It's killing me but..........

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

RD, I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. You are saying that VO2Max is your utlimate ceiling, but that it can be improved? Surely the term ceiling implies an immoveable limit?
Not trying to be smart here - just trying to understand!Bruce, obviously this isn't RD, but what I've read so far about Vo2max seems to suggest that it is much more genetically limited (hence the use of the word ceiling) than LT. So where maybe you can train & improve your Vo2Max to a point, you can go improve your LT far more by comparison.

From wikipedia:
"VO2max is genetically predetermined for the most part, though it may be improved by several percentage points with training."

"The anaerobic threshold is a useful measure for deciding exercise intensity for training and racing in endurance sports (e.g. distance running, cycling, rowing, swimming and cross country skiing), and can be increased greatly with training."

RD - can you clarify?

FTP is a function of both LT and VO2MAX. These are interrelated. Your VO2MAX determines your ultimate aerobic ceiling and is best targeted with L5 efforts. LT determines the percentage of your ultimate aerobic ceiling that you can sustain and is best targeted with L4 efforts. As a relatively untrained cyclist, you might want to start by targeting LT with L4 efforts. You will eventually want to target VO2MAX, but IMO this can come later. This may sound illogical, as in "Why not raise my ceiling first?" or "If I raise my ceiling, won't I raise my FTP as well?" The answer lies in part in the fact that VO2MAX responds more quickly to training and maxes out more quickly. LT responds more slowly and increasing FTP with L4 efforts is a long-term process (as in years). You can make huge progress in FTP with no work on VO2MAX whatsoever. So, back to your original statement, yes, L4 training is an ideal vehicle to raise FTP. You probably don't need to worry about L5, L6 or L7 efforts until, say, next spring.I understand what you are saying here and see the point. Let me ask you this though, has there ever been a study taking untrained subjects, measuring their Vo2Max & LT before the study, then having one group train exclusively in say L5 intervals while the other does strictly L4 work....then comparing the same metrics (vo2max & LT) after 3 months or something along those lines???


Isn't it nice that life is so simple?:DHeh....well simple can be nice, I don't dispute that one bit. It certainly gives on the ability to have rather razor-sharp focus.

So I can live with simple, but only to a point. Let me point out a quote by one of the more astute posters in this forum:

You'd be better off reading the Allen/Coggan book, Training and Racing with a Power Meter. I think I recommended this to you about 500 posts ago. If you then reread this thread, you will learn new things. There is a nexus to many of the questions that have arisen in this thread, and that nexus is the underlying physiology involved in training. You have not necessarily wanted or needed to know why certain recommendations were made, but only what to do to achieve your immediate objective. But, let me assure you that you have been the beneficiary of several of us who have spent many hours studying these materials so that we can understand the why as well as the what.:DSo seriously, you are saying to Tyson that he's benefited from the intellectual tinkering of others. Which is true of him and will be true for me no doubt (others too I suspect).

However, I do want to understand. Simply having someone tell me do ## of YY for ZZ minutes/hours - leaves me wanting a bit. I think in understanding at least some of the science/rationale, you become far better at being able to dissect and target your training to achieve goals and better results.

RD, I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. You are saying that VO2Max is your utlimate ceiling, but that it can be improved? Surely the term ceiling implies an immoveable limit? Not trying to be smart here - just trying to understand!Think of VO2MAX as one's ultimate ceiling at a point in time. VO2MAX can be increased with training, which is why we do L5 high-intensity efforts. And, once increased, continued L5 efforts are required to maintain the higher level.

Think of VO2MAX as one's ultimate ceiling at a point in time. VO2MAX can be increased with training, which is why we do L5 high-intensity efforts. And, once increased, continued L5 efforts are required to maintain the higher level.
But then surely you have a ceiling (or as Friel calls it "Critical Power") for each wattage - isn't VO2Max just the name for the L5 ceiling as such?

