I have recently done this workout twice. I totally failed the first time around after the first interval, and the second time, I did the first interval at 100% and the rest at 90% but got through it. Either way, I feel quite far away from completing this at 100%. Whats your thoughts.
Here is the workout:
-15 min warm up
-105% for 5 mins straight into 115-120% for 3mins. Rest for 2 mins. 6 sets.
-80% for 2 mins straight into 30 sec max effort. 3 sets.
The intervals sound fun, and I’m usually a “the rests in this workout are too long” kind of guy, but only 2min between those efforts sounds rough. Maybe something like 2 sets of 3 intervals, with 2min between intervals, but 5-10min between the sets, that might be more reasonable, but still pretty dang tough. Edit: I gave it some more thought, trying to imagine the effort in my head… and now I’m thinking 3 sets of 2 intervals. There just needs to be more recovery time.
Ha, PusherMan beat me to it… 1:30 length workout, 147 TSS, 0.98 IF. Yeh, that’s not exactly a winter workout…
Edit: This is what I would change it to if I were to do it myself, at least for the first try to get through it:
It’s basically like doing the standard 8 minute ftp test, but instead of twice with FULL recovery in between, only 2 minutes, and 6 x’s instead of 2x’s. No one is doing this “workout” with a correctly set ftp. I don’t even see doing 2 intervals with a correctly set ftp. One interval should be just doable but only on a good day. I call fake workout.
Most people have a W’ equal to about one minute of exercise at CP. Some, though, can do two, three, or rarely even more. Each of those 8 minute efforts requires about 45 seconds worth. Throw in the rest periods, and I could see some folks being able to make it through the first part. Most, though, would probably fail after just two or three reps.
Is there any reason or empirical evidence why this has to be the case?
The longest / hardest workout I do is about 83% for 2.5h. And I think it could be longer, or do 2.5h harder…The only thing we know is that you ride your FTP for 45m-1h (TTE), and that is 100%, but what’s to say you couldn’t do 2 hours at 90-95%??
A ride of 1.0 IF at 60 minutes is the equivalent of an FTP effort for that hour.
Stretching that 1 hour to 1:40, with a very minimal IF reduction (1.0 > 0.96) means that is just about an FTP effort equivalent for a full 40+ minutes extra.
There are probably better metrics or ways to quantify than that, but the IF vs Time is a reasonable one for a quick evaluation, and is why I think the workout is terrible or at least needs a hefty qualifier for anyone trying it.
I don’t have the math to back up my hunch, but double the time with only a 5-10% effort reduction doesn’t seem practical to me.