SBR Utopia - OPEN (Page 38)
-
No new posts
Moderators: alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() rymac - 2013-01-11 6:45 AM I am the complete opposite...I really need a 20-30 minute warm-up to be able to get warm, hit my paces and feel better doing it. 20 minutes of easy running with some strides is a bare minimum for me. I'm the same way. I generally need 20 or so minutes, sometimes a little longer, but my interval sessions are shorter then my warmup/cooldown |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GoFaster - 2013-01-11 9:10 AM Power workout question. Workout called for 5x1min at 120% followed by 15min at 75-80%. Instead, I did the 15min @ closer to 87%. My thought being that lots of people consider 85% to be the "sweet" spot, and I'm better served by spending time at that power level, or even higher, than at a lower level. Is there a downside to me doing this? Not really. When I add on time to my rides I usually target 80-85%FTP...still quality work with little recovery cost. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GoFaster - 2013-01-11 8:10 AM Power workout question. Workout called for 5x1min at 120% followed by 15min at 75-80%. Instead, I did the 15min @ closer to 87%. My thought being that lots of people consider 85% to be the "sweet" spot, and I'm better served by spending time at that power level, or even higher, than at a lower level. Is there a downside to me doing this? ~83-85% is where many consider the lower end of sweet spot to be. It'll overlap with threshold level work at the higher end. You should be ok so long as you can continue to hit the more intense parts of that workout and in following workouts over the next few days. Wouldn't expect those to be much more difficult (if any) with 15 minutes of this. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Hey Tri-Peeps, Kimberly asked me a good question, was I thinking of Aqua-jogging given my PF challenges. I'm not a fan of Aqua-Jogging and much rather like to SWIM in a pool. When I run, short runs are 7:30 - 8:00 pace, longer runs are 8:00 to 9:00 pace so am I really getting much out of Aqua-Jogging? What if I just swim or ride instead. I will still run every week, but only as much as I can handle with the pain etc. Is is about using muscles associated with running so that upright position has something to do with it? How about Elyptical vs. Aqua Jogging? Anyhow your thoughts appreciated! Oh and THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your input on my PF issues, very good tips and I do have the foot thing for sleeping at night. I threw a water bottle in the freezer last night to be used tonight. Anyone racing this weekend? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() brigby1 - 2013-01-11 5:12 AM GoFaster - 2013-01-11 8:10 AM Power workout question. Workout called for 5x1min at 120% followed by 15min at 75-80%. Instead, I did the 15min @ closer to 87%. My thought being that lots of people consider 85% to be the "sweet" spot, and I'm better served by spending time at that power level, or even higher, than at a lower level. Is there a downside to me doing this?
~83-85% is where many consider the lower end of sweet spot to be. It'll overlap with threshold level work at the higher end. You should be ok so long as you can continue to hit the more intense parts of that workout and in following workouts over the next few days. Wouldn't expect those to be much more difficult (if any) with 15 minutes of this. x2. I look at sweet spot as more towards 88-93%. Again...just make sure you can complete the rest of the workout and future workouts. 5x1' @ 120% shouldn't be that killer unless they're done on rest intervals less than 15 seconds. I'd guess that I would be somewhat gassed after the last interval, but after 2-3 minutes of recovery, I would be able to reapply the power in the 85-90% range for the remaining 12-13 minutes. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() TankBoy - 2013-01-11 7:00 AM Asalzwed - 2013-01-10 8:06 PM In the context of marathon training, what are you guys thoughts on a long warm-up before a hard track workout (I'm talking 3-4 miles, the workout being similar in distance.) Do you think it takes away from the purpose of workout itself or do you think it's alright because it's marathon training and because training on more "fatigued" legs is quite relevant? Adrienne - what is your goal for the long warmup? Is it just to get more time on your feet or to run on "fatigued" legs? If either were the case I would probably just do it on the backend of the speed work as part of my warm down, not before. I don't do true speed work without at least a 30 minute warmup that would include 15 minutes of walking and dynamic stretching (if it is really cold out I will spin for 15 minutes instead of a lot of walking). Then followed by 15 minutes of jogging easing into accelerations and strides. 5 minutes more of walking and mental focus - working clearly through the workout in my mind reminding myself what to focus on in each interval. So that can all be 30~40 minutes, but wouldn't be 4 miles. Well, honestly it is only about 30-35 minutes total anyway. The purpose is multifaceted. Part of it is just simply scheduling and time management. I get out of work and get to the track and I have x minutes. The other part is getting miles in where I can. It definitely has nothing to do with training in a more "fatigued" state. I may just be adapting to the higher intensity too. I have been doing speed-work for a few months now. Maybe it's just time to move up to a faster group. