Increasing power threshold over the winter (Page 5)

If I find/found that the FT session leaves me too shelled for running, then I would probably back off to around that 88-94% area which I find is a hard workout, but definitely easier to recover from.

Actually, if you are riding 4x with 3 of those including some 88-94% work then you are probably doing more than me during a week and I wouldn't be too quick to cut back volume if the schedule works for you.

It's difficult for me to schedule 3 trainer sessions during the week and I'm not sure if or how much I'd need to cut out of the intensity on the long ride.  Ideally, I'd ride much more and the harder riding would drop (at least as a percentage).  But since I'm limited, then my goal is pretty much to take on as much intensity as I can handle without wrecking my goals for the other sports--especially running where it is much harder to make up volume with intensity.

Recently I've been doing it every 4 or 8 weeks, but I didn't test it at all last summer (another story).  I've been following the test protocol in the The Book.  Warm up, 3x fast spins, easy, 5m all out, easy, 20m TT, then using FTP = TT*0.95.  Indoors each time. 

After FT sessions you should feel tired but definitely not shelled and you should be able to recover within 24-48 hrs, even when doing 2x20 min @ 95-105% of FT. But the best test to get a better FTP number IMO is the 2x20 min but not many are either in shape to do so or can handle it.

A good way to approach this (which will talk more in the next few days) will depend on your CURRENT FTP, your CURRENT 5 min power, the weather were you live and the date of your A race. but a simple approach is to to focus on increasing FTP/VO2max during the general phase (2-3 months prior race) and then work on race pace as the race gets closer during the specific phase.

I'm ok with this level of effort.  My question was basicially would fewer, but harder efforts be more effective at raising FTP being that I've seen several people (you and rich strauss come to mind) advocating this.  I've only started doing 88-94% FTP intervals in the last couple of months and I find those fairly easy to recover from.  Last time I tried doing intervals @ FTP (probably last spring, honestly) I had more trouble recovering from them.  That extra 5-10% effort seemed to hurt the next day.  This may have a couple of other causes as well.  For me a box fan just does not cut it and I was probably ending up overheated & dehydrated.  I've since purchased a serious fan for the winter and that makes a ton of difference.  The other reason starts with a "b" and rhymes with steer.

I may start to introduce some intervals @ FTP and see how they go, but SST is working very well right now.

Why do you think 2x20m FTP test is better?  I may give it a shot next test but all my other tests have been with the other protocol and I'm concerned about comparing apples & oranges. It would be more challenging to pace I think, which could be fun.  I also like the other protocol since the 5m interval gives an indication of VO2max.  Do you do seperate tests for that?

I'm ok with this level of effort.  My question was basicially would fewer, but harder efforts be more effective at raising FTP being that I've seen several people (you and rich strauss come to mind) advocating this. >>> short answer yes. To become fitter stronger we need to stress our body trough workload. This workload = volume + intensity. Many of us can’t afford increase our workload through volume right now due to the weather, maybe our time available for training, maybe we are in another sport focus, etc. Hence we resort to get our workload through intensity. Managing that stress should allow us to get fitter but eventually we are going to have to stress our body cuz if we don’t our body will adapt and we’ll stop realizing training adaptations.

The concept is very simple: work on rasing FT through intervals right now and focus on race endurance later. Since 60 min at FTP = 100 TSS, once we get close to doing intervals close to 60 min with relative easy it means our body has adapted to the stress and we need to push it harder. A new FT test should confirm this and by adjusting your training zones you start all over again. Once your FT gets close to your VO2 max power, then is time to switch focus and raise your VO2 so you can increase your “fitness bank” so you can cash into a higher FT later on

I've only started doing 88-94% FTP intervals in the last couple of months and I find those fairly easy to recover from.  Last time I tried doing intervals @ FTP (probably last spring, honestly) I had more trouble recovering from them.  That extra 5-10% effort seemed to hurt the next day.  This may have a couple of other causes as well.  For me a box fan just does not cut it and I was probably ending up overheated & dehydrated.  I've since purchased a serious fan for the winter and that makes a ton of difference.  The other reason starts with a "b" and rhymes with steer. >>> the reason 88-94% of FT are easier to recover is because you are not stressing your body as much and to get greater stress benefit you would need to ride longer at that % of FT. remember since 60 min at FTP = 100 TSS, then 60 min 88% of FTP = around 53 TSS, IOW you need to ride almost as twice as long to get the same stress score. If you were doing 3x FT sessions last spring prob it was too much hence you weren’t recovering fast enough. IMO 2x FT session a week is very doable for a triathlon during the general phase (around this time of the year for most)

I may start to introduce some intervals @ FTP and see how they go, but SST is working very well right now.Why do you think 2x20m FTP test is better?  I may give it a shot next test but all my other tests have been with the other protocol and I'm concerned about comparing apples & oranges. It would be more challenging to pace I think, which could be fun. >>> as I said above I think we can risk to become very good at doing 20 min FT but once we get out and do a 60 min all out effort we can fall off the power curve and our true FT might be lower. The 2x20 min test is very close to the effort you can produce for 60 min in my experience making it a better FTP predictor. The best one plain and simple is to do a 40K TT or a 60 min field test all out, but of course that’s tough to do.

 I also like the other protocol since the 5m interval gives an indication of VO2max.  Do you do seperate tests for that? >>> yes you cant to do this test on a separate day to get better values

Actually, I think 88% gets you around 77 TSS.  You would have to ride about 1:15-1:20 at that level to generate the equivalent TSS of 60' at FT.  At 92%, you only need ~10min extra.

nm

I bought a  Computrainer in Dec and am just learning to train with power.  Thanks Jorge for starting this thread.   I was intimidated by the huge power #’s all of you have.  CT suggests warming up 15min at 150W but I can’t sustain even a couple of min at that level!  I now realize it’s power to weight ratio that matters.   I plan to do a 30min test this weekend.  At 112lbs, 137W will produce a power to weight ratio of 2.7, comparable to an avg cat 4 women?  If I can increase my power to weight ratio by 10%, say to 3, does that translate to a 10% increase in speed?  So I only need to produce 153W to go as fast as a 150lb person @ 205W, or a 180lb person @ 246W?   I’m new at this, any help would be most appreciated. 

This is exactly what Allen and Coggan mention in their book about power training.  And it's why guys like Gordo Byrn stress not hammering the downhills so much during a race, since the net gains are so minimal.  The effort required to put out wattage on a downhill is enormous, and better left to be expended on the uphills where gains over other riders are significant.

And it's why you should use a flat course for testing, or even use the handlebar controller itself in manual mode and control the wattage that way.

bryank14 - 2008-01-10 2:59 PM I am a big fan of Erg mode. No way to get around it, and totally controlled environment. I use 3D mode for FTP test (pancake flat) or in specific course prep (I build the course based on GPS data). My very own STWKT (Sh*t that will kill them) is ERGVideo. Amazing tool and totally customizable, especially with Intellicoach . I met the designer and he is a great guy, thinking non-stop of improving this already great product. Okay, this unsollicitated and free ad stops here!

I have been using ErgVideo too...it is awesome, and much more realistic than riding many of the other generic courses on the CT.  It would be nice to have the Multi-rider software and be able to change the levels mid-ride but I'm satisfied with setting the power at the start of a workout.  After a while you get a good feel for where you need to set it, depending on your goal for that particular ride.

No increase in power of 10% does not give you 10% increase in speed in general. It depends on a lot of factors. I had similar thoughts when I first started training with power. 

I raced cat 4 crits, and my power weight ratio was 2.7 (my NP was 193 for the race) and those women kicked my butt.  

Power/weight is not only factors your position on the bike and the like all play into how fast you go.

I did a 3 hour ride with a women who had a power meter as well. I led she followed whole ride so she should get some draft benefit, she weighed I'm trying to remember but ~25% less than I did. We compared power numbers...mine have to be higher right? I weigh more and we went the same speed. Turns out our NP were really close, mine were 5-8 watts higher. She had a different type of power meter...ergo and I have a power tap so I figure that made the difference. We both rode road bikes and were sitting up quite a bit.

I find power is relative to you and the absolute number doesn't really matter but helps you train smarter. 

Did my 5 min power test (VO2Max) today for 302 watts avg; same as my FTP test my power it is around 10 watts off from last Nov 07 prior to Clearwater. Not bad at all and very happy to learn I didn’t really lose much fitness on those 58 days off the bike!