those were well executed, struggling for air, and draining the battery.
Sorry, couldn’t quickly find anything controlled z5 at 106% with 4-min intervals. My controlled z5 work is usually 110% and higher, and 1-3 minutes intervals.
I don’t think so, not with 2 min rest intervals. You get into 1 min rest intervals or less and do enough, maybe. I think most people (probably not everyone, no) would have a tough time achieving meaningful time at VO2max at 106% for 4 min with 2 min rest. Eventually their legs would fatigue beyond the point of being productive before they hit meaningful time at VO2max. But there are ways around that, etc. They’d do like 32 minutes of work to get a few min at VO2max and have a whole lotta fatigue to go with it. So while possible, it’s far from optimal (again, for the vast, vast majority of people).
I can and will share literally everything I know, but I’m not going to get into it with people who I think are just being argumentative where I’m almost always just trying to be helpful (again, not just this thread), at least not on my free time.
Bad allergy day, so I chopped 'em up and tried to finish the work (by mentally adding up time in my head on the bike, rather than pushing rewind button):
Runners do a lot of things differently because they also have to manage impact and things like eccentric contractions which cyclists do not. The fatigue cost of running is already high. A workout like this for an average runner would be something like 1000s on a walk/light jog 400 recovery at a little bit faster than 10K race pace (so maybe a 5:40/mi pace for a 6:00/mi runner). The closest things I can recall ever doing or prescribing as a runner/coach would be:
1000 repeats FAST, but usually on 1:1 rest (VO2 type work) (lots of different runners)
1000 repeats at ~10K pace (essentially threshold) on short rest (marathoners)
In this case, you’re kind of shooting the middle. Nothing says this workout can’t be done, or that it won’t be effective, I just think there are better ways to achieve these things without incurring the fatigue cost. Seems like not a lot of bang for the buck, but again, I think this is an introductory workout…
Kind of like where I also don’t give 30/30s as VO2max work specifically, I recognize that some people will do better with 30/30s if it’s their first time doing work well above threshold on a bike even if the stimulus achieved is not great for the time spent. (Note: I’m talking about 30/30s at some set % of FTP, like 120-125%, not MAX 30/30s.)
If you’re doing this as some part of a path toward working to high time in zone in longer interval chunks at 105 (or 106, LOL), then I can see more validity to it for certain athletes at certain times. I am currently doing, and have one athlete currently doing, 4x8/2 at 105%.
The continued insistence on comparing this to tempo is a red herring, IMO. Very few cycling coaches worth their salt completely ignore tempo riding. Plenty of influencers and YouTube video makers do, though. I give (and do) plenty of tempo riding at various times throughout the year.
Yeah thats why my first or one of first replies was that 8x4(2)-min at 106% looked like something for a runner. Because of the additional fatigue. I’m not a runner.
Yeah I have given something similar to marathoners in the past (and done it myself). But it was AT 10K pace, not 15-20s/mi faster than 10K pace, and also as part of a 90 min run, as an example.
yeah I can’t speak to running, but with my coach a maintenance workout at 106% was something to keep the system warm and generate no real fatigue. Maintenance. Given what I know from my data, no way I would program 8x4(2) min at 106% as I’m old and feeble so 3x5(5) at 106% might be a good maintenance target for me.
mine has ranged between 17 and 21kJ, which puts me in the middle of the bell curve according to that WKO webinar (Kolie Moore’s WKO5 Building FRC and PMax).
And I’m at the upper end for fractional utilization, not 90% fractional utilization, but often in the 86-88% range. So a bit of an outlier on FTP as % vo2max.
If the sole goal is to maximize time spent at this 106% of FTP, then OK. But again, unless this is very event specific… why? Intro workout for supra threshold? OKish? For a super-masters athlete not handling a large dose? Sure. As a meat-and-potatoes threshold or supra threshold workout? Not IMO.
That’s what I would expect. So… solutions (if targeting VO2max), shorter rest interval, like 1 min, or higher power target. But again, I don’t think that’s what we’re after here.
Super masters? Grand masters? What about feeble masters athletes like myself that need a lot of endurance conditioning to unleash the gobs of PCr and glycolytic power stored like a wound up rubber band?
Disagreeing can be good. Being disagreeable tends to just close down conversation.
In any case, I think I’ll try 4 on/2 off at 105% and see how it feels. At first glance, with sufficient volume, this could be a good workout, so I’ll try 10 repeats and spend an hour going nowhere. My bias is toward longer efforts (at least 10 minutes sustained) if intensity is under 110%, but I can imagine, after 30 minutes, this is going to get difficult.
Give it a go, its got recovery built into it unless you are an outlier with little anaerobic capacity and an overestimated ftp. One thing I’ve learned is that if you aren’t chasing optimization, a little (not so much repeatability for me) can go a long ways when you compound consistency week after week after week after week after week after week … The other thing I learned is how I feel about something doesn’t imply adaptations. Measure.
I probably don’t have much anaerobic capacity. This spring/summer I want to increase weekly mileage to a consistent 12-15 hours, do legs twice a week at the gym, and have at least one ride, ideally two, with intensity, so the intensity won’t be VO2 it’ll have to be SS on the low side up to a little above threshold on the high side.
Do you know or are you guessing? Following plans that push repeatability and not max efforts? The critical power testing methodology (feed it to free GoldenCheetah or Intervals.icu) is pretty good if you do a longer 30+ minute effort along with shorter efforts at say 3-min, 6-min, 12-min, 20-min and one long one. You can reduce that to 3 max / near-max efforts. Or buy WKO and feed it with efforts.
I just base this on observation. In my 20s had a super high VO2 max, max HR 193, and could talk in complete sentences while doing 4 minute intervals with HR as high as 189. However, without serious strength training I really lacked power.
highest you’ve ever fed the model with short efforts. My WKO5 FRC is currently 11.2kJ which I can 100% tell you is wrong - because the model doesn’t have enough max efforts. I’ve read coaches that say W’ slowly if at all, don’t confuse the output of a model with untested capabilities. Some more info: What is your W' bal(/anaerobic capacity) in Kj? Did you work to change it? - #29 by WindWarrior
if you do that try for 105%
Same, but right now doing some above to support upcoming field test and a little additional vo2 stimulus.
first 4-min interval was 107%, then 3-min rest, then second 4-min jobber was 109%
sorry, again it was above 105%, more significantly the higher surges driving up % vo2max (blue line) were from 30-sec power above 112% ftp. So not a great example, but closer to your 8x4(2) @ 105.
All that said, the vo2 kinetics show almost complete drop at 1-minute into the rest interval. So from a vo2 POV, dropping from 3-min to 2-min recoveries wouldn’t impact vo2 (it’s more about how hard you go, because that drives oxygen demand in muscles).
From a lactate point-of-view, well, we can’t feel lactate and I have no interest in lactate testing. However we can feel associated rise in acidic Ph in the legs. When pushing at 104-108% during a well paced 20-minute test, I don’t feel a burn in the legs until about 12-15 minutes into the effort. Just a swag on one of the fatigue mechanisms in the legs (leg Ph).
