SBR Utopia ---- Permanently OPEN!! (Page 9)

Originally posted by TankBoy

Originally posted by Jason N

Originally posted by ChrisM

After a long 6 weeks, ran today!   Yeah, it was only 2 2:00 segments out of a :30 treadmill, but it's a start.  Just making sure the injury is gone before starting true run training

Also hit a sweet spot trainer session, main set of 2 x 30 at 14 at 260, 1 at 290, 14 at 260, 1 at 300.   Tough but good

Testing this week.  ugh

Great news Chris.  I haven't run in almost 12 weeks.  LOL.

On a side note, my dad just signed up for the Honolulu Marathon at the end of this year.  I guess somehow I've inspired him, but he just wants to be one and done to check off the bucket list.  I tried to give him as much advanced warning as possible, but registration was only $26.20...and he knows if he can't comfortably run 20ish a week by August that he likely won't do it.  He's going to be 61 this year, eats extremely healthy, and is in very good shape as far as overall fitness...but not running.  He's retired, and goes to the gym 6x a week. 

It was funny trying to explain to him that you don't run 26 miles in training at all and that your runs vary in distance.  I told him to just try and get used to run/walking 20-30 minutes a day, 4x a week for now and check back with me in 6 weeks.  He's beeing trying to run the past 4-5 weeks, but doing way too much and way to intense.

Nice that you are back running Chris, and good luck with the test! Jason, that is really cool! That bolded part makes it sound like the nut did not fall too far from tree. Sounds like your dad has the makings of a GREAT triathlete....

Pretty sure the only time my dad would jump in the water is if there was a very good eating fish he could catch.

I think the value of NOT doing one of the sports for a couple weeks at least once a year is under-appreciated (how many type-A's are in triathlon?  Um… ok).  The couple times I've done it, I've come back much stronger (well, I can't really speak to swimming, as it's tough to tell strong from weak with my skill level) and not lost much of anything.

It's hard to do, at least for me.  There's always that temptation to "just run a little" or go for "a quickie on the bike."

More than a couple weeks and it gets upside down for me, or more than once a year.  YMMV

Matt

I think complete time off is totally underestimated.

Even as I am only doing one sport I took a nice block of absolutely no running. I didn't even cross train.

5 min power test on the trainer this morning.  337w which is +11w compared to the last one I did in the spring.  The last minute avg was 349 so I might have been able to squeeze out a couple more in the average if I had started a touch harder.  Pretty happy with how it went though!

I'm going to go by threshold intervals from the last few weeks and what I was able to hit in previous tests relative to threshold intervals just prior to that.

Although now that you mention a percentage, I went and checked my last 3 tests to see if they were consistent.

Test 1 - 268/313 = 85.6% (not great execution according to notes)
Test 2 - 280/322 = 86.9%
Test 3 - 283/326 = 86.8%

If I use the 86.8% of 337, that suggests I will do 292w for the 20' test.  That is in line with what I was thinking based on training over the last few weeks.

Nice job!  Nothing like a 5' TT before breakfast .

Nice!

I also did a 5 min power test this morning.  Last time, it came in at 206W, so I thought I could probably bump it up by about 10W.  Started too low and steadily increased throughout the 5 min period for an average of 221W.  I'm not particularly thrilled with my pacing as I think it could have been higher if I'd started out stronger and held steady, but I don't have nearly enough experience pacing 5 min intervals.  So I'm +15W from October, but I think both tests could have been higher...

Oh, and I still think we should talk in W/kg, as I know my max numbers are like warm-ups for you guys

Oops, I forgot!  337w = ~4.4 W/kg for me currently.  

Edit:  and nice work on your test!  Pacing those things takes some practice for sure.

-41C this morning here (including windchill).  I'm going to man up...and run on the treadmill.

Yeah, that's way too cold.  I would man up and have a hot chocolate and a cookie.

I have yet to develop the ability to barf on the bike (unless ill or injured, so meaning self-motivated) ... kudos!

Wow - great progress on the bike for all of you!  I think anything over 4W/kg is getting into rare air, with mid-4's being VERY competitive (as in, pointy end of the AG spear - at least around here).  Well done!

As for the weather, my morning run was met with stooooopid silly cold and wind, darkness and black ice everywhere.  So, off to the basement for a "track" workout (8x400's at 5k - 10k pace).  Would've loved to run outside, as I really enjoy winter running on sunny days, but when it actually gets dangerous (for me), I hunker in the bunker.  Too old for it, having broken a leg out running on ice in the past.   

