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.

Tyson or any one else over 40...
Pffff.... at 40 you're sitting at the kiddie table with the rest of us on *this* thread. :D

Tyson or any one else over 40 I have an aversion to working out on consecutive days at 91% of FTP 2x20 have you had any problems and how many days in a row do you do this?

ThanksI basically don't ride without doing at least 30-40mins at L4+ because I don't do "recovery" rides (if I want a recovery day, I just don't ride). Every so often I'll go on a group ride where I can't get as much L4+ time as I might prefer, but that's the exception. I ride a minimum of 4x per week and up to 7x per week without problems. Total weekly L4+ time is 3-7 hours. I attribute my lack of problems in part to my pedaling style which is almost exclusively from the hips down with a completely relaxed upper body (except for L7s). If I'm going to have a problem, it's going to be in my quads and, at most, is going to be some cramping if I'm not fit.

Tyson or any one else over 40 I have an aversion to working out on consecutive days at 91% of FTP 2x20 have you had any problems and how many days in a row do you do this?

ThanksI just did 3 consecutive days (tues-wed-thur) of 2x20 @ L4 on the trainer. More 2x20's planned for the weekend. A little bit of residual soreness, but nothing significant. Quickly figuring out that the statement of 'the more you train, the more you can train' is rather true.

More 2x20's planned for the weekend :)

Yes, I'm under 40, but going on 3 months since starting to ride ie....newbie!

I just did 3 consecutive days (tues-wed-thur) of 2x20 @ L4 on the trainer. More 2x20's planned for the weekend. A little bit of residual soreness, but nothing significant. Quickly figuring out that the statement of 'the more you train, the more you can train' is rather true.

More 2x20's planned for the weekend :)

Yes, I'm under 40, but going on 3 months since starting to ride ie....newbie!
I should have said over 40 or a girl but that makes me feel like a wimp so now I have to try this of course.:)

Tyson or any one else over 40 I have an aversion to working out on consecutive days at 91% of FTP 2x20 have you had any problems and how many days in a row do you do this?One more comment about your question. I think one of the reasons I can do repeat days at 91%FTP (or even up to 100%FTP) is because I know my true FTP. I have a suspicion that many people are overestimating their FTP because they are basing their FTP estimate on shorter duration efforts (e.g., 20mins). The difference between 20mins at a given power and 60mins at that same power is the difference between night and day. So, I think that when many people think they are doing 2x20s at 100%FTP they are in reality doing 2x20s at 105-110%FTP. I don't have nearly enough data to make this statement strongly, so I'll just put it out there as my suspicion.

I basically don't ride without doing at least 30-40mins at L4+ because I don't do "recovery" rides (if I want a recovery day, I just don't ride). Every so often I'll go on a group ride where I can't get as much L4+ time as I might prefer, but that's the exception. I ride a minimum of 4x per week and up to 7x per week without problems. Total weekly L4+ time is 3-7 hours. I attribute my lack of problems in part to my pedaling style which is almost exclusively from the hips down with a completely relaxed upper body (except for L7s). If I'm going to have a problem, it's going to be in my quads and, at most, is going to be some cramping if I'm not fit.Considering the author of this post I am not surprised... I think you may be a cycling cyborg.:)

Considering the author of this post I am not surprised... I think you may be a cycling cyborg.:)LOL. I think I like that better than being a mutant (the most recent adjective)? :D

One more comment about your question. I think one of the reasons I can do repeat days at 91%FTP (or even up to 100%FTP) is because I know my true FTP. I have a suspicion that many people are overestimating their FTP because they are basing their FTP estimate on shorter duration efforts (e.g., 20mins). The difference between 20mins at a given power and 60mins at that same power is the difference between night and day. So, I think that when many people think they are doing 2x20s at 100%FTP they are in reality doing 2x20s at 105-110%FTP. I don't have nearly enough data to make this statement strongly, so I'll just put it out there as my suspicion.
My 20 minute TT is 222 so my FTP is 211 right...?

