Physiology of hard supra-threshold intervals

Same idea applies to running, as well.

Of course, from a running perspective, I don't agree with the concept most people have about intervals to begin with.

HR training for repeats and intervals in general is worthless, not just on the bike.  Your "catch up" from when the effort starts to when your heart is actually beating the volume it needs to keep up is anywhere from 30 - 90 seconds or so.  So if you are doing 2 minute repeats, your HR will not catch up with your perceived effort until you are almost done.

That is why for VO2 max. intervals (Daniels "I" pace) should last around 5 minutes.  It allows your HR to "catch up" and sustain at the level you are trying to enhance.

 Do you think this goes for stuff like fartlek training too?  Should the fast intervals in fartleks be 5 minutes?

I don't think you should worry one bit about HR during a fartlek.  You're more interested in different intensities, which you should be able feel before your HR catches up.

If anything, using a HRM during a fartlek kinda goes against the idea, as the HRM implies structure, and a fartlek is unstructured.

Depends on what your definition of "Fartleks" is.

To me they are not at all "structured" and as such are totally run by feel.

Edit: scout is just one post ahead of me for all the answers today ..... show off!

Fred - I knew once you would start training with power you will finally begin to believe me when I say trainig with power (or pace) can help you make your training more efficient!

HR can be helpful if we understand it limitations (i.e. intervals, or affected by other variables) but IMO pace and power + RPE are far superior tools than can help you reduce your learning curve and accelarte your fitness gains.

It's easier when I don't have to worry about fancy shmancy sciencey terms.

JorgeM - 2009-01-14 11:52 AM

Scout7 - 2009-01-14 10:51 AM It's easier when I don't have to worry about fancy shmancy sciencey terms.

you are missing some of the fun!

pffffftttt...

Keep it up, you'll be on the list next to Fred.

See, that's what you get for being a doctor ... all that science crap gets in the way.

Now as an architect I am more appreciative of the art and beauty of it all, as well as the reason behind how it works.  Balance and all that.

Nice workout Fred!

Isn't fun to see how power, rpm, HR all interact.

Have you invested in cycling peaks now called training peaks yet? More geeky graphs to play with...you can import your Garmin data and so similar graphs for run pacing too.

bryancd - 2009-01-14 3:04 PM

Daremo - 2009-01-14 10:51 AM I think we are slowly winning him over Jorge, just give it time ......... after two years of beating it into his head that is.  Now we just have to work on Bryan.

I'm just too cheap to buy a power meter...

RPE is totally free.

I once read...maybe on BT that HR tells you how hard you are working much like how an odometer tells you fast your car is going. 

You can derive the answer - but it isn't a one-to-one relationship. This graph is excellent demonstration. 

Mind you it also shows that this has all become far too technical. I just want to ride barefoot in the sand...errr, you know what I mean.

Scout7 - 2009-01-14 3:10 PM

bryancd - 2009-01-14 3:04 PM

Daremo - 2009-01-14 10:51 AM I think we are slowly winning him over Jorge, just give it time ......... after two years of beating it into his head that is.  Now we just have to work on Bryan.

I'm just too cheap to buy a power meter...

RPE is totally free.

But how will Bryan use RPE for his MAF test? 

I might not be reading the graph right, but it looks to me like the cadence begins dropping before the interval is over; or at least, the power still shows 300  while the cadence is falling.  That's not a criticism, mind you, I seem to have the same issue, or one similar.

I wondering:

1.  What is the relationship between power and cadence based on the above graph?  I.e., is it possible to stay at 300 watts while the cadence dips?

2.  How to correct that?  I'd guess the answer to correcting is to train more/harder/more efficiently, but I'm curious to hear how others attack it.

I'm also too cheap to buy a power meter, and have been slowly converting myself over to RPE based on the advice of a triathlete coach, who's teaching spinning classes this year.  It's a little tough to see here:  http://connect.garmin.com/activity/1798481 , but if you switch back and forth you can see where I struggled to maintain cadence during the "harder" intervals.  We were doing a couple sets of Over/Under intervals:  4 min zone 3, 30 sec zone 5, repeat 2 more times, 3 min recovery, do it all over again.  Ideally, we're supposed to keep our cadence the same in the zone 5 intervals as the zone 3, but I wasn't managing it.

Ride more, train more, HTFU?  Or is there some method to getting there faster w/out spending money on a Powertap?

Or how far you've GONE ........

My speedometer tells me how fast I'm going.

Ride lots, ride varied terrain.  Train like a cyclist, not like a triathlete.  i.e. Worry less about numbers and more about getting out there every day and cranking the miles.