Which will be better:
A) Training one type of interval (e.g. 8 * 3m @ 120% FTP) 2-3 weeks and then another type of interval.
B) Every day a different interval 90%, 105%, 120%, 150% FTP and over and over again.
The type of interval depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
That said, you do not need a fancy plan with all kinds of different workouts and intervals to get stronger/better. Some people can do the same three or four workouts week in and week out without getting bored. Some people need different workouts or they get bored and lose motivation. Either way, gains can be made.
2 Likes
I don’t know which is “better” but I like to do similar stuff for a few weeks to see progression. Those kind of intervals are nasty and its motivating to see the power going up or the duration going out.
3 Likes
Guys on the TrainerRoad podcast frequently talk about the “energy systems”. Different kinds of efforts are handled by different mechanisms in the body – surely you know about aerobic/anaerobic efforts. This is also why we have so many training zones.
When an energy system is neglected for long, detraining happens – and the higher the intensity, the faster. If I remember correctly, they recommend to “touch” the highest power system at least every 10 days or so if you care about sprints. “Touching” does not necessarily mean an all-out workout – the volume can be lower (a few reps), but the body needs to feel that the adaptations are still useful.
So I would plan intervals in all zones. Reps can be managed by exhaustion – pick a specific number in the zone and do the intervals until you can no longer hold it. Number of weeks for specific intervals depend on your goals.
2 Likes
I can attest to that high power de-training effect to be true. As I do not do any kind of serious sprints indoors, my peak power has dropped. A lot. In that respect, training on Zwift was better, because I would always go all out for the green jersey, even if I could only hold it for like a minute before someone was faster again.
1 Like
Your type A) training is basically block periodization, and type B) is traditional periodization. There’s a lot of debate amongst physiologists about which is better, if any. Type A) has shown better results over the short term in some studies, but it’s not clear if it’s better over a longer period and in any case a lot of the studies have small sample sizes and other methodological limitations.
I’d suggest trying both out and monitoring what happens. If you prefer one over the other, that might be as good a reason as any for going with it. For what it’s worth, I’ve had best results when I mix things up and don’t train too hard too often (the polarized approach: 2-3 hard sessions per week, the rest easy), although if I feel I’m falling behind in one domain I might focus more on that for 2-3 weeks to get back up to speed.
1 Like