As I explained before, when using my training levels to describe workouts (the intended purpose of the system), you have two options: average power as a % of FTP, or the ratio of normalized power to FTP, i.e., IF. They differ in how they deal with the inherent variability of cycling outdoors.
In the case of average power, the levels have been skewed downwards, especially at the lower end, where training is generally less structured. (At higher intensities, training is typically broken into pieces - “repeats”, “intervals” - with less variability within each effort, which is the basis for describing the workout.)
In the case of IF, the normalized power algorithm at least attempts to correct for the variability, such that the reference values themselves do not have to be adjusted downwards.
Since power when training indoors is almost always less variable than when cycling outdoors, the IF standards are a better choice of reference.
Where TR (and many others) have gone wrong has been in 1) treating my training levels as “zones”, i.e., as prescriptive, not descriptive, and then 2) relying on the percentages rather than the IF values.
That’s essentially how I titrated the indoor 1 h “moderate intensity filler workouts” that I would do on the ergometer on days in between interval sessions. Because of the limited duration, I ended up smack-dab on the level 2/3 border (based on IF). If the sessions had been longer, though, I would have had to dial it down to where it was squarely in level 2 (again, based on IF).
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. Are you saying the “Andy Coggan” zones in TP are not the zones you defined? The point @carytb was making was that what you’re calling Z2 above is defined in TP and attributed to you as Z3.
I went and did the same investigation after reading Cogs comment and I saw the same. I thought it was weird, but then I remember that these are endurance rides, so they should be longer in duration to reach that IF. Still, I just can’t bring myself to do more than 90 minutes on the trainer…
If you have the time but not the inclination, then besides the usual comfort things, my main tips for coping with longer endurance are:
(i) plan in a shorter endurance workout that doesn’t daunt you (eg. 1hr 15 mins), then as you get towards the end of it extend it for manageable chunks (eg. 15-30 min), doing this a number of times in conjunction with the next two steps…
(ii) take periodic breaks, a.k.a. cafe stops, where you climb off the bike, take a drink / refill a bottle, maybe eat something (I had those British staples of pork pie & piccallili during a 3hr one one last week )
(iii) do similar things on the bike as you’d be doing if lounging around off the bike, eg. read forums or whatever other social media floats your boat, watch interesting/educational youtube vids instead of just races (& maintain a list of stuff for this purpose), watch Netflix or other media, particularly the 2nd/3rd-tier things that you quite fancy but don’t ever seem to have time to watch on your regular TV, listen to podcasts that, again, you’re interested in but don’t seem to find the time for usually. I read a ton of online stuff most days, and I’ve found I can do much of this just as well on the trainer as off it, so combining the two can kill two birds etc., and time flies doing this.
There isn’t necessarily a “right” or “wrong” way your PLs should look. They’ll generally reflect the progress you’ve made most recently, though.
Your VO2 Max level is quite high (in fact, it’s capped out because your PLs can’t go above Level 10), which usually means you should adjust your FTP up so as to find more appropriately challenging workouts. Workouts at Levels 8, 9, or 10+ aren’t impossible, but they should be REALLY hard. If they’re not, that’s likely a sign that your FTP is set a bit too low.
As your current block of training ends, you’ll have the opportunity to use AI FTP Detection or take a Ramp Test to update your FTP. When your FTP increases, your PLs will go down to compensate.
All of your PLs should ideally rise up gradually throughout your training plan, but most athletes are usually better at one or two zones compared to the rest, so it isn’t unusual to have one zone remain higher than the others.
It’s really quite simple: I have described two, non-interchangeable ways of classifying exercise intensity based on power output: average power as a percentage of FTP, or normalized power divided by FTP.
For the former, the scale is:
below 56% level 1
56-75% level 2
76-90% level 3
91-104% level 4
105-120% level 5
above 120% level 6
way up there level 7
(the normalized power algorithm doesn’t really apply to short efforts, so the scale stops there.)
The two scales differ because they address the variability of cycling outdoors differently. For steadier efforts, such as typical of indoor training, it is better to go by the second scale, not the first.
I really don’t know how to explain things any more clearly…
Thanks for the response. So, I think what you’re saying is that the average power at the end of a Z2 workout should be 56-75% FTP, but TP (and TR and the others) are prescribing individual INTERVALS at those percentages. (I’m intentionally leaving out the NP part just to get clarity)
Yes. And that’s why I’m trying to get clear on why I see two different things described as z2 from him (the TP definition vs. what he’s said above, which is what the TP definition would call z3)
Thanks though. I did make that mistake in the past!
Then do 95min this week! Then 100min the next week. Then 105min the next week. Etc. Its just a matter of training your brain and pushing through that initial mental discomfort. Just like physical training.
Mr Cog. I find that I often struggle to understand the points you make with your comments. My own shortcoming. You understand this stuff so I’d like to get your points more clearly.
Here, for example, is “a bigger effect” good bigger, bad bigger, or just bigger but meh? I don’t increase endurance intensity so that I can complete them and still feel fresh for shorter, more intense rides (which I’d otherwise reduce/avoid). Did you intend to suggest that doing this is doing something wrong? That’s what I took from it.
From what I gather from your posts (over multiple threads) is that while we use “zones” to describe training, physiologically they really are all one aerobic zone. So like an electric car with single speed transmission, the harder you push on the pedal, the more “power” the car gives you. No isolated gears (e.g. “zones”) to shift from one to another. But rather one “aerobic” gear and as we push harder we use these descriptors to communicate the desired effort.
Keep in mind @The_Cog is an expert on exercise physiology, not in training. You do as much as you can while keeping consistency and your life outside cycling in order.
Thanks for the initial response and this one for making it a lot clearer for me. Also thanks to @Pbase for asking the question that I would have asked if you hadn’t beaten me to it.
I still don’t understand, but I often think that if it was clearly cut and dried, there would be no need for dozens of podcasts and discussions on the topic.
Whiffs of a conspiracy theory between sports scientists, media, etc. to confuse the public and force consumption of endless resources, training info and so on???
I’m sure it’s not the fact that we are talking about the human body (not a machine) and the reality that absolutes and “simple” answers are often lacking appropriate nuance along with the need to individualize to match each person’s unique self & situation.
)
