I don’t know that there’s a one-size fits all description for that. I’ll typically start total newbies to structure at 10-12 minutes, but then I am rapidly getting them to 20 minutes, basically as soon as I can. Then maybe we’ll do one set at 15 minutes to grow TiZ intelligently, but for SST, 20-30 minute intervals are what I largely prescribe, and I will throw 1x60 or longer at people too, depending on their events goals.
I don’t delineate that much between SST and threshold work (they’re the same thing, for the most part), so I’ll start people at 10-12 min threshold intervals if we’re in uncharted waters, but look to get them up into 20 min intervals. I’m more apt to do 12-15 min intervals AT FTP with a bit more rest if we’re trying to push intervals right at threshold.
But overall I agree that there’s not much practical use (IMO) to doing 5 or 8-minute sweet spot (or even threshold) intervals. Maybe early in base if you want a little bit of intensity, do some some 4x8 sessions. I’ve had some people do 5x5s at threshold in early base if they needed some intensity but honestly I don’t know that I would ever do that again unless people just really struggle to work at that intensity.
I have had clients who really struggle with sustained work, so if I want to push their TiZ, I generally either go more/shorter intervals, or I have success breaking things up with bursts or quick backpedals to get them doing longer intervals. Somehow 5- 4-minute intervals with a burst of 10s and no rest (so a 20 min interval with bursts) seems more manageable than 20-minutes at 90%, even though the former is actually harder.
Come to think of it, for roadies and ultra athletes, I will sometimes prescribe something like 4x3 at 90% at the end of a 3-5 hr ride, but I also usually give that with the option of something like: take this ride outside and hit some hills late in the ride. Point being to do some efforts when your smaller motor units are fatigued and bring in the larger motor units into some of those aerobic efforts late-ride. That’s not a core weekly interval set, it’s just part of a longer ride.
To be honest, I don’t care how it’s estimated or what that number really even ends up being. 99% of us only use that number to set effective training. I couldn’t care less if that number is what I can do for 30 minutes or 130 minutes. It’s just a training tool. That’s my point. There’s really no reason to dig into lactate thresholds or any of that other garbage. People get bogged down in the weeds cause half of you are trying to come at this from a scientific and physiological perspective and half are talking about a number they just use to calculate workouts off of.
This is kind of basic and a bit oversimplified but those new to structured training plans need to digest this - Training is a balance between what you can do today vs what you can do long term keeping in mind that more work done over a period of weeks (or months or years … ) is what leads to increased fitness, not a smattering of epic days with consequent down time caused by excessive fatigue.
So the over simplified answer is, for example, its better to do 30 - 40 minutes of sweet spot over 2 or 3 intervals 3 times a week for many weeks (= 60 to 120 minutes of sweet spot per week) rather than an epic 1 hour TT at FTP than not being able to work hard for the next 6 days. Or, if you can do a 1 hour TT 2x per week, how many weeks can you keep that up? Probably many less than you can keep doing the SS routine. Over time, you’ll do more work doing sweet spot.
I don’t get it. The entire singular thing that your training is based off of you don’t care to estimate to any level of accuracy? FTP is steeped in scientific and physiological theory.
What you call garbage (trying to understand the underlying mechanics of our physiology) is the entire basis of the training paradigm that you pay for. FTP is based on mlss. The effectiveness of your workouts are basically a crap shoot with your approach. I’ll pass
FTP is a number that doesn’t really tell the whole story, even though it tells more of the story than your 5 second power or 5 hour power alone. Using FTP to set all the other zones is “ok” but not really accurate. My “FTP” years ago was around 340w, but I could hold 250-270w for hours and hours. Now my FTP is down about 10-12%, but my all-day power is down 20-25%, and my 5 second - 60 second power is relatively the same. Trying to use my FTP to determine not only if but where I am weak is pretty pointless. You simply need more metrics. FTP is not the end all be all number that predicts race performance the way some would like for you to believe.
Wow guys!
I just spent 20 minutes reading and I haven’t got to the end of your comments! Thanks everyone. I am not yet on TR and I was actually, wondering if I should go for TR, TP, or something else, or nothing for now and do my own workouts.
This evening I did a 1h workout on my dumb trainer.
10 minute warm up at 58%fto, then 10 minutes at 87%. It started to feel hard, so I did a 5 minute recovery at 52% then again 10 minutes at 87%, then recovery at 48% (including the fact that I stopped for like 30 seconds to pick up a water bottle and drink), and then I did 20 minutes at 90% and I finished with the feeling that I could have continued for longer. All of this was while watching Netflix to avoid getting too bored as I am not on swift just yet.
I will keep experimenting with longer and longer 90% intervals I guess.
