Table Rock versus Slide Mountain

Just trying to learn how different workouts affect training.

Table Rock and Slide Mountain are 2x15 ane 3x10 at 85% FTP, so they have the same time in zone. They have very close progression levels, but Slide Mountain is listed as ever so slight more productive.

What is the theory behind that? Conventional wisdom would say that longer time in the interval would be harder, wouldn’t it?

They’re the same, don’t worry about it.

One is 30 minutes of work in a 36 minute window, the other is 30 minutes of work in a 38 minute window.

They are basically identical, I would personally lean towards the 3x10 with 2 rests being a tiny bit easier than the 2x15 with slightly longer rest but it’s very minor.

Not sure why the PL is rating it as it is but PLs are a bit half baked anyways imo.

That’s what I was curious about too, I would think that three shorter intervals would be slightly easier as well.

Oh well.

Oh I’m not worried. I was just curious why two workouts that look so similar were rated the way they were (only noticed it because the plan wanted to adapt my workout from one to the other).

With a workout that short I’d just do the 30 minutes without recovery.

When you are as well trained as you are, isn’t it unlikely that you would get served either?

For someone less trained and just setting out on their sweetspot journey, either could be a fair option.

6 Likes

Okay? But how does bragging answer the question?

2 Likes

Fair enough. Did not intend for it to come across as bragging, I was speaking directly in regards to training stimulus. I mean we are talking tempo here right? Most should be able to do 30 minutes without stopping IMO. If you are struggling past 10-15 minutes at 85% FTP I might suggest the FTP is set too high. But to answer your question… (In my opinion):

Good = 3 x 10
Better = 2 x 15
Best = 1 x 30

I think when it comes to tempo, sweet spot, even threshold, the emphasis and “industry standard” has been on “time in zone.” I think there is also value in extending the duration without recovery. For something like a 3 x 10 that is indeed a good place to start and after a long work week breaking up the tempo is most always welcome. That said, in my experience I think building up a one time effort (i.e. maybe starting at 20 minutes and building up from there) is kind of over-looked.

Just my opinion but when it comes to tempo/sweet spot time in zone is good, less recovery is better.

2 Likes

Yep, disregarding the weirdness with the two very similar workouts I don’t see a point to SST under 2x20 or tempo under 3x20 as a starting point.

The point of all of this is stimulus to induce adaptations, doing a few 10m intervals at 85% is really not enough to do that.

1 Like

Right, I would think 2x15 is better too. Which is why I was curious as to why it’s rated as a lower effect on the progression levels.

1 Like

If you are 76 years old you appreciate the rest.

Im 43 and I still appreciate the rest.

Depends on what one is after. There are differences in the stimulus for sure when using a straight block or interrupted block of tempo. Breaking up the block would provide an opportunity to stress some of the systems needed for tempo work without putting as much central stress on the body. For example, if you had a long endurance block tagged on or where in a big volume block.

1 Like

This makes sense to me