Martin S. Newbury RC0
-
OK - I gotcha.Ken Night wrote:Thanks very much guysAlex_Simmons/RST wrote:I don't know what you mean by percentile for athletes? With respect to what?
Racers are ranked by where they finished, not by their power output.
By percentiles, I mean, percentile where finished in the field
It's how I rank myself in sportive events. Not scientific, but representative I feel-you have to take into account the likely quality of the field-ie the Marmotte made up of goodish club riders, whereas a local sportive might have a lot of "challenge" riders
the reason for this is that the gold standard varies so much in terms of the percentage of riders awarded it.
I don't have enough power data to categorise gold / not-gold for various sportives.
At a rough guess I suppose any male rider with an FTP north of 4W/kg or a MAP of > 22 W/kg^0.67 is a gold contender.
for women I'd guesstimate an FTP > 3.5W/kg or a MAP > 19W/kg^0.670
