Steady state pacing

[nick rockliff]

This is most definitely faster type training. In fact, I'm wondering how someone can do that. A maybe slower row at some point does not change that.

That to me looks like 4 hard interval sessions per week. Which in my book can only mean that he must be tiring himself too much to be really pushing himself to the max on those interval sessions. It would be mentally impossible for me never mind physically.

Yes, assuming the intervals are being being done at TR/AN, that's a lot of work - too rich for my blood. Some people do AT, or even UT1, in an interval format - I don't know if that's the case here?

For me the 1500 a 2000 intervals would be AT sessions.

[hikeplusrow]

That to me looks like 4 hard interval sessions per week. Which in my book can only mean that he must be tiring himself too much to be really pushing himself to the max on those interval sessions. It would be mentally impossible for me never mind physically.

Yes, assuming the intervals are being being done at TR/AN, that's a lot of work - too rich for my blood. Some people do AT, or even UT1, in an interval format - I don't know if that's the case here?

For me the 1500 a 2000 intervals would be AT sessions.

I find it quite interesting that many people (perhaps most) do AT work in the form of intervals when such work could be accomplished as a continuous piece. So if you train to watts (as I do), what would be qualitatively superior - 30 minutes at AT wattage or 3 x 10 minutes at AT wattage? I would say the former. What (no pun intended) would be the advantage of doing this work as intervals? Genuinely interested in an answer to this question.

[nick rockliff]

Yes, assuming the intervals are being being done at TR/AN, that's a lot of work - too rich for my blood. Some people do AT, or even UT1, in an interval format - I don't know if that's the case here?

For me the 1500 a 2000 intervals would be AT sessions.

I find it quite interesting that many people (perhaps most) do AT work in the form of intervals when such work could be accomplished as a continuous piece. So if you train to watts (as I do), what would be qualitatively superior - 30 minutes at AT wattage or 3 x 10 minutes at AT wattage? I would say the former. What (no pun intended) would be the advantage of doing this work as intervals? Genuinely interested in an answer to this question.

For me, an AT session requires the HR to be at AT HR throughout the session. Hard to do that on a single piece without continually slowing down.

I would also do UT1 sessions as intervals like 4 x 3k or 3 x 4k, you have a much broader HR range for these.

I never use Watts for anything at all.

[Cyclingman1]

what would be qualitatively superior - 30 minutes at AT wattage or 3 x 10 minutes at AT wattage?

You're getting into the noise now. I have an idea, do continuous one time and intervals the next. Perhaps adjust speed accordingly. For me, anything 5K and beyond total is done straight thru. In fact, I seldom go beyond 750m for an interval length.

[Elizabeth]

Yes, assuming the intervals are being being done at TR/AN, that's a lot of work - too rich for my blood. Some people do AT, or even UT1, in an interval format - I don't know if that's the case here?

For me the 1500 a 2000 intervals would be AT sessions.

I find it quite interesting that many people (perhaps most) do AT work in the form of intervals when such work could be accomplished as a continuous piece. So if you train to watts (as I do), what would be qualitatively superior - 30 minutes at AT wattage or 3 x 10 minutes at AT wattage? I would say the former. What (no pun intended) would be the advantage of doing this work as intervals? Genuinely interested in an answer to this question.

All of these are more ranges than one specific wattage/pace, right? I don't train with this zone model.

Over the summer, I did a 30r20 to set a baseline, and then some weeks with interval work like 3x10' r20 and 6x5' r20. The intervals allow you to push the pace slightly more since there is some built-in recovery, and then returning to a 30r20 you can tell yourself "these time goals are achievable since I've done the same accumulated work 2 splits faster".

[hikeplusrow]

For me the 1500 a 2000 intervals would be AT sessions.

I find it quite interesting that many people (perhaps most) do AT work in the form of intervals when such work could be accomplished as a continuous piece. So if you train to watts (as I do), what would be qualitatively superior - 30 minutes at AT wattage or 3 x 10 minutes at AT wattage? I would say the former. What (no pun intended) would be the advantage of doing this work as intervals? Genuinely interested in an answer to this question.