My simple understanding is that each power zone has a kind of a half life i.e. if untrained it starts to diminish. As you progress up the power curve, so the half life becomes shorter, i.e. it is quicker to increase with training, but decays quicker without training.

I understand what you are saying here and see the point. Let me ask you this though, has there ever been a study taking untrained subjects, measuring their Vo2Max & LT before the study, then having one group train exclusively in say L5 intervals while the other does strictly L4 work....then comparing the same metrics (vo2max & LT) after 3 months or something along those lines???There are dozens (maybe hundreds) of studies, but I'm not aware of a study as you describe. The predicted results of such a study would be that the group that did exclusively L5 intervals would have increased their VO2MAX more than the L4 group whereas the L4 group would have increased their FTP more than the L5 group, but both groups would have increased both VO2MAX and FTP. In fact, a more dramatic study that I am aware of is one in which the subjects did exclusively very short-duration high-intensity efforts and they also raised their VO2MAX and FTP http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2001/acsms/papers/LAUR.pdf.

So seriously, you are saying to Tyson that he's benefited from the intellectual tinkering of others. Which is true of him and will be true for me no doubt (others too I suspect).

However, I do want to understand. Simply having someone tell me do ## of YY for ZZ minutes/hours - leaves me wanting a bit. I think in understanding at least some of the science/rationale, you become far better at being able to dissect and target your training to achieve goals and better results.Several of us share your desire to understand the why in addition to the what. The problem is that while there is a single, comprehensive source for the what (the Allen/Coggan book, Training and Racing with a Power Meter), there is no such single source for the why. One thing missing from the Allen/Coggan book is a bibliography of books and articles on the underlying physiology of cycling. I am preparing my own bibliography, but it is far from complete (and will probably be a work in progress for years to come). One problem is that many of the studies that would be referenced by such a bibliography would be included for their raw data and not necessarily for the conclusions reached by the author(s). So, an expert such as Andy might include a study in his bibliography yet disagree with the author's conclusions. And, of course, the power meter itself has resulted in many new insights because it has exponentially increased our ability to measure training and performance improvements.

But then surely you have a ceiling (or as Friel calls it "Critical Power") for each wattage - isn't VO2Max just the name for the L5 ceiling as such?At a point in time, every cyclist has a maximum sustainable power for a given duration or vice versa. This is commonly referred to as the MP/duration curve. Be careful with the term "Critical Power," because Friel uses it differently from its original (and preferred) usage, as defined by Scherrer and Monod in ~1960 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15677008&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum.

My simple understanding is that each power zone has a kind of a half life i.e. if untrained it starts to diminish. As you progress up the power curve, so the half life becomes shorter, i.e. it is quicker to increase with training, but decays quicker without training.Max power at different durations are bounded by different physiological capacities (with some overlap), the Big 4 (from long to short) being lactate threshold (LT), VO2MAX, anaerobic capacity (AC) and neuromuscular (NM). Each of these is trained differently (power/duration combinations) and has its own responsiveness to training and detraining. I actually think that LT seems to respond most quickly to detraining.

At a point in time, every cyclist has a maximum sustainable power for a given duration or vice versa. This is commonly referred to as the MP/duration curve. Be careful with the term "Critical Power," because Friel uses it differently from its original (and preferred) usage, as defined by Scherrer and Monod in ~1960 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15677008&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum.

Max power at different durations are bounded by different physiological capacities (with some overlap), the Big 4 (from long to short) being lactate threshold (LT), VO2MAX, anaerobic capacity (AC) and neuromuscular (NM). Each of these is trained differently (power/duration combinations) and has its own responsiveness to training and detraining. I actually think that LT seems to respond most quickly to detraining.
Okay, so what you are saying is that VO2Max is the region of the MP/duration curve in which the body switches from an aerobic energy production process to an anearobic one. In other words, anything above VO2max is anaerobic, and anything below is aerobic, hence the use of the term "aerobic ceiling"?

