Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Road Cycling (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/)
-   -   Favorite Intervals (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/941323-favorite-intervals.html)

gregf83 04-04-14 08:25 PM


Originally Posted by TexMac (Post 16643075)
Let me see. I do (30 sec on 30 sec off, 20 sec on 10 sec off, pyramid intervals, 1 minute intervals, hill standing intervals at 70 rpm, sufferfest intervals) but this one seems to be what I choose if I'm not motivated/ don't feel like pushing myself/ just want to get something easy. I think misunderstanding here is since it's my favorite intervals, its the only interval I do.

Technically, you could call any riding on the bike an interval. 4 hrs riding in Zone 2 is a long easy interval.

The reason you're getting some pushback is most people associate intervals with shorter efforts of higher intensity which stress the system in order to generate an adaptation/improvement. If you were a runner you could call walking to the post office an easy interval but it is unlikely to make you faster.

RoadTire 04-04-14 08:51 PM


Originally Posted by TexMac (Post 16635595)
My favorite is 8 x (3+1). 3 being at 250 watts and 1 being 170 watts


Originally Posted by TexMac (Post 16635789)
Makes no sense?
Why can't you express intervals in terms of watts? Don't people train using power?

Uh, no, not everyone trains using power. I'm still in the dark ages where watts is for light bulbs. Why not train with watt-hours. Seems that would be a better measurement of energy over time. But then that's just me. And I have not idea how to relate 250 watts to anything mechanical, including me.

Zero7 04-04-14 10:25 PM

Carmichael Power Fade Power Intervals. You go out at 100%, and whenever you feel like you're on top of it and get to relax at all - you push harder. Then you do it again. And again. And again... 3x (3x2), with two minutes between intervals, and six minutes between sets.

These suck. And they teach your body to go hard, then recover immediately, then go again and again.

Cheers

caloso 04-04-14 10:48 PM


Originally Posted by Zero7 (Post 16643287)
Carmichael Power Fade Power Intervals. You go out at 100%, and whenever you feel like you're on top of it and get to relax at all - you push harder. Then you do it again. And again. And again... 3x (3x2), with two minutes between intervals, and six minutes between sets.

These suck. And they teach your body to go hard, then recover immediately, then go again and again.

Cheers

100% of what?

clausen 04-05-14 06:22 AM


Originally Posted by TexMac (Post 16643048)
do you always push yourself?

If I am doing intervals, then I will do them at the intensity they are supposed to be done at. Proper intensity is the trick to intervals. If you want to go out and just ride that is fine, but if your going to put the effort into doing intervals you might as well do them properly.

Zero7 04-05-14 06:32 AM


Originally Posted by caloso (Post 16643306)
100% of what?

Oh, looks like they're called "Peak & Fade Power Intervals".

Anyway, they're supposed to be max watts, but these are pretty easy to do without a power meter. You just accelerate as hard as you can, then try to maintain. That's why they suck, because there's no "get to this level and sustain it." Instead it's "if you can go any faster, GO FASTER." Your power (speed) will fall after the first 40 - 60 seconds, but you keep pushing. And keep your cadence over 90.

Here's the actual description from the book, The Time Crunched Athlete: These intervals start with a big acceleration rather than a gradual increase in intensity. I want you to go all-out right from the beginning and keep your power output as high as possible as the interval progresses. Because of the hard acceleration, your power output will gradually fall after the first 40 - 60 seconds of the effort. That's expected and perfectly normal; just keep pushing.

Cheers

simonaway427 04-05-14 06:45 AM


Originally Posted by gregf83 (Post 16643074)
Doesn't seem possible unless your 20min power is over 16% higher than your FTP. That would be very unusual.

135/95 is probably a more realistic ratio of work/rest.

http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/w...s/1392-Wheeler

gregf83 04-05-14 06:53 AM


Originally Posted by simonaway427 (Post 16643642)

Not sure what you posted here but the link doesn't work for me.

simonaway427 04-05-14 07:59 AM

Wheeler - TrainerRoad.com

Just a trainer road profile that explains the interval session that I mentioned....

TexMac 04-05-14 06:27 PM


Originally Posted by RoadTire (Post 16643139)
Uh, no, not everyone trains using power. I'm still in the dark ages where watts is for light bulbs. Why not train with watt-hours. Seems that would be a better measurement of energy over time. But then that's just me. And I have not idea how to relate 250 watts to anything mechanical, including me.

Sorry you have other problems.. :)

znomit 04-05-14 06:37 PM


Originally Posted by Zero7 (Post 16643287)
Carmichael
….
These suck. And they teach your body to go hard, then recover immediately, then go again and again.

These only work with EPO

momo15 04-06-14 01:12 AM

I am all about the bicycling "fat burning" 5 week plan. I Think the goal should always be to push hard a couple days and to ride easy the others.

RoadTire 04-06-14 02:32 AM


Originally Posted by TexMac (Post 16645055)
Sorry you have other problems.. :)

Uh, yeh....heh.

TexMac 04-06-14 05:18 PM


Originally Posted by simonaway427 (Post 16643749)
Wheeler - TrainerRoad.com

Just a trainer road profile that explains the interval session that I mentioned....

is that your personal data?

TexMac 04-06-14 05:20 PM


Originally Posted by Zero7 (Post 16643613)
Oh, looks like they're called "Peak & Fade Power Intervals".

