I suspect the VO2 block got me in a good position. About 8 days noodling at 60% FTP, then the above to push up FTP. Don’t think I’ve ever done a 4x8 @ 110% before. It was quite hard, but under control - definitely not VO2 max work.
Usually I really struggle to put down significant time over FTP, so signs are good. Just need to avoid getting ill which usually happens when things are looking good 
I’m a little confused about your question: Myrmel is not a workout that fits into Seiler’s progression. TR has dedicated workouts with lots of variations (4x8 at 100 %, 102 %, etc.). Myrmel is an over-under-style workout where you spend time above FTP, accumulate lactate and then deal with that lactate in a shorter close-to-threshold effort. From the looks of things, Myrmel is likely a workout you’ll find in the specialty phase. It isn’t a substitute for an over-under workout in the base or build phase that is usually more structured and less varied.
If you look at TR’s polarized plans, there are actually workouts that are quite similar to what you have in mind. An example is Gold Hill where you do 3 x 4 minutes at 106 % FTP. There are variations of those workouts, but these are clearly above threshold. I reckon this is what you are thinking of?
I and others would recommend the intensive block which is riding at FTP and over/unders. I don’t think what you’re doing is unusual, especially because it’s coming off the VO2max block. I think what you’re seeing is the benefit of the VO2 block which really fully manifests six weeks out, and would submit you’d probably see similar gains doing RPE based threshold and over unders. In fact, if you were doing RPE based FTP work, you might be working at the same power.
Either way, congratulations on your gains, whatever it is it’s working for you.
I would also say what you’re really doing is extensive work above threshold, and doing 3x/wk I suggest you be very careful here.
Thanks! Nope definitely not doing anything unusual per se. Basically took the structure of the block from a CTS/Trainright video. However instead of 3 plain suprathreshold workouts, my 3rd one is threshold with bursts.
Noted re the extensive part over FTP. This is just because the 4x10 @ 105% last week was very doable, so in reality these were probably more like at FTP. I’ll definitely pull the plug on a 3rd interval session if fatigue gets too much. I usually do stick to to 2.
FWIW I do some shorter 5-10 minute intervals at the top of threshold zone, by RPE, and often around 105%. These appear to do a good job of lifting ftp, and they are complemented by some shorter / higher power intervals. That and a lot of endurance. Preceded by some solid over/under work precedes it (way over, and then 85-95% unders, variations on sweet spot). Then I go out like last week and easily knock down a 20-minute TT pacing effort and set a new all-time power PRs. Very little progression. Mostly done by RPE with suggested targets (“high zone 4”) from my coach. Today is some 5 min jobbers with some 30/30s. During certain times of the year the focus is gently “pulling up ftp” work. Fresh is faster, and less is more, when you are old and feeble like me 
It works for me 
Sorry I can’t be more help on the progression approach.
This is kind of what I expected with respect to doing it by RPE. If you find that 8/10 RPE and can hold for 40+ min, you’re really working at FTP, which is pretty darn good. you can cement that away by doing 20s or 25s and seeing if it stays there.
Cory gives me a range to work in, say 280-310. And since the holidays I’ve been all over that range… some days holding 300 for 20 minutes and 295 for 50 min total, other days doing 290 for 20 and it’s too damn hard then dialing back to 280, generally trying to go by what feels sustainable for long periods. I’ve had some consistency struggles due to some mild illnesses and (I think) underfeeding.
All that to say, if the 4x10s were very manageable, that’s probably one of those “good day” FTPs and you’re working squarely in that threshold zone, which is good. That’s why prescriptions by % of FTP get tougher and fall apart a bit quicker once you’re right up against it (and certainly over it).
In any event, happy for your progress! Congrats again.
Right, so I’m in a short power build plan which sort of makes sense to have high power over-unders like this, but I just thought that there would be better ways to progressively achieve my ability to develop power. If I’m trying to generate higher power for short sustained efforts, I thought it would be more reasonable to be sustaining time over threshold rather than a relatively short “over” before ducking back below threshold.
Like you said, the workouts like myramel look a lot more appropriate for specialty where I’m going over and under, recovering, and doing it again. I’m sure that it’ll be productive, but I’m being critical and was questioning how effective repeated short efforts are at building power vice what I found to be better studied, longer sustained suprathreshold efforts.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for sharing the video! I think he helped address what I was asking at about the 8 minute point. And again at 13:30.