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Asalzwed - 2013-01-11 12:50 PM TankBoy - 2013-01-11 7:00 AM Asalzwed - 2013-01-10 8:06 PM In the context of marathon training, what are you guys thoughts on a long warm-up before a hard track workout (I'm talking 3-4 miles, the workout being similar in distance.) Do you think it takes away from the purpose of workout itself or do you think it's alright because it's marathon training and because training on more "fatigued" legs is quite relevant? Adrienne - what is your goal for the long warmup? Is it just to get more time on your feet or to run on "fatigued" legs? If either were the case I would probably just do it on the backend of the speed work as part of my warm down, not before. I don't do true speed work without at least a 30 minute warmup that would include 15 minutes of walking and dynamic stretching (if it is really cold out I will spin for 15 minutes instead of a lot of walking). Then followed by 15 minutes of jogging easing into accelerations and strides. 5 minutes more of walking and mental focus - working clearly through the workout in my mind reminding myself what to focus on in each interval. So that can all be 30~40 minutes, but wouldn't be 4 miles. Well, honestly it is only about 30-35 minutes total anyway. The purpose is multifaceted. Part of it is just simply scheduling and time management. I get out of work and get to the track and I have x minutes. The other part is getting miles in where I can. It definitely has nothing to do with training in a more "fatigued" state. I may just be adapting to the higher intensity too. I have been doing speed-work for a few months now. Maybe it's just time to move up to a faster group. Ah, I think I got it. Well, if I was just trying to get some extra time on my feet I personally would do it after the speed work so as not to sacrifice the focus of the speed work. On the other hand if I were going to try and jump on some faster shoulders I would definitely spend the extra time doing a legit warmup. Of course the time could be well spent on the back end doing a legit warm down as well, especially if you were pushed a little harder by a faster group. Hmmmmmmm.... |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tri808 - 2013-01-11 11:37 AM x2. I look at sweet spot as more towards 88-93%. Again...just make sure you can complete the rest of the workout and future workouts. 5x1' @ 120% shouldn't be that killer unless they're done on rest intervals less than 15 seconds. I'd guess that I would be somewhat gassed after the last interval, but after 2-3 minutes of recovery, I would be able to reapply the power in the 85-90% range for the remaining 12-13 minutes. Have you found anything on why there's a difference with the low end? The 88% is from Training & Racing w/a Powermeter, and the 83-85% is from other sources & rather knowledgeable forum users (here & ST). I haven't found anything on it yet, even though Coggan is involved with everything. Don't think it's that big of a deal, but hate to leave some things hanging. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() OK, in the last two days the bike gurus have advocated for going "off plan" when a specified workout appears to be "too easy." For starters, I would trust that advice explicitly if I were doing such a plan - I know you guys are very smart and have lots of experience working with such plans. So my question is one of genuine curiosity: why do these plans have such workouts built into them in the first place? What purpose are they suppose to serve? Is it just one of the pitfalls of writing cookie-cutter plans that have to fit a wide audience with no feedback loop? To ease the monotony? To avoid burnout? Are they targeting a broader set of physiological/psychological objectives beyond just getting faster on the bike? Is it a fundamental difference in training philosophies - have many of the plan writers just missed the boat on this one? Or is it simply because nobody would pay for a plan that just says "ride lots, go hard often, except for sometimes go harder?" |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Just finished up with a VO2 test and am happy to report that I appear to still have some trainable space to work with. Pilates this afternoon, and 3ish hours with some hard climbing intervals in the mountains tomorrow. Temps here are supposed to hit record highs this weekend: it is supposed to be in the low-to-mid 70s! (21c for you north-of-border folks). Wherever you find yourselves I hope you all are getting some good training conditions this weekend as well. