unless you spent time in college using log scale, and remember that log(3) is roughly half the distance. It’s pretty easy on my MacBook or iPhone to open search and type log(2) and see its 3/10 the way between two major log axes. And log(3) is 0.48 or about half way. Etc., etc.
Like this:
where I screen grabbed from the Internet and added 2, 3, and 4. And left the remaining 6-9 as an exercise for the reader, as we used to say in college LOL.
Now that I’m on desktop and can read the article - this would have been a far better quote/graph:
Consider, for example, the two athletes in Figure 1 with the highest and lowest maximal power relative to FTP, respectively (World Champions in their respective disciplines of the match sprint and time trial). As shown in Figure 3 below, their relative power was generally similar at durations more than about 10 minutes. However, there is obviously a very large (approximately fourfold) difference in the extent to which they can elevate their power above FTP at very short durations. As a result, the one athlete can maintain a power of, for example, 150 percent of FTP for about 4 minutes, while the other athlete can do so for only about one minute. Clearly such large inter-individual differences in performance during short-duration, high-intensity (supra-FTP) exercise preclude the use of any sort of one-size-fits-all, anchor-based approach.
It directly deals with variability at 4 minute mark, which is duration original comment deals with.
240 seconds is about 38% of the distance between 10 and 100 seconds in the log time scale
I’m not good at drawing, but its around here:
and that was a sample of athletes that Coggan felt representative. There may in fact be outliers not in that dataset.
The largest variations are under 2 minutes. By the time you get to 8-10 minutes are all start looking roughly the same, when normalized as a % FTP.
Good point, but I’d say still a little hard to visually guesstimate the width between upper and lower lines on the graph, let alone distribution, given the width of the x-axis. This comes up a lot in my work where the parameter estimates for a given process (say, monthly probability of death from cancer) need to be derived from published graphs that may have different time scales. The availability of apps that let you import the graph and regenerate estimates of the raw data have been a game changer.
No need to estimate for top line:
As a result, the one athlete can maintain a power of, for example, 150 percent of FTP for about 4 minutes, while the other athlete can do so for only about one minute.
Top line is ~150%, though I’m not sure what bottom is. Considerably lower, eyeballing I’d say not much over 110%.
the point remains, for shorter power durations, say under 2 minutes, there is considerable variation. And from my own experience (posted above), durations of roughly 2-6 minutes, there is some variation and there is also an element of conditioning and mental toughness. Heck, I’d say that under 2 minutes doing an all-out effort is more of a mental challenge.
Oh, I agree completely–there’s obviously considerable individual variation below 2 minutes and the variation decreases with time; the graph conveys that general concept quite nicely. The only point I was trying to make is that that particular graph makes it difficult to identify a specific time when, for any given definition of “this variation is no longer important”, that threshold is reached.
I can’t obviously say just how much is mental, but for me it can be quite significant. Two weeks ago I rated a 5x5 @ 272W as Hard (107%). HR barely made it to threshold but it felt difficult. This week I upped the FTP to 262W and went into a 6x5 @ 288-292W (110-112%). HR hit 95% of HRmax in the last two intervals, and while it felt very hard, I managed to complete it. I attribute it to a confidence boost of powering through the KM FTP test two days before and angry music. There’s no chance my power changed significantly enough in two weeks, but my mental capacity definitely did.
Edit: Fixed to quote entire post, my mistake.
Right before that block I worked up to 3x20 at ~305-310W and then I was doing 4min VO2s at between like 400 and 425W. My 3 min intervals were between ~450 and 415W.
I’ve got a relatively high peak power (not crazy but decent) and from most models I’ve used have a higher anaerobic capacity. So that along with a couple year long FTP plateau left me with real high 3-5min power relative to FTP.
Obviously a decent outlier but just meant to illustrate why %FTP targets above FTP are largely useless.
Even at very high (but sustainable such that you can complete intervals) power, it still takes maybe 60s (maybe longer earlier in the workout) to get into anything approaching a ‘max’ state for me. Therefore optimistically perhaps only half of your interval time is actually going to be providing the required stimulus.