At least the pool didn't freeze, so I got that going for me, which is nice.  Pool or a pond...  By the way, doing actual swimmer-type workouts in the pool is WAY harder than swimming long at just a little bit slower pace.  As in, HOLYCRAPTHISISGOINGTOKILLME hard.  The advice from a few fish (right here on this very thread) to HTFU and swim hard is much appreciated.  I actually loved it!

Matt

One of the prescribed adaptations to the Swim Speed Workouts I do is that the easy sets/reps/swims are done quite a bit easier than written, and some of the gutbusters are done even harder than written--getting into true sprinting. So I do a lot more swimming on either end than I used to. One tends to necessitate the other.

As for the hard stuff ... 1) that speed is what I'm going to want my cruising/repeat speed to be someday. 2) When I'm going really hard, I really feel (and it's easier for coaches/peers to spot) where my stroke breaks down as well as where I'm creating needless resistance. 3) Those hard parts still comprise part of what I do in long-course tri or open water swims--the start, if I need to get past someone, need to catch up for a draft, get going after buoys, sometimes you hit a hard current, etc.

The funny thing is...all the data may show that you should shoot for 292...but we all know that there's going to be some point in the test where you think about pushing for 300.  It's just human nature...or at least with males.  LOL.

And as far as the last minute of your 5' test...it's pretty consistent with me that the last 60-90 seconds of any (good) test or time trial always has a spike in power.  It's when you force your body to go anerobic knowing that the end is near. 

It's so close I can taste it.....

Do it, Arend!!

If you do it, I'll try to shoot for 200.  I think it's human nature with people who are competitive in one form or another....I want that nice round number (that seems respectively big enough) and I'm not male

Peer pressure!

No way that I am *starting* at 300, that would be suicide.  I will however be re-evaluating as I go along...

Interesting that you (Arend) do the 5 and then the 20.   I've always done the 20 and then the 5

And I am curious as to how people approach these things.   I have my prior tests logged and can look at them, but I wonder about the aiming to hit x wattage and then move up.   I suppose it's more of a pacing exercise, so as to not blow up too hard?   But I've always gone as hard as I can (not that you are not) for the 5/20 minutes, with the acknowledgement that I have to finish it.  I don't like to know my prior numbers going in - although I did look at the 20 minute numbers today, and test tomorrow.

Does it seem (i guess it does, to me) that aiming for a target tends to psychologically skew the result?  Or might do so?  For example, Shane says for tomorrow start at XXX watts then go from there.   But I know I can hold the XXX watts he prescribes pretty easily for 30 minutes or more, so it seems if I start there I am way underestimating my potential...

And i have not recovered from the holidays yet so I ain't posting no w/k!!

ETA speaking of which  - isn't w/k usually expressed as a ratio with the overall ftp?  Does the w/k formula for the 5 minute test tell us anything or it it just for s and gs?

W/kg can be used for any power value, not just FTP. For the 5 min, it's like with at any other value, helping to normalize for size.

I've noticed the testing has gone 5 & 20 more often now too. Is this new? Thought more had done it the other way around when using the two point analysis (vs the 5 min blowout method). Currently just taking educated guesses still, as body has gone into some funky things after working at or over FTP for very long.

Andrew Coggan's power profiling chart categorizes everything in W/kg.  From 5 second power all the way to FTP.  For example, Coggan classifies someone with a 15.07 to 17.24 W/kg for 5 seconds as equivalent to Cat 3.  So if you weigh 75 kg, then you need to be in the 1130 to 1293 watt range for 5 seconds.  At 60 kg, it would be 904 to 1034. 

For longer durations, on a flat surface, w/cda may be more of a factor, but for 5-10 seconds, weight does matter even on the flats because we're talking about a sharp acceleration.  It takes less watts for a skinny guy to accelerate at the same rate as a fat guy.

I just like W/kg because it makes my low power output seem not quite as pathetic.  When I look at the power profiles in Coggan's book, my 5' and FTP put me in the high Cat III / low Cat II range (whether that's truly what it would be or not...).

Honestly, it's just a good reference for me.  I'm never going to be holding 350W for 5 minutes, but when I see that translates to holding 4.4 W/kg for 5 minutes, it's something I'm close to and know I can work my way up to.  That's why I like it and joke that we should make it a standing rule in here.