All of these are more ranges than one specific wattage/pace, right? I don't train with this zone model.

Over the summer, I did a 30r20 to set a baseline, and then some weeks with interval work like 3x10' r20 and 6x5' r20. The intervals allow you to push the pace slightly more since there is some built-in recovery, and then returning to a 30r20 you can tell yourself "these time goals are achievable since I've done the same accumulated work 2 splits faster".

Thing is, if you're training using watts, 1 x 30 @ 200 watts is exactly the same as 3 x 10 @ 200 watts in terms of energy expenditure, but doing 30 minutes straight would produce a more robust, resilient athlete, would it not? 30 minutes straight is simply harder. What's harder, running 26 miles straight at 6 minute miles or running 26 x 1 mile at the same pace? (It's the former).

[jackarabit]

Wow, if the guy IS a chronic anaerobe, maybe he does need some R&R? Where exactly is the evidence for that? I don’t know what screed the OP is following. He could be doing PP schedule on %HRR zone ceiling, % of current 2k power, relativistic Marston pacing hints combined with rpe and phase of the moon.

[Dangerscouse]

Thing is, if you're training using watts, 1 x 30 @ 200 watts is exactly the same as 3 x 10 @ 200 watts in terms of energy expenditure, but doing 30 minutes straight would produce a more robust, resilient athlete, would it not? 30 minutes straight is simply harder. What's harder, running 26 miles straight at 6 minute miles or running 26 x 1 mile at the same pace? (It's the former).

Agreed, and I might have misunderstood what you're referring to, but what Elizabeth is saying is that the watts / pace are considered differently in this scenario. For example, 1 x 30 @ 200 watts may be really tough, but 3 x 10 @ 210, or 215* watts might be a comparable toughness. (* I'm guessing at the watts as I've got no idea of what pace that equates to). In this instance I'd say that the intervals are going to create a more robust athlete, albeit there's no guarantees as they still need to perform and progress.

Ime, I do intervals at a specific pace for all but the last interval, which is much as I can do, so there's a definite progression to it, which is exactly the premise of the Pete Plan. So, using the same example for ease, it would be 2 x 200 watts and 1 x 215 watts, but I do enjoy a single distance / time, unless I'm doing another personal recent favourite 30r20 1r / 20r25 2r / 10r30.

I certainly only use intervals for this type of effort and I then use grey zone training for the more constant type of efforts, but I also know that other people like to do intervals for other prosaic reasons e.g. stretch, have a drink, injury reduction from getting bad form due to tiredness etc.

I think what Elizabeth alludes to is also worthy of noting. The psychological response from doing intervals harder than you'll do a single piece. This is very valuable and has dragged me through some rough moments.

[nick rockliff]

Yes, assuming the intervals are being being done at TR/AN, that's a lot of work - too rich for my blood. Some people do AT, or even UT1, in an interval format - I don't know if that's the case here?

For me the 1500 a 2000 intervals would be AT sessions.

I find it quite interesting that many people (perhaps most) do AT work in the form of intervals when such work could be accomplished as a continuous piece. So if you train to watts (as I do), what would be qualitatively superior - 30 minutes at AT wattage or 3 x 10 minutes at AT wattage? I would say the former. What (no pun intended) would be the advantage of doing this work as intervals? Genuinely interested in an answer to this question.

AT isn't a pace though so you're not doing AT work you're doing a session which you call AT at a pace you have invented to suit how you train. Like I've always said, run with what you think works for you and see where it takes you.

[Elizabeth]

Thing is, if you're training using watts, 1 x 30 @ 200 watts is exactly the same as 3 x 10 @ 200 watts in terms of energy expenditure, but doing 30 minutes straight would produce a more robust, resilient athlete, would it not? 30 minutes straight is simply harder. What's harder, running 26 miles straight at 6 minute miles or running 26 x 1 mile at the same pace? (It's the former).

