I have done 0.86IF for 4.5 hours during an event. Maybe there’s something in the regular long ride…
I’ve read this whole thread and now I’m just confused. What I’m reading seems to indicate that it MAY not be possible to do a 60-90 min “Endurance” ride at a high enough IF to induce adaptation without impacting interval work.
I mostly ride on the trainer because of weather here in the Midwest (almost always too hot or too cold). And I did James last night (the workout, not the person, although I suspect the person would have been infinitely more fun), but I was going crazy. Looking up and seeing an interval timer of 80 minutes counting down more slowly than waiting for Christmas just about broke me. Workout wasn’t hard but I couldn’t hardly stand the monotony.
So, if I up the IF, it sounds like I’ll be creeping out of my Z2 and more into Sweet Spot. And that conflicts with what Steven Seiler recommends for polarization. But does that recommendation even matter when you’re only on the bike for 6-8 hours a week?
2 Likes
I don’t know how you reached this conclusion, but it’s wrong.
2 Likes
I don’t believe that is true at all. Just look at the classic Hickson training program, for example (or the variation I used in the studies below):
2 Likes
I’ve done that many a time, w/o riding more than 2 h at a time otherwise. Even stole a couple of state RR championships training that way…
3 Likes
[quote=“RecoveryRide, post:162, topic:89127, full:true”].
Experientally, that disparity widens as you push either distance or intensity; to me, long rides create, primarily, more benefits for long rides, while harder work makes you better, mainly, at harder work. That may have a substantial psychological component, too.
[/quote]
Totally agree. I may get the same “benefit” comparing training stress from a 60 min tempo vs. a 3 hour ride at lower intensity… but the fatigue built in a long run or ride “feels” different.
I’ve done workouts so hard I could barely make it through the cool down. I was tired and sore. But after my weekly long run (2:00-2:45 hilly trails) I wasn’t dead but would come home and need a nap. For lack of a better description, it was a different fatigue.
2 Likes
so for that study → something between 90minutes at .8if to 45 minutes at 1.2if * 6d a week for 12 weeks. (I’m assuming a fixed 100 tss per session, which sort of fits the description). 600 tss per week with an ending ctl of 75.
Seems doable (obviously it IS doable haha), assuming one can support the initial tss, or have sufficient recovery at the end of the 12 weeks. 
The more I read the more I think the ramp rate and starting conditions (ctl) are the most important factors here. This is also predicated on an accurate and calibrated power benchmark.
I just did a 90 minute .77 and it doesn’t feel like I trained at all. 
But my normal z2 ride is 10% more tss, and 30 minutes longer so maybe that’s the reason. very interesting.
You know…I think I’ve solved cycling endurance training. Well I should say I think I understand, I didn’t solve shit. haha. Now I just have to test the assumptions and achieve the mediocre results I know I am capable of.
2 Likes
Well
It depends on lots of factors. Work time available to rest, fueling, family. If I only have this to do in my life (ride) problaby I could do a few.
The bolded part is where you’ve gone off the tracks…
At the same intensity, 5 h is clearly > 1 h. But is, say, 5 h at a lower intensity clearly >2 h at a higher intensity? The answer is, there is no evidence of that. IOW, what matters is the overall training load, not the duration of isolated workouts.
Of course, there is a limit to which you can compensate for lower volume by increasing the intensity, just as there is a limit to which you can compensate for lower intensity by increasing the volume. In between, “all roads lead to Rome” (or as my wife once astutely put it, there is no such thing as the perfect training plan).
It’s your glycogen budget - spend it wisely.
7 Likes
I wonder how much of the disagreement here relates to how people are measuring their “FTP.”
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that you’re probably using something around 1h power for your FTP, (?) whereas many commenters are probably using a ramp test, or maybe a 20min or something.
If that’s true, that may explain some of the disbelief and the statements that it’s impossible to do 0.88 for 3h. Because then you’d be talking about 0.88 of 1h power while they’re talking about 0.88 of like 20-30min power… which is a very different beast.