It seems 60 seconds hard, “hover” for 2 minutes, rest for 1 minute, might not be hard or long enough above threshold to drive VO2 and heart rate. The studied intervals weren’t looking at time at threshold following a hard block, though. I imagine riding right at threshold after 60 seconds of an “over” forces an athlete to use lactate as energy and better for helping extend time to exhaustion (by recycling lactate that’s generated with hard efforts).
Unless I’m interpreting this wrong, does that sound about right? While the work periods in Myramel might achieve the end goal of building power, the rest interval would need to be reduced to most likely 30 seconds or less for my body to work continuously at that high effort and really drive VO2 up in order to more effectively build power.
Why did you think that?
Over-unders aim to improve your lactate shuttling abilities close to threshold, i. e. one of the pieces necessary to increase your threshold power. That is, there is no single workout that you do over and over again that “maximizes” your gains. Training plans combine different workouts for that very reason.
Again, why would you think that? Just because you spend more time over threshold? First of all, I am not even sure if this is correct.
For example, this Friday, I’m going to do Palisade +2, a PL 5.6 threshold over-under workout. It consists of five 9-minute intervals. Of those, I will spend 6 minutes per interval over, i. e. I will spend 30 minutes above FTP. Some people could say that this is already one of the harder over-unders, yes, perhaps. Many easier over-under workouts such as Warlow +1 have only 1-minute over bits rather than 2-minute over bits during the intervals. That means you’d spend only 15 minutes above threshold.
Compare that to Gold Hill from the polarized plan where I will spend only 3 x 4 minutes = 12 minutes above threshold. Time in zone isn’t everything, but I thought I’d include that just to give you an idea that with standard over-under workouts you are not skimping on time above threshold.
There are many ways to skin the cat, and every method has its tradeoffs. My body doesn’t respond to a block of sweet spot the way it does to a polarized block. It isn’t that one is clearly better for me, but that I get different gains from them, and I found much success by combining them.
You mention studies. I don’t claim to know the state-of-the-art, but (1) I would be cautious interpreting studies unless you are a professional or are guided by a professional. (2) Most studies are quite limited, because usually studies are short, the number of participants is small and it is not easy to isolate what you are aiming for from other things. That is especially difficult when you have a training plan where workouts are designed to work hand-in-hand, and the total could (should) be larger than the sum of its parts.
Most training plans I have seen (not claiming to be a professional coach) contained over-unders in one form or another as part of a balanced plan.
I’m confused: over-unders are threshold workouts, not VO2max workouts. They aren’t meant to push you very far into VO2max, but to teach your body to clear lactate from your muscles in the “recovery” periods just below threshold.
VO2max is addressed with VO2max workouts. Technically, workouts like Gold Hill are classified as VO2max, because TR uses the convention that VO2max starts at 106 %. But IMHO that’s essentially a threshold workout, and in my experience feels totally different than a real VO2max workout such as 6 x 3 minutes at 120 %.
Not saying over unders aren’t effective. I’m questioning if 3 minutes of an over under before resting is effective. Because 1 minute doesn’t seem to be hard enough nor long enough to stimulate changes in power development. Sitting just below and churning through that lactate would help clearance and thus, time to exhaustion. I’m sure there are benefits to be had because I, or whomever else, tolerates threshold work better. But if the goal of short power build is to increase force to pedals, that means to me more oxygen.
Work above threshold necessarily increases vo2 uptake. And extending time will eventually hit peak O2. I’m also aware that you can increase threshold and power development with zone 2 riding, so agree… there’s different ways to achieve that end.
The first two workouts you linked have work durations that are significantly longer than the short intervals I am questioning. Even gold hill, while 4 minutes, is all above threshold, and longer duration than the 60 or 90 seconds I was going to end up doing. They’re all very different.
Does my logic and questioning make sense?
But you aren’t just doing one interval of 1+3 minutes, you are doing 14 of them. So in aggregate, combined with other workouts, this will lead to adaptations that allow you increase your threshold.
No, the goal is to make you better at repeatedly going above threshold and raising the power numbers you can hold.