My 20 minute TT is 222 so my FTP is 211 right...?That is one of the 6+ ways to estimate FTP (20MP*0.95), but my FTP tends to be closer to 0.92 or 0.93. AWC and total fitness have a strong influence on 20MP.

My 20 minute TT is 222 so my FTP is 211 right...?FYI:

So, how do you go about determining your threshold power? Obviously, one way is via laboratory testing with invasive blood sampling, but few people have access to such testing on a regular basis. In addition, power at LT as determined in this manner is often significantly below what athletes and coaches tend to think of as a "threshold". A more convenient and possibly more accurate way of determining your functional threshold power is therefore to simply rely on data collected using your power meter in the field. There are a number of different ways of doing so, each of which has its advantages and disadvantages, but all of which provide very similar estimates of threshold power. In order of increasing complexity, these are:

A good estimate of your functional threshold power can often be obtained by simply uploading all of your training data into CyclingPeaks Software, and then examining the power frequency distribution found on your "Athlete Home Page". Because exercising above threshold power is quite strenuous and there is a limit to how long you can do so, there will often be a rather noticeable drop-off above this point in this graph. (This same approach works even better for identifying an individual's spontaneously-achieved maximal heart rate - thus reducing or even eliminating the need for formal testing!) Of course, this method works best if the time period being examined includes some high intensity training and/or racing, which serves to make the distinction between sub-threshold and supra-threshold efforts more distinct. Also, sometimes the drop-off in time spent above threshold power is more apparent when the width of each power "bin" is reduced from the default of 20 W to a smaller value, e.g., 5 or 10 W. CyclingPeaks Software has been specifically designed to allow you to customize graphs, to make such analyses possible.
Another way of estimating your threshold power without performing any formal testing is to simply evaluate the steady power that you can routinely produce in training during longer hard efforts, e.g., intervals or repeats aimed at raising LT, or during longer climbs. In CyclingPeaks Software, perhaps the easiest way of doing this is to add a horizontal grid line to a "stacked" graph of an appropriately-chosen workout (or race), and looking for places where your power is quasi-constant for some minutes at a time. You can then adjust the gridline up or down as needed to hone in on the best estimate of your threshold power.
Perhaps an even more precise way of determining your threshold power, yet one which still doesn't require any formal testing, is to examine your normalized power during hard ~1 hour mass start races. Since CyclingPeaks Software automatically calculates normalized power even if you haven't yet entered a value for your threshold power, using the program to first analyze several race files may be the quickest way to deriving a good estimate of your threshold power.
Since by definition the best measure of performance is performance itself, the most direct estimate of your sustainable (threshold) power will be obtained by simply doing a ~1 hour TT. By examining the horizontal graph of the data from such a TT in CyclingPeaks Software (perhaps with a little smoothing applied), you will be able to quickly tell whether your effort was well-paced, or if perhaps you started out too hard and then later faded, resulting in the average power somewhat underestimating your true threshold power.
Finally, those who are more mathematically inclined may wish to perform formal testing to determine their "critical power" as described in the scientific literature. Briefly, this approach consists of plotting the total work performed (in joules) during a series of relatively short (i.e., between 3 and perhaps 30 min), all-out efforts against their duration (in seconds), then fitting a straight line to the data points. The slope of this line is critical power, which corresponds quite closely with functional threshold power determined using any of the previously-described methods.
This might be useful too:

http://cyclingforums.com/t334108.html

That is one of the 6+ ways to estimate FTP (20MP*0.95), but my FTP tends to be closer to 0.92 or 0.93. AWC and total fitness have a strong influence on 20MP.222*.92= 204.24 FTP is what I should take 91% of making the target 186 watts instead of 192 watts? ...AWC define please.

