Thursday, February 4, 2010

Field Test

Yesterday I was planning to do some running intervals, unfortunately work meant I couldn't get out at lunchtime (same today, boo). I decided to have a go at Field Test to try to determine how hard I should be working when I drag myself onto the trainer. I'm not convinced I haven't been slacking.

A colleague suggested the CTS Field Test as a starter for 10, a reasonable way to determine "lactate threshold" apparently. I programmed it into the Garmin so I didn't have to think:

1. Warm up: 10 minutes easy pedalling
2. Power Interval: 1 minute hard
3. Recovery: 1 minute easy
4. Power Interval: 1 minute hard
5. Recovery: 4 minutes easy
6. Field Test Effort: 8 minutes eyeballs out, maintain around 90-95 rpm
7. Recovery: 10 minutes easy
8. Field Test Effort: 8 minutes eyeballs out, maintain around 90-95 rpm
9. Recovery: Keel Over! 10 minutes easy

Got kit on, towel, drink, Shuffle on the brake cables and off I went. I forgot to open the patio door for some air which was a bit of mistake. First 8 minute field test effort was very, very hard, sweating absolute cobs, ugh. In the recover section I spun for about 2 minutes then had to quickly nip off and open the patio door befor my head boiled. I felt well recovered after the 10 minutes, the worst part being I had 10 minutes to think about the fact I was going to have to do another 8 minutes.

The second one felt better at the start but the last two minutes I was giving it all I could to maintain the rpm without changing resistance and there was an absolute fountain of sweat dripping off my chin - must get a big fan! Geeky HR graph:




Stats from the two efforts look pretty similar to me:

Ist Effort:


Dist: 2.49, Av Speed: 18.7, Av HR: 173, Max HR: 180, Cadence: 92

2nd Effort:


Dist: 2.5, Av Speed: 18.7, Av HR: 175, Max HR: 181 Cadence 91

It did feel very hard and I couldn't help wondering if I was shooting myself in the foot a bit by going all out but I suppose the test would have been a bit pointless otherwise. I also think I would have gone faster if I was working that hard on the road. Need to do some more research on what it means but at least I have some idea of how hard I need to work on the turbo - I certainly won't be applying it to MTBing. I'm guessing I should be aiming for a greater distance/higher average speed as a sign of progression?

Interestingly I don't think its that far away from what I would try to achieve whilst running, running is supposed to be higher. My last two running XC races were at an average of 171, which I found just bearable.


Loading it into Garmin training centre I was most amused at my apparent "route":








2 comments:

  1. i love that route!!! hahahaha! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Woo hoo, nice chart. An excellent shape me thinks. Keep it up! RB.

    ReplyDelete