So even hammering out something insane like a 20x2 gives you 20 mins of productive stimulus, the same as a classic 5x5. However the 20x2 takes 40 mins of interval work to achieve the same stimulus as that 5x5 can get you in 25 mins - that’s 60% more interval time! How many more KJs would you burn doing that additional work, and what might the knock on impact be to subsequent workouts in the block?
Of course this is all somewhat facetious because nobody’s going to do a 20x2, but it hopefully demonstrates the point - longer intervals give you more bang for your buck. IMO 2 minute intervals would be a last resort for VO2 work - maybe squeezing out the last few drops at the end of a block.
Edit: catching up on the thread I see @kurt.braeckel got you covered!
Reporting back after my January VO2 adventures, I started some tentative threshold work at 4x10 where 105% of old FTP felt about right, and edging it out slowly to 3x17 at 104% over a couple of weeks (as I went longer it became clear I was aiming a bit too high). Based on how these felt, I’d say the VO2 block got me about 15w (365w > 380w), and I’ll definitely take any bump!
My plan was to continue to push out the interval length a bit, but I’ve caught flu, so been off the bike now for 4 days, and will need at least another couple of days before doing some recovery spins/Z2. Let’s hope I can get back to those numbers!
I just built my own workouts for my next 3 week block
6x3min @ 115%
6x3:30 min @ 115%
6x4min @ 115%
I will adjust intensity based on how I feel this first week. Last week 110% felt easy
I like the convenience of ERG to set the power and just focus on pushing watts rather than monitoring a target/range for basically all indoor work… except VO2 max (and above).
Consider trying resistance mode. If you’re seeking to adjust the resistance dynamically as you fatigue, it’s too finicky and granular to bash the +/- buttons in ERG IMO - and how do you keep things right at the edge with the laptop when you’re bleeding out of your eyeballs? Much better to just let the power fall naturally through cadence and shifting (although try and keep it high). ERG puts the emphasis on power, which shouldn’t be the main objective IMO. Don’t cap yourself, just go all out! You summed it up perfectly yourself. “110% felt easy”
I do erg till I start to drop watts and the HR is pegged and swap erg off. Happened final minute of my last 2 intervals today
No riding on rest week and first ride is vo2 will do that I think
Tastelessly replying to myself… I feel taunted.
(199 is definitely not true… but hopefully it will be before the season is over.)
The reasons to avoid erg change below and above threshold, IMO.
Below: erg might have you going too hard on days where you’re not your best and you should adjust down to do the time.
Above: erg power targets might not be hard enough, as most of the time these intervals should basically be all out. If you need erg to do all out, you’re probably not doing all out all that well in the first place. How can you predict what all out is on a given day??
I use erg some below threshold, for endurance, tempo, SST, whatever. Never above it; rarely at threshold.
I was really nervous about this week’s vo2 intervals. My legs are sore even after my rest day, I had a big week last week with 600tss. I looked at a few other workouts or even thought to myself I’m not good enough after not nailing my vo2 last Monday “not nailing means I dropped 10% of watts final min of my last 2 intervals” and threshold intervals last week I quit my 5th 8min interval 4min in since my HR was pegged.
I loaded the workout up and climbed on, thinking if I struggle I’ll bail and just today.
Man I nailed all of them but the final min I dropped 10%.
Planning to do a VO2 Max block either after my Sweet Spot block or after the Threshold block, depending on how the FTP / TTE development goes after the Sweet Spot block. Problem last year was that I often couldn’t go deep enough indoor, it always felt as if my legs were the limiter and not my Heart/Lungs, outdoor it wasn’t an issue to put out power and get my Breathing and HR going…
How would I go about designing hard start Vo2max intervals if my normal Vo2 max sessions look like these:
4x8min @ 110% (4 min rest)
5x5min @ 120% (3 min rest)
?
It depends. 
If doing them in Resistance mode then I’d do maybe 60s at 150% or 30s at 180% and then try to hold 110%/120% respectively for the rest of the interval, not worrying too much if the power drops. It all depends on how “sprinty” you are.