To achieve that, you don’t just need to increase your oxygen uptake, but also make your body better at a whole host of other processes such as lactate shuttling. That’s why training plans include different workouts that predominantly stress different aspects of your fitness/processes. Teaching your body to deal with lactate with e. g. over-unders is one of those things, and it is not less important than increasing your max oxygen uptake. No single workout can do it all.
Yes, but the time scale matters.
A traditional FTP test rests on the assumption that on average you should be able to hold 105 % of your FTP for 20 minutes. Hence, 12 minutes at 106 % ≈ 105 % FTP with rest intervals is just not sufficient to push you towards VO2max. Indeed, this is not what workouts like Gold Hill are designed to do.
To get to VO2max you either have to work harder (= higher power) or longer. Even if you decide to work longer, e. g. 1x20 minutes at 105 % (aka a traditional 20-minute FTP test), it won’t have the same effect as working harder for shorter as you will only reach max oxygen uptake towards the very end. Plus, it’d be quite draining (assuming your FTP is set correctly).
I referenced Gold Hill, because it sounded like the type of workout you were describing.
Two things: I don’t think it makes sense to single out one workout type. Apart from traditional base perhaps, you always have a mix of different types of workouts, which predominantly address different subsystems/aspects of your fitness.
Supra-threshold workouts are not new, they are part of many training plans. However, they have been inserted into training plans at a specific time with a specific purpose in mind by people who know.
You should think of different types of workouts and blocks as arrows in your quiver or tools in your toolbox. Which tool is the right one depends very much on your goals. So if you want to do supra-threshold intervals, I would recommend you do a block of a ready-made training plan which includes those.
Then see how your body reacts. Once you understand how your body reacts and in what way it reacts differently compared to another type of block during the same period, pick a block type that serves your purposes and aims. Also keep in mind that everything includes tradeoffs. General Build, Short Power Build and Polarized Build blocks will give you different results even though one isn’t better than the other, especially not for all people.
Yeah, agreed. When I hear Seiler talk and think of him as a coach, I usually nod to much of what he says. E. g. one of the things that cleared things up for me is his distinction between hard and easy workouts not on the basis of intensity, but the amount of recovery it takes.
However, he is primarily a scientist, and scientists need to be much more precise when they speak about their field of expertise. This is where in my opinion Seiler misses the mark. To me your example, hour power ≠ MLSS, fits this description to a T — an exercise physiologist should clearly delineate between the two when they speak. (Another one is his habit of wanting to decrease the number of zones …)
I’d add that characterizing workouts simply by the power zone they are in is insufficient. Like you said, an over-under workout is not synonymous with a steady state threshold workout. You correctly wrote that the purpose of over-unders is very different from steady-state workouts.
TR knows this, too. E. g. if TR has scheduled an over-under threshold workout for you, it will only suggest other over-under threshold workouts as alternates. Ditto when it comes to steady state threshold workouts or steady state VO2max intervals vs. 30-30s. But it can get confusingin discussions, though.
Wonder if this is even true, relative to a ton of Z2 for instance. What is the physiological mechanism at work during O/U?. How does it improve clearance?
Thanks for all the input @redlude97 and @OreoCookie you’ve obviously taken a lot of time and critical thought to reply to my thread so I appreciate that. I think I’ve picked out what I think is the most effective for lactate clearance and for building power, or TTE, and didn’t associate that with effectively the 14x3’ over unders. Or over-ats in many cases.
However for this… the way I understand O/Us to work is our muscles slowly adapt to more efficiently use the lactate we’re producing in the “overs” so by constantly going over and under we reintroduce that stimulus
I think that @oldandfast’s point was to focus on Z2 training as your main effort to improve your lactate clearance and over / unders as a secondary way.
As Inigo San Milan put it, “With the experience of the past 18 years Zone 2 endurance training has shown to be the training zone eliciting the best results to improve lactate clearance capacity.”
After all it’s about developing your slow twitch fibres, as they are the ones that take up and burn lactate as a fuel.
Adding more z2 sounds great in theory and in a perfect world but that also comes at the cost of time, career and family. Thus my original criticality of the most effective workouts in my plan.
Also it’s important not to forego intensity… just riding nothing but z2 all the time won’t give the fastest result. I’m sure adding more z2 would make many of us faster, but I and many others unfortunately just don’t have the luxury of 10+hrs a week
In your case, not universally the case though.