Agreed, and I might have misunderstood what you're referring to, but what Elizabeth is saying is that the watts / pace are considered differently in this scenario. For example, 1 x 30 @ 200 watts may be really tough, but 3 x 10 @ 210, or 215* watts might be a comparable toughness. (* I'm guessing at the watts as I've got no idea of what pace that equates to). In this instance I'd say that the intervals are going to create a more robust athlete, albeit there's no guarantees as they still need to perform and progress.

This, exactly.
Saturday #1, 30r20 @ 243 watts
Saturday #2, 3x10r20 @ 260 watts
Saturday #3, 6x5r20 @ 268 watts
Saturday #4, 30r20 @ 254 watts
Similar RPE across sessions, and the approach helped me to progress.

And getting back to the initial question, my steady state was easy during these weeks. Some of it could even be classified as UT3 if people are into those zones.

[hikeplusrow]

Thing is, if you're training using watts, 1 x 30 @ 200 watts is exactly the same as 3 x 10 @ 200 watts in terms of energy expenditure, but doing 30 minutes straight would produce a more robust, resilient athlete, would it not? 30 minutes straight is simply harder. What's harder, running 26 miles straight at 6 minute miles or running 26 x 1 mile at the same pace? (It's the former).

Agreed, and I might have misunderstood what you're referring to, but what Elizabeth is saying is that the watts / pace are considered differently in this scenario. For example, 1 x 30 @ 200 watts may be really tough, but 3 x 10 @ 210, or 215* watts might be a comparable toughness. (* I'm guessing at the watts as I've got no idea of what pace that equates to). In this instance I'd say that the intervals are going to create a more robust athlete, albeit there's no guarantees as they still need to perform and progress.

This, exactly.
Saturday #1, 30r20 @ 243 watts
Saturday #2, 3x10r20 @ 260 watts
Saturday #3, 6x5r20 @ 268 watts
Saturday #4, 30r20 @ 254 watts
Similar RPE across sessions, and the approach helped me to progress.

And getting back to the initial question, my steady state was easy during these weeks. Some of it could even be classified as UT3 if people are into those zones.

I get this now, and me likey.

[hikeplusrow]

For me the 1500 a 2000 intervals would be AT sessions.

I find it quite interesting that many people (perhaps most) do AT work in the form of intervals when such work could be accomplished as a continuous piece. So if you train to watts (as I do), what would be qualitatively superior - 30 minutes at AT wattage or 3 x 10 minutes at AT wattage? I would say the former. What (no pun intended) would be the advantage of doing this work as intervals? Genuinely interested in an answer to this question.

AT isn't a pace though so you're not doing AT work you're doing a session which you call AT at a pace you have invented to suit how you train. Like I've always said, run with what you think works for you and see where it takes you.

AT IS a pace if you train using watts - 80% of your last 2k test watts. This gives me an AT of 148 watts. Now, given that AT is your best average power over 60 mins, this is right on the money as my best 60 mins score is 149 watts. An illustration using my own modest erging palmares!

[deadlifting265]

26/1/24(Fri)

10x1min(1) Restricted to R26

10mins-3138m-R26-1.35.6-401w

smith machine shoulder press-5x5

wide push-ups-3x25

[Dangerscouse]

I get this now, and me likey.

There's lots of ways to attack it, but I do really think that the mental side of it is very important.

Confidence is all you have left sometimes, and it can be all you need to keep you going through the doubts and then on to the second wave

[hikeplusrow]

I get this now, and me likey.

There's lots of ways to attack it, but I do really think that the mental side of it is very important.

Confidence is all you have left sometimes, and it can be all you need to keep you going through the doubts and then on to the second wave

I'm from a running background, and it had always puzzled me why elite marathoners did race pace training as intervals rather than continuous runs. The answer is that it's simply the initial part of a progression - both physical and, critically, psychological - the 'confidence' you talk about. So they may start with mile repeats at race pace, but they end up doing a HM at race pace - gradually transitioning, as the weeks go by, from intervals to continuous work.