2 Likes
As I have said before, I’m sure that is a contributing factor.
To the extent that it is, it illustrates how you can’t just treat FTP as “a number to go by”. It is far more than that, and if you overestimate* it using suboptimal approaches such as a ramp test, it creates all sorts of issues.
*Of course no one underestimates their FTP, 'cause ego.
5 Likes
Ok, now we are getting somewhere…. Since what matters is the load, when you get 300 TSS in a long ride, this is clearly better than 3h rides, because it’s impossible to ride at 100% FTP x 3 hours.
1 Like
It can’t be that just hitting a TSS number gets you the same progression no matter how you do it; VO2 and anaerobic work gives you different adaptations than hitting similar TSS numbers via endless Z2 work.
And to your specific example, surely the right question is, if you did the same 300 TSS ride as two 150 TSS rides, totaling the same ride time, is that better or worse?
My question for @The_Cog would be, what’s your preferred way to measure overall training load in this context? TSS seems imperfect.
1 Like
Well you’d be talking about 0.88 of 0.95 of 20 min power, which is 0.836. You would not be taking your 20 min power to be your FTP.
Welcome to the world of structured training versus just dong what you like and hoping you will get better at it.
One of stalwarts of swim coaching, Terry Laughlin in his seminal book Total Immersion said “Are swimming to learn or learning to swim”. Of course what he was getting at was that most amateur athletes don’t train, they just swim, or ride, jump, run, etc and hope that will lead to improved performance. If you are very unfit, it does. But you will plateau.
So training has a number of dimensions. There is technique, not the dominant aspect of riding, technique is largely about re-progamming your neurology, getting rid of past technique applying new, eg, cadence, single leg, body position, belly breathing, etc.
Then there are performance aspects of Strength, Endurance and Speed of movement, all related to the energy system. Nearly all periodisation approaches include different intensity, and Zone 2 endurance dominates most of them. It is the zone that builds mitochondria, blood vessels like capillaries, all essential to delivering power when other aspects of performance need them.
Training requires discipline it isn’t about just having fun on your bike. Doing a zone 2 endurance ride is, IMO, the hardest zone to ride in. As a competitive person, I want to work hard. When the incline rises, the wind angle changes into in your face, or some others pass me, my instinct is work harder, instead of lowering the gear, keeping my HR down within the zone, it is bloody hard, my irrational mind wants to just have fun, I feel like a wimp.
But that is training.
1 Like
Just as “all roads lead to Rome”, “Rome wasn’t built in a day.”
IOW, I meant/you need to look at the big picture - a single workout in isolation means/proves nothing.
3 Likes
I take it that you’re fairly new to power-based training?
PPP: It’s called training stress score and not training adaptation score for a reason.
That said, and despite all the criticism directed at TSS by others/for other reasons over the years, no one has shared a better alternative, so…
2 Likes
Please stop repeating such falsehoods.
As I have pointed out many times before, such adaptations take place over a VERY broad range of training intensities, and in fact are greater per unit “dose” (and with respect to capillarization, greater, period) at higher intensities.
It also sounds like you need to go have more fun on your bike - the only purpose of the rigid “intensity discipline” during your “zone 2” rides would seem to be to give you a sense of superiority.
7 Likes
You didn’t read between the lines, and I wasn’t clear enough.
I meant a 5 times 1hr ride versus a longer 5hrs ride. In theory, they produce the same effect.
Imaginative schedule:
a) 5 x 2 hr ride. 100TSS per ride = 500TSS
b) 3 x 2hr ride + 1 x 4hr = 300TSS + 200TSS (long ride).
There’s no scientific evidence that the schedule “B” is better, or that it produces specific benefits due to the longer ride.
What I meant was, that even though there’s no science backing it up, doesn’t mean that it’s not helpful. There’s a mental aspect, coping with longer rides, etc, etc, etc, etc.
if I can, I’d go for schedule “B”.
1 Like