What were the different groups doing? Which article was that?
4x16â with 3â RI at VO2max?
or as Seiler said it in a podcast: â16s at sub-threshold similar to SST, 8s slightly above or at threshold and 4s at vo2maxâ
and we always have to keep in mind that his threshold definition is probably lower than what most of this think it is for us
4 Likes
and what I actually find most interesting, the differences in groups basically come from ânon-respondersâ. Especially at the 4s which does not surprise me. Probably not hard enough for the accumulated time at intensity. Personally, I did it wrong for two winters exactly because of that . Thanks to ERG and my own ignorance that FTP gets overestimated easily and that 120% is sometimes simply too high.
3 Likes
Very helpful posts, thanks. Could you just clarify what you mean by âProbably not hard enough âŠâ when discussing the 4x4? Just trying to reconcile this with the fact (as you say) that 120% might well be too high for many. Thanks again.
Based on my understanding of the interviews, most fitness gains that we associate with a rise in ftp are from a rise in vo2 max.
Which paper is this? Thanks!
4x8 is above FTP? 106% of 40 min power?
There are a couple of papers from Seiler et al. on 4 vs 8 vs 16. Partly re-using the same data set, partly new interventions. With regards to how âintenseâ these were he says:
or shows
why is this 8min intensity effective? It is believed that this provides a good mix of intensity (hard enough to cause adaptions) and accumulated work time.
Many non-responders in the 4s group. Why? It has been suggested in the literature that there are not really âphysiological non-respondersâ. 4s are simply hard. Very hard. This prevents the generation of sufficient âaccumulated work timeâ. Furthermore, at a block time level these may be too hard. People are often so hung up by individual sessions. 102 or 102.5% of some metric. Each session is probably not so relevant. What you can accumulate in a week or month, continously over years, is probably more important. This is probably the reason why so contrasting training regimes like the ones from Joel Filliol and the Norwegians lead both to superior results. They have one aspect in common: single sessions are not so important, whatâs important is what you do during a week/month/year.
3 Likes
Ok, Iâll answer my own question. Here are the two you mentioned:
2013:
2018:
1 Like
ok, lets try and answer the question by quickly skimming the 2013 paper âAdaptations to Aerobic Interval TrainingâŠâ
Prior to participating they were training an average of 5.6 hours/week (the 4x16 group) to 7.1 hours/week (the low intensity group). Some initial data was collected, including a 40-min time trial (a field test for estimating FTP).
Participants were instructed to do the intervals at max sustainable intensity, without knowing HR or Power. It appears they were in standard or resistance mode (not Erg), because the researchers state the load was manipulated using gearing and cadence. At the end of each work interval, they were told average power achieved.
After crunching the data the researchers provided average power relative to their FTP / 40-min TT. That is what you see in the chart above. Whatâs interesting (to me) is that self selected max efforts look very similar to Coggan training zones.
And so the RPE based intervals resulted in the following averages:
- 4x16-min work done at average of 95% ftp (TR threshold, e.g. similar to Mount Goode +5)
- 4x8-min work was done at average of 106% ftp (TR VO2max/threshold, e.g. Jacks +1 or Raymond +6)
- 4x4-min work intervals were done at average of 117% ftp (TR vo2max/threshold, e.g. Vendever -1)
the primary conclusions were:
- 4x8-min at roughly 90% HRmax and 106% ftp provided the best âbang for the training buckâ in this study
- the 4x4-min and 4x16-min groups had similar % gains in VO2peak, PowerVO2peak, Power-at-4mM-lactate, and TTE80%
- all 4 groups experienced gains
Iâd take the gains from either 4x16 or 4x8, and its far easier for me to do 4x16-min intervals at 95% ftp.
Keep in mind that intervals were done at Perceived Exertion in other words âby feelâ which tells you that adjusting intensity to finish intervals is superior to trying to match TR power target. And that is exactly what Coach Chad recommends in the podcast. Donât get hung up on hitting exact targets.
Iâm not aware of another study repeating the protocol.
2 Likes
A Coggan: ââŠprobably the easiest and most direct way of estimating a riderâs functional threshold power is therefore to simply measure their average power during a ~40 km (50-70 min) TTâ
hence, a 40min time trial will overestimate FTP.
