I’ve long thought as well as allowing FTP/VO2/An/NM to be set the No-Vids should allow personalisation of both interval and recovery durations. Obviously the video workouts could be odd, although I usually watch YouTube on 150% speed so maybe it is possible. They keep the pitch the same but vary the speed so it’s mostly okay. Very fast speakers 125%. Very slow 200%.
I know personally I am way better at 45 seconds than 60: something happens in those last 10 that always kills me. 30s would be too long a recovery for VO2 in me but obviously some people here do not find that.
Conversely my 30s max is not that different than 7s so I’d prefer sprints to go on longer or have less recovery between them. I’m just no good at sprinting. I just can’t peak in 7s.
Essentially we all seem to vary in how long we can do and how long it takes to recover. I’d like to be able to set this without creating my own workouts.
Aswell as the 4DP settings I’d like to be able to set durations for the 4 zones and recovery durations for heart/lungs and legs. No idea how you’d test for them though. Maybe just let us dabble.
I hate 30/30 and 1m/1m. I prefer 30sec work/90sec recovery. Maybe because I getting older (tho not yet THAT old). I’m sure I’m not getting the full benefit, but it allows me to spend more time at my actual MAP value overall, get more volume in, and still train hard the next day.
Conversely I defer to the sports scientists for the structure and intensity of the provided workouts, but i’d always appreciate some more variations.
For anything else, there’s other platforms I can create custom workouts for with the adjustments you were mentioning (if they don’t already have them), or just do it freestyle, but for targeted training I don’t want to use my own limited guesswork too much.
… and like it, looking to better get a feel for a full workout with short equal work/rest and how that goes with fatigue. I know how I feel in Revolver and Half Is Easy, interested to see what a SUF coach planned workout in between looks like (although I could just interpolate and see how it goes, but that’s not quite the question for me).
Andy Coggan came up with the 5 second, 1 minute, 5 minute, and FTP in his book with Hunter Allen. Andy feels that Wahoo “plagiarized “ this from him. There is a table in their book about this and they do characterize riders into types based on these metrics.
Look at WKO5. There are others that use metrics close to what Sir Neal Henderson devised. It’s hard to find others who aren’t on some sort of four tier evaluation. The times may vary though.
Nope. 4 is a Wahoo thing. It makes no sense given the physiology. The standard is for a complex time power curve and has been for decades. Name a single ‘other realm” which uses those 4 zones?
Cohan is not well respected, 3 is not the same as 4 and in any case he only simplified a complex relationship between power and time for the purpose of writing books. Try reference a piece of science published by him that says there are only 3 zones? If even Coggan doesn’t say it when not massively oversimplifying it then who would?
Wahoo got the thing from The Sufferfest and that was from Sir Neal who doesn’t work for wahoo anymore. But besides the point it’s not just 4 things.
Yes it’s 4 power metrics, but those 4 metrics are used in workouts in conjunction with LTHR and those workouts are intended to be used in training plans that give consideration to things like purpose (event, type of event, general fitness etc).
While each workout may have a focus on a variety of each of the 4 power metrics, TIME spent focusing on those metrics varies according to the purpose of the plan. And further, the precise adjustment to each metric in relation to time (overall time as well as interval time) and then in turn in relation to purpose is the sport science behind it.
But I’m really not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying we shouldn’t be using SYSTM training plans? Are you saying there’s a better way to train? Are you saying that there are better programs out there to help folks like us achieve our cycling (mostly) related goals?
I’m not a sport scientist. I’m not a scientist at all. I’m not even sure I’d call myself an athlete for that matter. What I do know, and I realize this is anecdotal, is that The Sufferfest and then SYSTM has helped me achieve sport related goals I never would have even thought possible before I discovered it. Not only that, they made it “fun” and affordable.
@Glen.Coutts I think @Eerke is saying that other platforms just go off a percentage of FTP whereas SYSTM sets each metric individually.
Coogan did discuss differences in MAP as a percentage of FTP among athletes but frankly he said a lot of stuff and his perspectives changed over time.
Henderson perfected the testing of those differences. He specifically talked about observing Tyler Phinney perform MAP work versus other athletes in one of the podcasts.
I don’t think so, Sir. I’m taking it that @Eerke is being much more critical of the whole 4DP thing saying it makes no sense physiologically and seems to be suggesting there’s something better (using a power/time curve) but that is, in my estimation exactly what the SYSTM (SUF and NoVid) workouts do. They use the 4 metrics and vary the time/power spent as a percentage of each over the varying length of intervals, number of intervals, and frequency over the course of a training block. But I dunno, I will await a response (sorry @Eerke, I’m not sure whether to address you as Sir or Dame).
No, I suggested allowing no-vids to allow adjustment of interval duration and break duration and a user of SYSTM/4DP objected on the basis that it wasn’t following the science, so my point was that it already wasn’t the science to only have four levels of fixed durations.
This has nothing to do with whether I criticise 4DP. There is an element of science with an element of coaching, an element of feasibility in the real world, an element of marketing and an element of guesswork. The 4DP they use is not ‘the science’ and is not sacrosanct. It can be adjusted without being anti-science.
If anything the science suggests there is more complexity than SYSTM/4DP so their objection made no sense at all.
It doesn’t even make any sense from a hypothetical perspective because there are more than 4 energy sources to muscle fibres.
Adenosine Tri-Phosphate (ATP) already in the myocyte.
ATP generated by oxygen from myoglobin and glucose already in the mycocyte
anaerobically generated ATP from glucose from local glycogen
anaerobically generated ATP from glucose from distant Glycogen.
anaerobically generated ATP from circulatory Free Fatty Acids (FFA) once glycogen is depleted
aerobically generated ATP from local glucose
aerobically generated ATP from circulatory glucose
Aerobically Generated ATP from circulatory FFA
Aerobically Generated ATP from circulatory ketones
Aerobically Generated ATP from local protein breakdown
Aerobically generated ATP from systemic protein breakdown
And that’s just the potential energy sources that come immediately to mind. There will be more that I have forgotten and I have already thought of more.
The point is that having only 4 levels is not science backed and even theoretically it makes no sense so my suggestion of adding a little complexity to the current 4DP system is not heretical or anti-science.
But these “levels” aren’t of fixed duration. The duration of the intervals varies based on the intention of the particular workout.
Allowing users to adjust interval length and recovery length is essentially allowing for custom workouts (which I’m perfectly fine with if they were to provide this feature) but, having no background in coaching/sport science/any science (and I imagine MANY users are just like me) I’m just gonna continue to rely on the workouts and plans as designed off the shelf and follow the guidance provided on what to do when struggling, or crushing it.
I’m also not sure it’s fair to say the use of 4DP isn’t science backed or that it doesn’t make sense since it was created by a sport scientist/coach with a pretty decent track record. I’m not arguing that there are other factors that come into play for energy production, but the ones that can be readily measured in an “inexpensive” readily available manner are watts and heart rate.
When I referred to WKO5 I was referring to the TTE graph which has Max power generated at specific time intervals. That graph was developed by Hunter, Coggan, and many others. It’s based on over 20 years of observation of high performance athletes and testing. They then sat down and figured out which set of power numbers matched which riding profile. Neal Henderson as a long term Cycling Coach took that information and developed training programs to do two things: Keep strength and develop weaknesses.
As to why we can make changes that’s coming. However it’s way down the development list from what I understand.
… and like it, looking to better get a feel for a full workout with short equal work/rest and how that goes with fatigue. I know how I feel in Revolver and Half Is Easy, interested to see what a SUF coach planned workout in between looks like (although I could just interpolate and see how it goes, but that’s not quite the question for me).