Okay, so what you are saying is that VO2Max is the region of the MP/duration curve in which the body switches from an aerobic energy production process to an anearobic one. In other words, anything above VO2max is anaerobic, and anything below is aerobic, hence the use of the term "aerobic ceiling"?Well, sort of, although I wouldn't use the term "switches." VO2MAX is definitional and measurable, as the maximal rate of whole-body oxygen uptake that can be achieved during exercise. VO2MAX without question sets the upper limit to aerobic power production. Above VO2MAX, one is clearly drawing increasingly on anaerobic metabolism. The reason I take exception to use of the term "switches" is because anaerobic energy influences maximum sustainable power well beyond VO2MAX. In fact, this is why 20min max power is not such a great predictor of FTP, because it is influenced by anaerobic energy.

In fact, this is why 20min max power is not such a great predictor of FTP, because it is influenced by anaerobic energy.
Ok - got my book today btw, I'm 145 pages into it - are you saying that the 20 min AP * 0.95 is not a good estimate of FTP???

Ok - got my book today btw, I'm 145 pages into it - are you saying that the 20 min AP * 0.95 is not a good estimate of FTP???It's an estimate - a quick estimate. A better estimating method is to consider several of the different approaches to zero in on a most likely range for FTP. All depends on how good you consider 'good.'

It's an estimate - a quick estimate. A better estimating method is to consider several of the different approaches to zero in on a most likely range for FTP. All depends on how good you consider 'good.'Let me be more specific...

For a steady climb, so as to reduce some of the inevitable power fluctuations, would the 20 min AP * .95 result in an estimate of FTP with < 5% deviation from what you would get for a 1-hr FTP test?

WHile my budget will never allow it, this paragraph seems to further point to the importance of using a power meter.
Not really. On the contrary, what this paragraph is trying to emphasise is exactly what governs/limits a persons performance (to a large extent) as a cyclist. If you understand the implications of this, what it means is that by and large specifically focusing on improving your threshold power will have the single biggest impact on your performance as a cyclist (for all those trackie's out there, yes, yes, i know about sprint/NM power etc).

How you achieve this can be done in a number of ways and does not require a power meter. For example, it's only in the last 12 months that i got a power meter. Prior to this i used a combination of indoor trainer, velodromes, steady hill climbs, flat roads into headwinds etc to do threshold intervals. I chose the environment/road specifically to ensure that i would be doing these intervals at as close to the right intensity - whilst it's not as exact as controlling them with a PM, it was close enough on the whole for me to see considerable improvement over time.

A PM is just an expensive gadget if you don't understand the principles/fundamentals of what you're training and why.

Ok - got my book today btw, I'm 145 pages into itWow! That's probably close to a record, although now that I think about it I recall a few on the forum who read it cover to cover the day it arrived (maybe even me).

are you saying that the 20 min AP * 0.95 is not a good estimate of FTP???This has to rank up there with the top 10 most asked questions in power training discussions. Here's what's going on.

FTP is, by definition, one's max sustainable power for 60 mins. Secondly, Andy uses FTP as the baseline for all levels (e.g., L4 = 91%-105%FTP). So, there is an insatiable desire to know one's FTP. But, the hooker is that small detail of an intimidating 60 min full power ride (ugh!). This has led to a bona fide desire for other ways to estimate FTP. Andy has accommodated us with not just one but about 6 other ways to estimate FTP (although I can only find 5 in the book). They're all "valid," it just depends on why one wants to know his/her FTP. My preferred method is the last (most complex) method, use of the Critical Power Curve. I do this because I get lots more information than just an estimate of FTP.

But, for purposes of riding high-intensity efforts at an "appropriate" intensity, I use a simplified approach. Basically, I ride high-intensity efforts at ~90% of my max sustainable power at that duration (other than L7s, which I ride at 100% of my max power). This happens to put me in Andy's power ranges for all levels, although I'm at the upper end of the range in L5 & L6. One byproduct of this approach is that all high-intensity efforts "feel" about the same to me, given that they are all 90% efforts. Another advantage is that regardless of how fit or unfit I am I can quickly find the right power for efforts of a given duration by finding my max power at that duration and only at that duration (e.g., 20mins).