222*.92= 204.24 FTP is what I should take 91% of making the target 186 bpm instead of 192 bpm? ...AWC define please.I'm not saying your FTP is 92% of your 20MP. I'm saying that my FTP tends to be ~92-93% of my 20MP. AWC is anaerobic work capacity. Anaerobic energy sources influence your max power all the way out to FTP but with decreasing influence the further out you get on the duration axis. I happen to have a high AWC, so I have to be careful about using shorter durations to estimate my FTP because it will tend to overestimate my FTP. OTOH, I think Tyson's power/duration curve is relatively flat and that his 20MP is within a few watts of his FTP. Everybody's max power/duration curve is somewhat different, so using a performance test such as 20min TT power to estimate FTP is a bit risky if a solid estimate is important. For purposes of doing 2x20s, if you can complete the set at 91% of whatever you are using for FTP then it doesn't really matter whether you can ride for a full 60mins at that power. Hope this helps.

Thank you I think.... RD the cycling cyborg and MIT professor.:)

Thank you I think.... RD the cycling cyborg and MIT professor.:)I think you'll find that it's, Harvard professor:p

I do a 2x20 at 192 avg watts and feel like I could do another but resist the temptation is that a good place to be when considering doing 2x20 on 3 consecutive days? Would doing a 3x20 every other day be better?

....or any one else over 40 I have an aversion to working out on consecutive days at 91% of FTP 2x20 have you had any problems and how many days in a row do you do this?

Thanks
Typically I'll do say 2*20/3*20/2*30 Tuesday followed by maybe 4*10/6*10 Wdnesday, an easy day on Thursday then a L3/L4 on Friday.

No problems at all with this schedule :rolleyes: although I'm not quite (but close) as 'senior' as RD and Tyson :eek:

I do a 2x20 at 192 avg watts and feel like I could do another but resist the temptation is that a good place to be when considering doing 2x20 on 3 consecutive days? Would doing a 3x20 every other day be better?That's a good question (2x20 3 days in a row vs. 3x20 with a day off between). I would say try out both routines. You may find that you can't maintain power in the 3rd 20 on one or the other of the 2 days whereas you can maintain power in the 2nd 20 on all three days. Or you may find that by the 3rd day consecutively that you can't maintain your target power. Personally, I would probably opt for the three consecutive days because I enjoy riding every day. But, your body may respond differently.

Thank you I think.... RD the cycling cyborg and MIT professor.:)Nah, those MIT guys are really smart! But, they can't play ice hockey (their slide rules are too short to use for hockey sticks).:D

your body may respond differently.
I'm sure it will.:)

I should have said over 40 or a girl but that makes me feel like a wimp so now I have to try this of course.:)
Well shoot! If girls can chime in then why not us kids (36 y/o)? :confused: :D

Wiredued, IIRC you are using a KK with power computer, rather than a PM. Andy Coggan has developed a great tool to help determine the amount of stress that each workout is placing on the body, and therefore how much recovery is needed. It's called TSS, or Training Stress Score, and it's calculated from the intensity of the workout and the duration. It's discussed in his book and his paper, but basically the body is able to recover from ~100-150 TSS/day on a regular basis. I am attaching a short Excel spreadsheet (change the file extension from .doc to .xls when downloading) that will easily estimate the NP and TSS of an interval workout.

To your question: A 2x20 workout at 91% FTP results in 66 TSS pts (incl. short w/u and c/d). As you can see, that's *way* below what most people are capable of recovering from in 24 hr. 2x20 at 100% FTP is 79 TSS pts - still pretty doable. Even 3x20 at 100% FTP is 116 TSS pts - now we're talking. I know it may seem pretty stressful during the workout, but by the next day you should be capable of going at it again if you wanted. I experimented with it last year and found that as long as I stayed below ~125 TSS that I didn't have any performance limitations the next day. That doesn't mean I necessarily felt 'fresh', but my body was still capable of repeating the workout. I had no trouble with 3x20 @ FTP or 3x30 at .95 FTP on 3 consecutive days last winter. Give it a try and you may find that your limit is 100, 90, or even 80 TSS, but at least you'll have an objective measurement to go by.