Cycling program v4.0 2011-2012 (Page 24)

Week 11, 20' test done!  I increased my 20MP from 256w to 260w.  I think that was the most difficult test I've done to date - the last one I built up throughout the 20 mins but today it was pretty steady throughout.  I hung on for dear life from about 11 mins on. 

Good luck to everyone else who is testing this week!

Funny that you say this.  My test last month was like that.  I actually was feeling pretty strong through about 11 minutes and then it hit me pretty hard all at once and holding the constant power through the end really hurt.

One official (I did repeat the first week multiple times during Dec) week in the book! Loving it so far; I am doing heart rate but I will do the FTP test on a compu-trainer so I can measure the improvement over time (until I get my powertap).

Did my 2nd 20min test this morning.

12/14/2011              20min Avg 256w        3.75w/kg

1/9/2012                  20min Avg 277w        4.06w/kg

I am pretty happy with this. I was fairly certain I would improve over the 1st test purely because I had only ridden 5x in the previous year before thatn1st  test.  I will most definately take an 8% improvement over 4 weeks.

Finished the 20 min test this morning. I don't think I can feel my legs right now... Improved my 20MP 8% since the last test. I'm psyched. Assuming I don't lose both legs.

Coaches or Physiologists use different terms to describe different intensities aiming to achieve similar adaptations. As showed, A. Coggan calls the 'sweet spot' to the intensity where many adaptations are maximized (between 80-100% of FTP), coaches like Jack Daniels use a mix of Marathon pace and Threshold pace (which is roughly the same range intensity wise).

Renato Canova (current coach of 12 of the top 20 marathoners in the world), refers to this as Aerobic power to Lactate resistance.

The point is, there can be many ways to refer to a particular zone in which spending time training, we can maximize many training adaptations. Remember, training zones/levels are man made at our attempt to make training more efficient, but our bodies don't really know when we went from zone 1 to zone 3; physiologically the brain just sends more signals through the nervous system to recruit more muscle fibers and thus, more oxygen is required to oxidize glycogen for ATP, more lactate accumulates, more waste products accumulate, etc. 

The training load we do matters because the mix of it will determine what adaptations we maximize; since load = Volume (duration + frequency) + intensity, then to maximize different adaptations we either have to train at lower intensities for a longer period of time or we can train at a higher intensity for a shorter period of time. And while adaptations occur in a sort of continuum (i.e. doing an easy run may improve VO2 max or Lactate Threshold to a lesser degree), we need to do different intensities (at different times in a program) to maximize and maintain those.

In this case, I developed this plan addressing different adaptations to maximize specific gains. At first, we did some trainnig to get the body ready to handle more work, then we did work addressing power near VO2 max to improve our aerobic capacity, then we did 6x4s at 105% of CP and short rest to stress the body targeting the slow glycolysis system to 'teach' it how to work more 'efficiently' at higher lactate accumulations, then we moved into longer sets at 100% of CP to 'teach' the body to work more 'efficiently' at your maximum lactate steady state all while some rides were targeting lower intensities (75-85%CP) for longer duration to induced other adaptions like use glycigne more efficiently. 

Is does doing sets around 100%CP a sweet spot based on A.Coggan's term? sure, but so does doing sets at 80%. In my opinion, every load (duration + intensity) has its own sweet spot or more precisely, its purpose. Yes, if you are short in time and need to maximize certain gain, you can do 'sweet spot' training and get a bit more bang for your buck but it will be only to a point. if you want to be the best athlete you can be, you will always benefit from general and specific training at different doses and degrees through a program.

if you are doing and Ironman and you don't do long steady state rides and instead you do only sweet spot training, you can certainly get fit and even compete; depending on your physiology, you might even be able to do very well. But still, by ignoring specific training you will be missing the opportunity to perform better. Same, if you specialized in Olys and only do 'base training' and ignore doing training at 100% of your CP (or critical swim speed, or critical pace), you might do ok, well or even very well (depending on your physiology), but unless you do specific training, you will be missing performance gains.

The point is not to only do one kind of training, but to do:

1. The training that matters most for your current fitness level
2. The training that matters the most for your goal race
3. The training that matters the most for your PERSONAL physiology
4. The training that your life priorities allow you to do (balance in life vs training is key)

That's why I think doing only base training is not only silly (or lazy coaching) but also, a missed opportunity for an athlete to improve, same as focusing exclusively in intensity. It is not an either or proposition, but a what mix of each you need based on you.

Reading Skiba Books will certainly help understand all this a bit more

Here is a cool graph from Coggan indicating what physiological adaptation are maxmized when training at different intensities. 

Here is a similar from Skiba's book using different %s of different markers (whether using VO2max, LT, etc. to determine your zones).

Look at what intensities produce more adaptations; makes me wonder why some coaches/athletes are so hesitant to mix intensity in their training programs and get so fixated in 'base training', no? The best coaches, programs and athletes in the world do a little bit of everything (even resistance and anaerobic training) and a lot of something depending on the phase, but always keeping a mix. It is not like Ironman training is different and we need some sort of snowflake type of program

as long as you calibrate your PT before every ride (zero torque) and you have consistent readings then I would go with the PT #. It hurts a bit in the pride if the power is lower but at least now you have something to work with indoors and outdoors.

Did you zero the torque before the test?

Jorge, thanks for all the great info.  I am learning so much.  I don't know if I love you or hate you sometimes.  

How do the two tests feel from the perspective of perceived exertion. 

That one your new joule reports a rear wheel speed of 30 mph and Trainer Road reports 20mph thats a big difference.  Prior to upgrading to PT how were you measuring wheel speed during the test? 

It is possible that you are able to turn the wheel faster with less wattage if you have changed the setup of your trainer.  Are you testing using the same rear tire pressure with the same number of turns on the trainer adjustment knob?

The zany numbers of the stomp test are another matter.  How much weight are you hanging from the pedal spindle? What model crank do you have and which gears did you select for the test?

I did my third test today.  Put it this way....hardest I've gone on a bicycle ever.  I'm not even sure if I have gained any fitness from last time.  I just put a hurtin' on myself.  Drooling.  Not kidding.  Took me about 10 minutes of riding in zone 2 to get my heart rate back down.

First 20m test:  272 watts (3.2 w/kg)

Second 20m test:  294 watts (3.5 w/kg)

Third 20m test:  308 watts (3.7 w/kg)

Very nice progression. Congrats.

Awesome job Jonathan.  That is some great improvement.

Small improvement for me tonight.  My last test was 303 watts.  Now I'm at 305 watts.  That's good for 3.65w/kg.  Man that test is challenging.   

Something seems off. Maybe check with Saris? one of my athletes had the autozero thingy on in the Joule but after having weird reading she tried manual zeroing and the number was way off and not getting corrected even manually. eventually it got fixed with their support