. I chose the environment/road specifically to ensure that i would be doing these intervals at as close to the right intensity - whilst it's not as exact as controlling them with a PM, it was close enough on the whole for me to see considerable improvement over time.

A PM is just an expensive gadget if you don't understand the principles/fundamentals of what you're training and why.
I see your point, but for a new/novice cyclist it is quite a challenge to keep efforts right at threshold without underperforming or going anerobic.(at least for me). Maybe with more training/experience it will become easier.

It's been kind of quite today from the originator of "It's Killing me."

Where is Tyson?

Off working on a top secret tapering plan? :)

It's been kind of quite today from the originator of "It's Killing me."

Where is Tyson?

Off working on a top secret tapering plan? :)Good question. Last I heard he was loading up on donuts. I wonder where he heard about "donut loading?":rolleyes:

I see your point, but for a new/novice cyclist it is quite a challenge to keep efforts right at threshold without underperforming or going anerobic.(at least for me). Maybe with more training/experience it will become easier.
I remember doing exactly the same when i started out doing threshold intervals - it's easy to do. The temptation and the thinking is that you need to do all of this at 100% when in fact you can get exactly the same benefit/results from doing these intervals at a lower intensity (91% as defined by Andy) - that was another 'brick in the face' moment for me. My approach (and the approach used by numerous others out there), in general, is to do the intervals at the lower end of the intensity range. Why? - it's easier to complete whilst providing exactly the same physiological benefit.

The other problem i suspect you may face is that of proper pacing. This is a very difficult thing to master and the most common mistake that many people make (even highly trained and experienced cyclists) is starting out way too hard. Gradually build the intensity over the first few minutes and try to hold it there for the remainder - you will become better and better at this with practise. Take heart in the fact that it hurts just as much for experienced riders as it does for novice's - all that differs is the speed/power you do them at:D

My approach (and the approach used by numerous others out there), in general, is to do the intervals at the lower end of the intensity range. Why? - it's easier to complete whilst providing exactly the same physiological benefit.Ditto.:D

Good question. Last I heard he was loading up on donuts. I wonder where he heard about "donut loading?":rolleyes:
Actually i recall a post from one of the track coaches at the AIS a while back (might have been on another forum) where he talked about how much cakes & pastry the track sprinters ate. Maybe Tyson is a sprinter in disguise.....:D

My approach (and the approach used by numerous others out there), in general, is to do the intervals at the lower end of the intensity range. Why? - it's easier to complete whilst providing exactly the same physiological benefit.
A couple clarifications or exceptions are in order here. 1) I believe this to be true for L2/L3/L4 *only if* the ride duration is increased sufficiently as power is decreased. IOW, even though L2-L4 are essentially a continuous spectrum with regards to the aerobic benefits, 40 minutes in L2 is not the same as 40 minutes in L3 or L4, nor is 40 minutes at .91FT the same as 40 minutes at FT. 2) I don't believe this to be true for L5 at all, since I've seen articles and posts by Andy indicating that in order to improve VO2max you really need to be working at greater than 95% of VO2max (ie, 1.15FT+). Some may then ask "why is the lower limit of L5 at 105%FT?" Andy's answered this before by saying that he prefers his schema to be continuous and without holes, and that the levels themselves are not intended to be narrow targets for specific training.

My approach for L4 intervals (usually 3x20) is to do them at or slightly above FT. Why? Because when I can do them at FT + 5w, I know my FT has risen by 5w. Now, I also do .95FT intervals, but those are typically 3x30 instead.

I believe this to be true for L2/L3/L4 *only if* the ride duration is increased sufficiently as power is decreased.That's basically what my 90%MP rule does. As duration decreases, power is increased because MP increases. Then the only issue is whether there are duration "no man's lands."