Isn’t it a crapshoot either way, though? You are getting an estimate of that ftp, no matter what test you use to get it. What level of accuracy do you think your ftp is relative to that physilogical inflection point. Then you use it to set zones. How accurate are they to your very personal physiology? Where is that aerobic threshold point relative to what you think your zone 2 is?
Now don’t forget that your ftp is constantly changing up and down. You overdo it one week, you rest the next week. Stress, fatigue, recovery. And then you’re workouts are (hopefully) progressing, so even if your ftp were 5 or 10 points off, those progressing SS workouts are going to either catch up to your ftp or you ftp will catch down to your workouts (or they’ll meet in the middle, right?), and then you’ll continue to progress from there.
TR is most likely just creating a critical power graph from your multitude of workouts to determine the ftp your workouts are based off of. How many of those workouts could you have gone a little harder on.
It’s all about perspective. I don’t likely change my ftp as often as others, but I make sure my workouts are progressing, particularly in the areas I feel they need so I meet my goals.
There are significantly better estimates for threshold over most of the others. To be honest, for less than $1,000 USD (which is what I have invested), you buy a lactate meter and 300 test strips, control solution…and then do lots of testing. You’ll get it once you do enough testing. Do ramps, do constant-rate tests, take samples after intervals, try out sprint tests…just sample and understand the context in which you’re taking samples. Out of all the metabolic testing stuff I own, the lactate meter is the only thing I’ll keep if I had to choose. It will tell you where your thresholds are when you do the right tests. No guessing and very small error.
TR won’t tell us how they estimate AI FTP. So I don’t use it. Once they release a whitepaper on their entire platform, then maybe. In my experience, Xert is where it’s at.
This isn’t a perspective issue. Its a lack of understanding issue.
Although Hill et al. observed a quasi-hyperbolic relationship between intensity and duration, credit for the critical power concept (and original math) belongs to Monod and Scherrer in (IIRC) 1957. However, the idea wasn’t applied to whole body/large muscle mass exercise until (again IIRC) 1979, when Moritani and DeVries used it to describe cycling performance.
My example is simplistic and, clearly there are lots of people who can do two hours of sweet spot and an all out one hour time trial in a week or even multiple weeks in a row. But the point I was trying to make is that there will be a point where you can’t do both.
Sorry, my point was why not do both at different times of the season? There’s a time and place for doing 2hrs of sweet spot and there’s a time and place for doing 1hr at threshold. It’s not an either/or thing. A well rounded training plan probably works both, depending on the athlete and their goals, etc. But riding 1 hour at your FTP (in interval form) should be something that people can do with some training and would benefit almost everyone.
You’re not going to get very far only ever doing one or the other.
Except that is not the definition of FTP. FTP is defined as your power at lactate threshold, i. e. the borderline above which your legs will turn sour quickly, measured in a field test.
The inventor, Coggan, used a 40k TT as one way to measure it, a 20-minute FTP test as another. However, his subjects were all highly trained road cyclists, so they were used to 40k TTs. Newer studies show that only a small minority of cyclists can hold their FTP (measured with the 20-minute FTP test) for an hour, including pros.
Untrained individuals will fare much worse on average. That always reminds me of a video where a fitness Youtuber had his then-untrained wife do a VO2max test in a lab. She never came close to VO2max.
Most workouts are not meant to push you close to your limits as that takes a high degree of mental focus and incurs physical fatigue.
No.
It may be that you are simply not used to holding that much power for that long.
“The inventor, Coggan, used a 40k TT as one way to measure it, a 20-minute FTP test as another.”
No, he didn’t…and therein lies the rub.
“Newer studies show that only a small minority of cyclists can hold their FTP (measured with the 20-minute FTP test) for an hour, including pros.”
What these studies actually show is that 95% of 20 min power (usually w/o the 5 min “blowout” effort beforehand, thus not even following Hunter’s protocol) often overestimates maximal metabolic steady state power, a.k.a., FTP.
“Untrained individuals will fare much worse on average. That always reminds me of a video where a fitness Youtuber had his then-untrained wife do a VO2max test in a lab. She never came close to VO2max.”
Untrained individuals are no less likely to achieve a true VO2max during an incremental exercise test than an elite athlete. It simply comes down to motivation and an appropriate test protocol.
You are correct, though, it is always good experimental design to have people practice a performance test one (or more) times before relying on the data, as there are often learning effects. Yet, very few, if any, of the various studies of “FTP” ( i.e., 95% of maximal 20 min power) have done so. This is disappointing, but not all that surprising, because the quality of much applied sports science research is rather poor, reflecting the rather uncompetitive nature of the field.