Anyway, they're supposed to be max watts, but these are pretty easy to do without a power meter. You just accelerate as hard as you can, then try to maintain. That's why they suck, because there's no "get to this level and sustain it." Instead it's "if you can go any faster, GO FASTER." Your power (speed) will fall after the first 40 - 60 seconds, but you keep pushing. And keep your cadence over 90.

Here's the actual description from the book, The Time Crunched Athlete: These intervals start with a big acceleration rather than a gradual increase in intensity. I want you to go all-out right from the beginning and keep your power output as high as possible as the interval progresses. Because of the hard acceleration, your power output will gradually fall after the first 40 - 60 seconds of the effort. That's expected and perfectly normal; just keep pushing.

Cheers

I like this kind of interval where your body will decide when to stop and the clock. Will try this next week when I start commuting to work.

ljrichar 04-07-14 12:16 PM


Originally Posted by gregf83 (Post 16643074)
Doesn't seem possible unless your 20min power is over 16% higher than your FTP. That would be very unusual.

135/95 is probably a more realistic ratio of work/rest.

Don't know how you draw that conclusion. My 1' is 200% of ftp so that interval would be taxing but not impossible. You'd need a couple of minutes rest after each one though.

gregf83 04-07-14 01:46 PM


Originally Posted by ljrichar (Post 16649840)
Don't know how you draw that conclusion. My 1' is 200% of ftp so that interval would be taxing but not impossible. You'd need a couple of minutes rest after each one though.

The interval mentioned specified 1'@150% followed by 3'@105%. That's not much recovery and averages out to 116% of FTP which would be impossible for most people to keep up for 20' unless you had 100% fast twitch muscles.

simonaway427 04-07-14 02:32 PM


Originally Posted by TexMac (Post 16647433)
is that your personal data?

Yes... When my ftpwas 301. I'm up to 315 now

TexMac 04-07-14 02:38 PM


Originally Posted by simonaway427 (Post 16650229)
Yes... When my ftpwas 301. I'm up to 315 now

very nice. How long did it take you from 301-315?

simonaway427 04-07-14 02:40 PM


Originally Posted by TexMac (Post 16650249)
very nice. How long did it take you from 301-315?

About 6 weeks with Trainer Road and lots of fat biking.

Drew Eckhardt 04-07-14 03:42 PM


Originally Posted by RoadTire (Post 16643139)
Uh, no, not everyone trains using power. I'm still in the dark ages where watts is for light bulbs. Why not train with watt-hours. Seems that would be a better measurement of energy over time.

Because

1. Research shows that training impact on your body goes up with the square of power output. Except when it comes to boosting power output and fit issues an hour at 100% has similar impact to four hours at 50%.

2. It's easier to compare results and work with generalized training plans when the effort is normalized for the athlete's fitness level.

The most popular training stress tracking schemes are essentially the product of time and the square of the quotient of weighted average power divided by what an athlete should be able to sustain for one hour, scaled so that 100 points = a maximum effort 1 hour time trial.

Ex: with a 235W critical power, if I ride a 1 hour time trial at a steady 230W I get 96 points.


But then that's just me. And I have not idea how to relate 250 watts to anything mechanical, including me.
About 20-24 MPH riding a road bike on flat ground depending on aerodynamics and rolling resistance.

RoadTire 04-07-14 05:00 PM


Originally Posted by Zero7 (Post 16643613)
Here's the actual description from the book, The Time Crunched Athlete:

Hey, I've got that book. Used it 2 seasons ago just to get my fitness level up a little, knowing I have limited time to bike. I'll have to go back at it again, especially now with a HRM and cadence on my bike computer.


Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt (Post 16650383)
Because ....

About 20-24 MPH riding a road bike on flat ground depending on aerodynamics and rolling resistance.

Wow Drew, I didn't see that (the whole 3 points of your post) coming. Actually a good answer, getting me to think a little. Oh and the extra tip of 20-24 mph, thanks! It's a nice reference point.

aaronmcd 04-07-14 05:55 PM


Originally Posted by merlinextraligh (Post 16635807)
Because it doesn't make any sense to anyone else. 250 for one person is going to be an easy endurance pace, for another it's going to be V02 max, and for another an all out 30 second effort.

Also, it has to change for you as your FTP changes, or you won't being hitting your Zones correctly.

If you're going to do 3 minute intervals, you want them at 105%-110% of your V02max power or about 120% of FTP. Saying at 250 watts only makes sense if that is 120% of FTP.

Not if it's on 1' rest. It looks like a threshold workout to me.

aaronmcd 04-07-14 06:17 PM

Ah, I didn't see the 85% comment. Yeah 3' intervals at 85% are fine if you are in base and riding for several hours. Generally intervals are interpreted to be above FTP though.

I just calculated and I do think 85% is hard. But just because it is kinda hard doesn't mean much. 85% for me is 276 watts. My last race I averaged 278 for an hour, with NP almost = FTP. And I planned on doing 2 races that day. 8x3' at 85% kinda adds up to junk miles for training.

ljrichar 04-08-14 07:58 AM


Originally Posted by gregf83 (Post 16650098)
The interval mentioned specified 1'@150% followed by 3'@105%. That's not much recovery and averages out to 116% of FTP which would be impossible for most people to keep up for 20' unless you had 100% fast twitch muscles.

You can't average like that. Like I said, I can do 200% of ftp for only 1' but I can do 100% for an hour. Hell, I can do 400% but for only 5". It doesn't average the way you're thinking.


Originally Posted by aaronmcd (Post 16650793)
8x3' at 85% kinda adds up to junk miles for training.

My point exactly. It's not a real interval.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:21 AM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.