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TankBoy - 2013-01-11 1:59 PM OK, in the last two days the bike gurus have advocated for going "off plan" when a specified workout appears to be "too easy." For starters, I would trust that advice explicitly if I were doing such a plan - I know you guys are very smart and have lots of experience working with such plans. So my question is one of genuine curiosity: why do these plans have such workouts built into them in the first place? What purpose are they suppose to serve? Is it just one of the pitfalls of writing cookie-cutter plans that have to fit a wide audience with no feedback loop? To ease the monotony? To avoid burnout? Are they targeting a broader set of physiological/psychological objectives beyond just getting faster on the bike? Is it a fundamental difference in training philosophies - have many of the plan writers just missed the boat on this one? Or is it simply because nobody would pay for a plan that just says "ride lots, go hard often, except for sometimes go harder?" Methinks this is it and sometimes, simplicity is best. However, for many folks, "hard" needs to be defined in an understandable - and manageable - way. - Brian Edited by bdesotell 2013-01-11 1:28 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TankBoy - 2013-01-11 1:59 PM OK, in the last two days the bike gurus have advocated for going "off plan" when a specified workout appears to be "too easy." For starters, I would trust that advice explicitly if I were doing such a plan - I know you guys are very smart and have lots of experience working with such plans. So my question is one of genuine curiosity: why do these plans have such workouts built into them in the first place? What purpose are they suppose to serve? Is it just one of the pitfalls of writing cookie-cutter plans that have to fit a wide audience with no feedback loop? To ease the monotony? To avoid burnout? Are they targeting a broader set of physiological/psychological objectives beyond just getting faster on the bike? Is it a fundamental difference in training philosophies - have many of the plan writers just missed the boat on this one? Or is it simply because nobody would pay for a plan that just says "ride lots, go hard often, except for sometimes go harder?" IMO, it's because the plan is designed to help the most people possible - and many of them will experience gains and improvements, even when pushing the lower end of the intensity scale. I know I did. I just think that as you get further along, you need to push harder (for cycling) to continue seeing improvements. And if you look back at the old threads on Jorge's program there is a common theme about how tough it was (mostly the shorter intervals), so I think too many people would be scared off if you bump the intensity of the "easier" part fot he workouts by another 10 points. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() brigby1 - 2013-01-11 8:47 AM tri808 - 2013-01-11 11:37 AM x2. I look at sweet spot as more towards 88-93%. Again...just make sure you can complete the rest of the workout and future workouts. 5x1' @ 120% shouldn't be that killer unless they're done on rest intervals less than 15 seconds. I'd guess that I would be somewhat gassed after the last interval, but after 2-3 minutes of recovery, I would be able to reapply the power in the 85-90% range for the remaining 12-13 minutes. Have you found anything on why there's a difference with the low end? The 88% is from Training & Racing w/a Powermeter, and the 83-85% is from other sources & rather knowledgeable forum users (here & ST). I haven't found anything on it yet, even though Coggan is involved with everything. Don't think it's that big of a deal, but hate to leave some things hanging. Hmmm...I don't know. I just remember 88-93 (actually 94% since I have his book on my desk) from the book. My personal belief in sweet spot is that it's a great substitute for threshold riding when you aren't super fresh (from overall training fatigue) and you don't want recovery cost to be too high so you can still get in good workouts the next day. So 88-94% would fit that bill if you're going to do something like 4x10's, 3x15's or 2x20's. For 83-85%, that's like upper HIM effort, and 3x15's or 2x20's at that effort wouldn't do me much good. Maybe if I was doing 3x30's as part of a long ride, but I always though that sweet spot was more of a zone that you'll target in a 60-90' workout...thus higher intensity. Just looking at a sample workout from the book, Coggan suggests... 2-2.5 hours I don't know anyone on ST that would suggest a workout like this where the 2x20's are done at 83-85%. So maybe their definition of sweet spot is different. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I have officially fallen way behind with a severe cold that I cannot seem to shake, even after following Rusty's advice to take it very easy. So, after taking it easy didn't work, I have done zero training in the last 4 days, and only 30 minutes of running over the last 7 days. Unfortunately, I am not feeling rested during this forced downtime. Good times. So, once healed, will I be smart enough to resist the urge to play "catch-up" and avoid injury... - Brian |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tri808 - 2013-01-11 2:32 PM brigby1 - 2013-01-11 8:47 AM tri808 - 2013-01-11 11:37 AM x2. I look at sweet spot as more towards 88-93%. Again...just make sure you can complete the rest of the workout and future workouts. 5x1' @ 120% shouldn't be that killer unless they're done on rest intervals less than 15 seconds. I'd guess that I would be somewhat gassed after the last interval, but after 2-3 minutes of recovery, I would be able to reapply the power in the 85-90% range for the remaining 12-13 minutes. Have you found anything on why there's a difference with the low end? The 88% is from Training & Racing w/a Powermeter, and the 83-85% is from other sources & rather knowledgeable forum users (here & ST). I haven't found anything on it yet, even though Coggan is involved with everything. Don't think it's that big of a deal, but hate to leave some things hanging. Hmmm...I don't know. I just remember 88-93 (actually 94% since I have his book on my desk) from the book. My personal belief in sweet spot is that it's a great substitute for threshold riding when you aren't super fresh (from overall training fatigue) and you don't want recovery cost to be too high so you can still get in good workouts the next day. So 88-94% would fit that bill if you're going to do something like 4x10's, 3x15's or 2x20's. For 83-85%, that's like upper HIM effort, and 3x15's or 2x20's at that effort wouldn't do me much good. Maybe if I was doing 3x30's as part of a long ride, but I always though that sweet spot was more of a zone that you'll target in a 60-90' workout...thus higher intensity. Just looking at a sample workout from the book, Coggan suggests... 2-2.5 hours I don't know anyone on ST that would suggest a workout like this where the 2x20's are done at 83-85%. So maybe their definition of sweet spot is different. Agree with all that. I would consider that Main Set material. Just to clarify, I ride at 80-85% after the MS (i.e. Work) is complete and I am looking to ride a bit longer. 89-94% would drill me at that point. In the context of the MS (5x1') that Neil outlined for his workout I think riding at 89-94% would be a good thing to add. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bdesotell - 2013-01-11 2:33 PM I have officially fallen way behind with a severe cold that I cannot seem to shake, even after following Rusty's advice to take it very easy. So, after taking it easy didn't work, I have done zero training in the last 4 days, and only 30 minutes of running over the last 7 days. Unfortunately, I am not feeling rested during this forced downtime. Good times. So, once healed, will I be smart enough to resist the urge to play "catch-up" and avoid injury... - Brian Yeah I had a 7-day head cold 1.5 weeks ago and seem to be starting it again. Maybe it's because I did not listen to Rusty's advice haha. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() rymac - 2013-01-11 3:01 PM bdesotell - 2013-01-11 2:33 PM I have officially fallen way behind with a severe cold that I cannot seem to shake, even after following Rusty's advice to take it very easy. So, after taking it easy didn't work, I have done zero training in the last 4 days, and only 30 minutes of running over the last 7 days. Unfortunately, I am not feeling rested during this forced downtime. Good times. So, once healed, will I be smart enough to resist the urge to play "catch-up" and avoid injury... - Brian Yeah I had a 7-day head cold 1.5 weeks ago and seem to be starting it again. Maybe it's because I did not listen to Rusty's advice haha. Yeah, definitely do as I say, not as I do. I am a pro at turning that sh*t into Bronchitis, Pneumonia, etc. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tri808 - 2013-01-11 1:32 PM brigby1 - 2013-01-11 8:47 AM tri808 - 2013-01-11 11:37 AM x2. I look at sweet spot as more towards 88-93%. Again...just make sure you can complete the rest of the workout and future workouts. 5x1' @ 120% shouldn't be that killer unless they're done on rest intervals less than 15 seconds. I'd guess that I would be somewhat gassed after the last interval, but after 2-3 minutes of recovery, I would be able to reapply the power in the 85-90% range for the remaining 12-13 minutes. Have you found anything on why there's a difference with the low end? The 88% is from Training & Racing w/a Powermeter, and the 83-85% is from other sources & rather knowledgeable forum users (here & ST). I haven't found anything on it yet, even though Coggan is involved with everything. Don't think it's that big of a deal, but hate to leave some things hanging. Hmmm...I don't know. I just remember 88-93 (actually 94% since I have his book on my desk) from the book. My personal belief in sweet spot is that it's a great substitute for threshold riding when you aren't super fresh (from overall training fatigue) and you don't want recovery cost to be too high so you can still get in good workouts the next day. So 88-94% would fit that bill if you're going to do something like 4x10's, 3x15's or 2x20's. For 83-85%, that's like upper HIM effort, and 3x15's or 2x20's at that effort wouldn't do me much good. Maybe if I was doing 3x30's as part of a long ride, but I always though that sweet spot was more of a zone that you'll target in a 60-90' workout...thus higher intensity. Just looking at a sample workout from the book, Coggan suggests... 2-2.5 hours I don't know anyone on ST that would suggest a workout like this where the 2x20's are done at 83-85%. So maybe their definition of sweet spot is different. Yeah, the 83% sounds like it might be stretching some to me as well, but that's what was reported. Usually I had seen 85% more often, so closer to 88. I've looked at sweet spot more as a way to get more riding time near enough to threshold to work it. So when working in the high 80's, I'll do more than just 2 x 20' (and one has to do more since the effort is lower). But then one can also do enough more that it's possible to get more benefit from riding at this level as opposed to closer to threshold, so the idea goes. It depends on how much time you have and how you want to use it. Something like last Saturday for me would be like this, and would also be more of what ST might do. The main blocks were 3 x 20' & 1 x 35' for 1:35 at ~86-88% (plus some other shorter things since I was following the vids for 1:45-1:50). So my question is still with the difference in the lower end even though Coggan seems to be the root for everyone with this concept. It's not so much as to the concept of sweet spot, but in defining it. 5% (or more) is starting to become a noticeable difference in power. Edited by brigby1 2013-01-11 2:31 PM |
