Page 2 - Very high intensity intervals raises FTP ???

10-10.-2007, 03:40 PM

#16

Roadie_scum

Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 1,286

Re: Very high intensity intervals raises FTP ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmur17

see http://www.cyclingforums.com/t424958.htmlthat article is pretty old isn't it?

My comment is that it's hard for the individual w/o access to a Vo2max test to carry out those intervals. They're highly prescriptive and based on power results from a specific Vo2max ramp test. IOW, not practical for the average cyclist.

I think if you have a power meter you can target a power around VO2 fairly easily, and the physiological benefit is not going to be so narrow that you have to be on 1.75 X VO2 exactly. If you take 5-6 minute power to be a proxy for VO2, or 7-8 minute if you have absurd AWC, then do 1.75 X that, I think you are gonna do pretty well. Only problem is, plenty of people can't do anywhere near this for 12 X 30s reps, 4.5 minute recovery.

10-10.-2007, 04:18 PM

#17

sidewind

Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2005

Posts: 138

Re: Very high intensity intervals raises FTP ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadie_scum

Maybe a more generic question which can't be answered according to the study referred here, but how strict are the benefits related with the 30 s durations and 4.5 min recovery times? I mean, weather riders a doing long "base" rides at low intensity, they'd probably ride at least some of the hills with conciderably higher power, which might be even close to the 170 % of VO2max for 20-30 seconds. So would the claimed benefits from long slow rides be just due the occasional uphill efforts instead of the endless grinding?

__________________
These are layman's opinions, expressed in language no self-respecting scientist woul be using.

10-10.-2007, 06:03 PM	#18
ric_stern/RST Community Team Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newport, South Wales Posts: 3,830	Re: Very high intensity intervals raises FTP ??? i'm not certain that i can manage 170% of the minimum power required to elicit VO2max for a single 30-secs. ric __________________ http://www.cyclecoach.com

11-10.-2007, 07:40 AM	#19
dkrenik Registered User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 230	Re: Very high intensity intervals raises FTP ??? This looks to be the Tmax intervals discussed here: http://www.cyclingforums.com/t424958.html Seems to me that any sort of well structured interval work will aid in development of FTP, pVO2, brighter teeth, and halitosis... It's when one wants to target a specific area for development (power at 5 sec, 5 min, 1 hour, etc.) that one particularly structured interval workout will yield greater results over another. My 0.02, Dave

13-10.-2007, 02:44 PM	#20
11ring Registered User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 334	Re: Very high intensity intervals raises FTP ??? In addition to, sure. There's no contradiction to conventional wisdom there. However, if you read your quoted article carefully (para 3) you'll notice that the supra-maximal intensities did not result in greater or faster increases than the less painful sub-maximal work. Better yet, read the referenced study. There's a link in post #3 of this thread http://www.cyclingforums.com/t298451.html which discusses a similar question to the one you raise here.[/QUOTE] Well i have never before seen 30 second intervals promoted as a possible mechanism to improve FTP power. What would be the mechanism for this improvement, all the expected adaptions, such as lactate tolerance and AWC, and maybey even NMP would not be responsible for appreciable changes to FTP. The only thing i can thin of is that recovery is incomplete and these are really a sort of vo2 max interval.

13-10.-2007, 04:12 PM

#21

frenchyge

Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2005

Location: Kansas City, USA

Posts: 3,616

Re: Very high intensity intervals raises FTP ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by 11ring

Well i have never before seen 30 second intervals promoted as a possible mechanism to improve FTP power.

It's the 'promotion' of those intervals that's the fallacy. Did you read the study? The 30s interval routine did produce improvement over the control group, but was the *worst* performing routine of the 3 methods tested in every tested category (TT40, PPO, and VO2peak). Is it really surprising that the 30s intervals produced an improvement over the control group which was "...asked to maintain their regular base-training program (low intensity in nature)?" (emphasis mine)

Let me clarify what I said previously, in response to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 11ring

This suggests that to maximise FTP we should be doing L5 and L6 work instead of or in addition to L4. This is in contradiction to widely accepted training concepts.

Adding L5 work will directly improve FTP by improving aerobic capacity. There's no contradiction there as can be seen by the large degree of overlapping benefit between L4 and L5 listed on page 20 of Andy Coggan's paper here. L6 work will have less direct benefit to FTP (see less overlap on the chart), but AC does contribute 1-3% of one's power over 60 minutes so again, I don't see that *adding* some L6 work to L4 contradicts good sense when it comes to maximizing one's FTP.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode