There are lots of 90 / 110… never looked for any others.
I have some custom O/U workouts that are here:
1 Like
I know HR ≠ lactate, but I wonder whether it can be used to inform the session protocol along with RPE. As mentioned above, I’m thinking of making it easier. Probably 3 x ( 5 x (45s @ 120%, 2:15 @ 83%))
or do some interesting stuff, drawing inspiration from the examples here:
And FasCat head coach Frank is working on a new one, posted to Strava last night:
https://www.strava.com/activities/6686876382/overview
So many ways to generate a stimulus.
1 Like
40min intervals at 90% x 2 min with 30 sec jumps to 115%, that sounds painful. I want to try it.
2 Likes
Lots of good info from that link, thank you!
1 Like
I like that protocol you listed - it’s similar to one I use, I just don’t think HR has a place in determining that when power is available. As others mentioned, the response lags too much.
FWIW, my starting point for this workout in late base this season as 3x (4x (:45 @ 5min MMP + 1:45 @ 85%)). Progress # of intervals and/or interval duration for total working time; progress time @ 5min MMP secondarily. You could also add a long interval at the start and reduce the magnitude of the “over”. I’ve been messing around with that some.
1 Like
My coach has had me working on 120% - 130% for around 30s-1min whilst clearing at around 84%-98%ish.
most intervals are done around 4-6mins long, but what I’ve learned is more to go off feel for the unders portion, there should be a feeling of clearing and reduced RPE. variations include how high or long the over goes + standing vs seated on the overs, which changes week to week.
n
3 Likes
Nice. Standing on the overs is a great specificity for mountain biking -well, for me anyway. I’m a masher by nature.
I like these style of workouts. Not as draining as threshold over unders. While still getting some training for lactate clearance. Here’s my go to:
2 Likes
I understand HR lags and isn’t ideal, do you not think it shows how hard you’re working on a macro scale I.e. across the 15-minute ‘set’?
Nice. Yes, the new protocol mentioned above is roughly my 5min power (I did an outdoor 5 min test last week and did 417W, these indoor intervals were 400/280.
I agree. I think the over just needs to be hard enough to induce a good amount of lactate, then the clearing is the most important part. No real need to extend the over unless it becomes too easy.
I think I’m going to try some workouts like this in my build block coming up. Never really liked the 95/105 style as they both felt the same throughout.
Funny note. I created this workout with Workout Creator and it’s classified as VO2 max with AT, like some of the other workouts in here that don’t follow the 95/105 percentages.
1 Like
While I think performing over unders as 110-130% / 80-90% is a better training session, I do think there is a place for 105/95.
The latter is very similar to a 25 mile TT. I plan to do a few over under sessions with 105/95 the weeks leading up to a 25m TT I am aiming to peak for in May. I’ll do them outdoors on the TT bike and in position to make it as specific as possible and really dial in pacing, setup, etc.
During the workout my Garmin uses machines learning (ML) on the heart rate, heart rate variability, and power data to translate into EPOC values. These EPOC values are then used to assign aerobic and anaerobic training impact scores.
Those aerobic/anaerobic impact scores are then used to classify the workout, for example as a tempo workout that will enhance your muscular endurance and ability to maintain a moderate pace for a long time.
After the workout these significantly under/overs are labeled as Threshold workouts, and the HighNorth article has these workouts in the Improving Your Threshold post.
More info on Garmin labeling of workouts:
I’ve found the training impact and workout labels to align well with the underlying intent of (most) workouts.
I just don’t trust it day-to-day because so many things can change it and it carries even less value for non-steady state efforts like these. For these sets, I would much prefer power to HR - if I’m hitting the power numbers and feeling the burn/clear/burn/clear, then I know I’m getting it right. For VO2max sets, I think HR carries a little bit more weight, but even then I’m more concerned with breathing rate/sensation. Long endurance rides are where I watch HR more in real time.
1 Like
Solid logic. I think you’re right — RPE on the burn/clear/burn and power numbers combined will give you the information you need. 
1 Like