![]() ![]() |
![]() brigby1 - 2013-01-11 10:28 AM So my question is still with the difference in the lower end even though Coggan seems to be the root for everyone with this concept. It's not so much as to the concept of sweet spot, but in defining it. 5% (or more) is starting to become a noticeable difference in power. I'd definately say that 85% (as per the workout you mentioned) would be a more appropriate lower end...especially since your workout was so long. If you only got 60-90 minutes, you're probably going to want to be at 90% or higher for the intervals. If I'm doing 2x20' or 3x15', I'll probably be closer to the 91-94% range. Considering how long people should be able to hold 83% (such as in a HIM), I would consider that more of an endurance workout. It's really interesting how the difference between 83% and 88% may be small...but the amount of time you can spend there is HUGE. Edited by tri808 2013-01-11 2:53 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tri808 - 2013-01-10 3:45 PM brigby1 - 2013-01-11 10:28 AM So my question is still with the difference in the lower end even though Coggan seems to be the root for everyone with this concept. It's not so much as to the concept of sweet spot, but in defining it. 5% (or more) is starting to become a noticeable difference in power. x2 what tri808 says. But back to Rusty's question - I believe that most plans are written with "the masses" in mind. As a true beginner (first couple of seasons), I implicitly trusted the plan. Once I got a little bit of knowledge (which can be a dangerous thing), I started to tweak the plans a bit to better fit my personal circumstances (work/family/etc). I actually see the progression being - plan, self coached (cobbled together plan), coached (once you realize that the gains you can make being self coached may be limiting). Got a 90' grind on the bike followed by a quick 30' run while the kids are ski racing. I love Friday nights in January. This weekend looks a little dicey weather-wise (freezing rain predicted for tonight and tomorrow morning - which means the roads will be TERRIBLE), so a long bike on the trainer on tap for Saturday. I may actually hit every single workout scheduled for this week for the first time this year ;-) Have a great weekend all! |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tri808 - 2013-01-11 2:45 PM brigby1 - 2013-01-11 10:28 AM So my question is still with the difference in the lower end even though Coggan seems to be the root for everyone with this concept. It's not so much as to the concept of sweet spot, but in defining it. 5% (or more) is starting to become a noticeable difference in power. I'd definately say that 85% (as per the workout you mentioned) would be a more appropriate lower end...especially since your workout was so long. If you only got 60-90 minutes, you're probably going to want to be at 90% or higher for the intervals. If I'm doing 2x20' or 3x15', I'll probably be closer to the 91-94% range. Considering how long people should be able to hold 83% (such as in a HIM), I would consider that more of an endurance workout. It's really interesting how the difference between 83% and 88% may be small...but the amount of time you can spend there is HUGE. I probably just need to remember the second paragraph. It's not really to target anything specific like Threshold or VO2, but is more of a concept in working in a range that will help to maximize the training load (TSS) for the time riding. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() So suggestions for the following main sets? What power zones would you use (I've included the plan defaults)? 45min - 5' intervals, rotating between 75,80,85%
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I'm having to mix things up here this weekend. There's a major cold front heading for AZ and the morning temps will be in the 20's, so I will most likely forego my Saturday group ride. I even used the trainer today...had to dust off the cobwebs ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() reecealan - 2013-01-11 10:45 AM Hey Tri-Peeps, Kimberly asked me a good question, was I thinking of Aqua-jogging given my PF challenges. I'm not a fan of Aqua-Jogging and much rather like to SWIM in a pool. When I run, short runs are 7:30 - 8:00 pace, longer runs are 8:00 to 9:00 pace so am I really getting much out of Aqua-Jogging? What if I just swim or ride instead. I will still run every week, but only as much as I can handle with the pain etc. Is is about using muscles associated with running so that upright position has something to do with it? How about Elyptical vs. Aqua Jogging? Anyhow your thoughts appreciated! Oh and THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your input on my PF issues, very good tips and I do have the foot thing for sleeping at night. I threw a water bottle in the freezer last night to be used tonight. Anyone racing this weekend? I don't have any person experience but I have heard it recommended over and over again. Here is some information on it: http://www.pfitzinger.com/labreports/water.shtml |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GoFaster - 2013-01-11 3:35 PM So suggestions for the following main sets? What power zones would you use (I've included the plan defaults)? 45min - 5' intervals, rotating between 75,80,85%
Is that 1 workout or main sets of 4 different workouts ? |
|