1 Like
have you read all of Coggan? It starts with a discussion of Lactate Threshold (LT) being the best predictor of success, and that it isnât practical to measure lactate. Then he gives 6 practical ways to estimate ftp without doing lactate testing.
A 40-min TT is probably a better estimate of FTP than shorter protocols, like the 20-min test in Coggan/Allenâs book (using 95% of average power). If you like, go ahead and give it a reduction, say 98%. Unless your goal is to dismiss the observation that Coggan zones roughly map to that study, that 40-min TT should be treated as FTP (plus or minus a few percent).
o.k., you did not get what I meant. Apologies for being vague. And apologies for having offended you in some way, this was not my intentition. Iâm better out of here.
1 Like
sorry if I misunderstood, there is good information in the studies and part of what I find interesting is that it correlates to a) Coggan zones, and b) TR plans depending on how you setup FTP in TR.
The whole FTP subject is a mine field⊠Iâm simply trying to say the 40-min TT is a pretty good estimate of Lactate Threshold. And therefore at first approximation the info in that table maps to Coggan, and secondly to TR (depending).
I also realize that my post above starts with a graphic from the 2018 study (pro cyclists), and then summarizes info from the 2013 study (recreational cyclists). Confusing.
Biggest takeaways for me
- thankful that the TR plans incorporate VO2max work starting with SSB2 and beyond
- its all about time at intensity and not exact power targets, which Coach Chad reiterated in the December vo2max podcast segments
p.s. Iâm one of those that canât do longer vo2max intervals at 120% if my life depended on it. The more I read studies like this, and listen to TR podcast, the better I feel good about dialing down intensity on long vo2 intervals
2 Likes
Kind of a related episode on the podcast today. Dan Lorang (coach of Bora Hansgrohe cycling team and triathletes like Jan Frodeno, Anne Haug and Sarah True) who is a known user of INSCYD and applies the concepts discussed in this thread talks about his views on training.
Dan Lorang - coach of Jan Frodeno, Anne Haug and Bora Hansgrohe pro cycling team | EP#175
Dan is another coach who just oozes knowledge. Hope you enjoy!
2 Likes
@Mikael_Eriksson over the weekend I listened to episode #169 with Sebastian Weber and was positively surprised. The information was very good and practical. I was so happy this wasnât another âjump on a new trendâ like recent polarized podcasts. The information in EP#169 helped to crystalize everything Iâve learned about training principles for cycling.
Looking forward to listening to Episode 175.
Thank you and keep up the good work!
3 Likes
While Iâm impressed, the reason why this formula does not work is that it takes Vo2max in relative numbers, not absolute. The body weight of the athlete will influence the success of the calculation massively. This formula seems to work for athletes about 70kgs, ie where a Vo2max of 60 =4,2L/min. A FTP of 300 is of course possible with a Vo2max of 60 (and vlamax of about .3) if you weigh 70kgs, but if you weigh 50 kg itâs simply not possible to put out around 1100 kJ of work in an hour since you can not take up enough oxygen (each litre of oxygen equals about 5kJ, ie a max work rate of 3(litres o2) * 5kJ (of work) per minute: 15 kJ per minute at Vo2max. Sustain Vo2max for an hour and itâs still only 900 kJ or 250w.
1 Like
Fair point about body weight. I made a revised forumla in another thread, that more closely matched numbers for a slightly more diverse data set, but that also used relative VO2max. Iâve only ever had numbers for a few athletes though, to be accurate youâd want a lot more data than I have. Iâd think we should be able to add athlete weight to the data, and solve for an additional variable though.
My primary goal to actually put a formula together was just to better understand the extent to which VLaMax actually effects FTP. My hunch is that on a percentage basis, youâd see similar differences for the 50Kg athelete, even if the absolute change in FTP is smaller. But I havenât run numbers on that.
2 Likes
Mikael raises another good point here about trying something out and seeing what works.
In order to do this effectively, you canât have too many different types of interventions in the training block. Otherwise, how do you know which change was responsible for the effect?
Thatâs another (and in my view more important) reason not to work on too many parameters at the same time.
Sorry to bump an old thread but iâm catching up on this episode (it was a good episode)
I am curious if Lance would have trained the same way if he had stayed a one-day (âclassicsâ) rider vs. a GC contender. Maybe if youâre trying to win at the finish you might want to keep a higher VlaMax even if it means accepting a lower threshold.