Yeah I’m given power ranges as well. With a ~335W FTP it’s usually something like 295-315 or so.
If done correctly there isn’t really a big difference between FTP and SS training. They’re both aerobic and require pushing out TTE. I tend to find FTP intervals less taxing to do because even though they’re a little higher intensity you just have to do so much less of them to reach TTE and get the desired stimulus making your total calorie burn much lower.
Once you’re reasonably well trained neither SS or FTP intervals will push your FTP up, they push your TTE out. VO2s will push increase your FTP. I generally like doing a block of SS to ease into it, then FTP to further improve aerobically (and because pretty quickly it’s hard to fit the necessary SS intervals into a weekday workout), then a dedicated VO2 block, then (after substantial recovery) back to FTP to build TTE back out at the new, higher FTP. After which you start getting more race specific as you enter the spring/summer race season.
In my opinion a threshold progression at 95-99% is fairly similar to a Sweetspot progression at 88-95%. Both very aerobic and glycolytic.
Both are good at extending TTE and to a lesser degree increasing FTP (through overall fitness improvement).
A different Threshold building block can be doing longer VO2max intervals. Like 4x8, 5x6 etc with short rests (2min) at something like 105-110%. So not necessarily the true VO2max intervals like 5x4 or 4x5 with longer rests at higher intensities that leave you completely heaving.
I find the 4x8’s (extending to 6x8’s if possible) with only 2’ recovery at 105-110% to be very good at increasing FTP. These are still highly aerobic without going to failure.
My ramp test gave me 271w FTP but did a zwift TT last week for 46min 258w. So this seems to me a better number. Maybe 260w or even a few watts higher is doable but not 271W. So I took 240W as my SST power…Pretty low heart rate for SST efforts (max 175-178)
Has anyone applied the ideas in this thread to running? The durations will be more limited due to increased muscular damage etc, but the principles of high-end aerobic development and building TTE at various intensities still seem relevant.
IMHO that’s an indication that your FTP might be closer to 270ish W. On such a long sweet spot interval, I’d expect to see a heart rate of over 150 bpm, probably 152–155 bpm (depending on your max heart rate). (My max heart rate is 184ish, and sweet spot efforts are around 160 bpm for me.) 145 bpm is significantly below that.
Eh, a 30 min sweet spot effort shouldn’t drive HR that high and he’s likely pretty fresh given where he is in his training. I wouldn’t adjust FTP based on a single workout ever (unless it’s a test/max effort). The reality is even if he bumps his FTP by 10W, he’s still training at like 243W instead of 240W… I think he’s got a pretty good target right now.
Not sure I would apply this same thing to running for the reasons you spelled out. You’re running essentially at around 10% slower than 10K pace, but the fact is running paces approaching threshold are quite a bit more taxing than cycling. A huge part of early season adaptation to running is adapting bone and connective tissue to the impact of running, and that requires time spent running and recovery.
There would be applications for that kind of training later in the year that’s more specific to a goal event (a build or peak phase), but no, I would not advocate for doing large blocks of extensive near-threshold running as a way to develop your base as a runner. That would be a terrific way to cause an overuse injury, in my opinion.
Instead, when coaching multisport athletes, I have them do most of their early season intensity on the bike, and follow with shorter runs (as “brick” workouts), and then have them do periodic LSD runs as well. They get the aerobic development on the bike without the impact while still training the connective tissue and bone with very little risk of injury.
My all-time caveat would be: this largely depends on your goal events… but as a general way to build aerobic base, no, I would not recommend it.
Well…How’d it feel? In the middle and the end? Did it feel like you were reaching TTE at the end of the 30 min or that you could have gone further? I think the RPE is the more important metric for evaluating the progression than getting lost in the weeds of specific wattage or HR numbers
Thanks for response and, as an injury-prone runner myself, I understand being conservative with injury risk. Building lower limb max strength and reactive strength also helps here.
Without wanting to derail this thread too much, how should athletes focused on running develop aerobic foundation especially if recreational and time-crunched? I would’ve thought progressing time at tempo or some high-end aerobic intensity (lower than sweetspot/threshold cycling intensities) would be good bang-for-buck, and that running economy and muscular endurance were longer-term adaptations that need to be developed before build and race phases.
Put simply, what’d be the running equivalent of the ‘extensive-intensive-V02’ model discussed in this thread?
Check out the Norwegian Singles Method that’s gaining a lot of popularity amongst the “hobby jogger” crowd. It’s similar to Sweet Spot training in that you’re staying sub-threshold to be able to do more quality work without generating as much fatigue.
Marathoners I’ll progress through some speed work earlier in their cycles but the focus is always on extending runs and keeping volume high. “Speed work” for them is stuff that’s at like 10K or “threshold” running pace. A 5 or 10K racer might do quite a bit of work at faster than mile race pace, but even at that level, WHEN you do it varies.
I don’t block periodize with runners the same way I do with cyclists until very late in their training when things are specific. (This whole thread is generally about block periodization).
So, many people training for marathons can handle a speed workout, a marathon pace workout, and a long run every week with the rest being volume runs. But it’s really hard to discuss this without the context of what someone is training for because training to run a fast 5K is way different than training to qualify for Boston… and then are we talking about a multisport athlete or not?
It felt like a good effort, but not one that would kill me. I could done longer if I want to (off course because the week before I did 46min at 258W and HR was 157bpm (so treshold maybe around 160 bpm). But I am always good at tempo, SST riding (giving my granfondo cycling history). Give me workouts below FTP. And I can do it. Anything at ore above is a struggle, mostly on the legs, not the HR.
Self-Coached here. just training for fitness. ride 90%+ outdoors. I have a very good road with very minimal slow downs and only need one U-Turn
Did an accurate FTP test (320) and rode at 90% FTP (290) for time. I prefer doing one interval and just get it over with (rather than take breaks - it’s just more fun and just mentally when I stop, I wanna be done).
anyway, I worked my way up to 90 minutes. that’s kinda all I wanna get up to.
is it necessary to re-test FTP? I can pretty much feel it went up a bit. or can I just bump my watts up say 10 watts and start at 40-60 minutes (figure I’ll go until the last 10 minutes is pretty hard) and keep trying to work my way up to 90 minutes?
I have been improving my time every single workout without fail (5-10 min per week)…but I’ve been doing TTE work for 2 months now…getting a little bored and wanting to do some sprints then a few weeks of VO2 max.
but if I keep improving, I dunno…almost feel like I should stick with it? would you just keep going with TTE work until you plateau?
Not necessary to retest FTP unless you feel like it’s gone up. I think progressing by increasing power by 10W and moving up TTE is a less efficient use of time. The point of TTE progression is to build your aerobic base (unless you’re training 90min power for a specific reason). There’s not as much value in doing that at 300W vs 290W relative to what you should be doing.
I would absolutely, 100% move on to VO2max.
The alternative to VO2max training would be to test FTP, and do proper FTP training: sustained FTP intervals, perhaps with over/unders. Odds are pretty good you’re ready for VO2 work, however.
Note: this advice is all given not knowing a thing about you, your training calendar or upcoming events, etc. Take all as “very general advice”.
I’m not a coach… I’m a family-business consultant who sat at a desk from age 18 to 48, and is now trying to get back in shape. So take this with a grain of salt.
For the last few years, what I’ve heard consistently is that THE sequence to follow is:
Consistency
Volume
Intensity
So if you’re not yet working out six days a week, do that first. (One full day of rest.)
If what you can do consistently for 2-3 weeks, before taking a reduced-load recovery week (roughly 50% to 70% load) is less than you’d like, the second step is to gradually increase volume until you can do at least 4-5 hours a week. Keep all of that volume “easy” around Zone 2.
Once you have decent volume, THEN you add in some intensity. The key is to ONLY add in the intensity that you can effectively recover from. Older athletes can often handle just one day of intensity a week, because we need more recovery. Younger or more fit athletes can do two. But what YOU can handle well and recover from effectively, is something no one else can tell you.
Three intense workouts per week is the realm of highly-trained, highly-fit athletes with lots of recovery time, or very time-crunched athletes who are only doing those three workouts in a week… and I’m not convinced that the latter works all that well over the long term.
So take this with a grain of salt.