What does “PPP” mean?
3 Likes
And again I’m going to have to push back against this thinking. Like HR, lactate is also just a response (albeit one reflecting metabolic vs. cardiovascular strain), not a critical stimulus for adaptation. Despite what coaches and manufacturers of portable lactate analyses routinely claim, there is no evidence that micromanaging training intensity based on blood lactate measurements is any better than basing it on perceived exertion (or HR).
1 Like
Let me ask a few questions about this, because sometimes I’m unclear on almost everything …
Let’s say I train in a room that is always 50F, I have three fans whipping around me, I’m always hydrated, always well slept and never stressed. At 200W in Z2 my heart rate is always about 135-140 bpm.
With all that being said, after three days of really hard workouts my 200w RPE is really high … like it feels like tempo or sweet spot. It feels hard, or at least much harder than it should. But my heart rate is still holding steady at 135-140 BPM … given your above statement, is this actually hard? Is the metabolic cost higher than when the RPE is very low? Or do you mean something else by “hard”?
I’d tell you to stop paying high AC bills, let the pain cave temps come up to something normal, and reduce your carbon footprint 
Winter in Chicago my man … trainer is in the basement, crack the window and let nature do its thing🤘
3 Likes
If it feels hard, it is hard. By that I mean that perceived exertion is high, and there must be a reason (although not necessarily a significant increase in metabolic rate).
Now whether that means you’re getting extra benefit or just unnecessarily digging yourself into a hole is a different question. My point, however, is that neither HR nor lactate can answer this for you.
Thus, we’re back to where we (I) started: if I found myself in that situation, I would consider just how “off” I was feeling and what I had scheduled for the near future, then adjust accordingly.
4 Likes
This is the question I would love an answer to … but I think common sense tells me the answer: if all of your physiological markers are constant (in this case Power and HR) and your subjective marker (RPE) is “decoupled” from those ‘objective’ markers … you’re probably digging a hole vs. gaining extra benefit.
I use Z2 RPE to guide me. Sometimes SS feels harder than it should and I let it slide, threshold is maddening in how he can feel harder than it should and also easier, Vo2 hurts no matter what … but when I get to the upper levels of my z2 during a warm up, and it sucks … that’s my trigger for rest.
Cue all the physiologists about to tell me the extra pain in Z2 = extra benefit and I start back at the beginning 
Maybe. But, to play devil’s advocate and to show how complicated things really are:
An elevated PE at the same power (and HR) could be due to reduced muscle glycogen stores. There is some evidence that the latter is one of the factors signaling muscular adaptations to endurance training. So, instead of bailing early, maybe it would be better to keep pushing?
As a physiologist, I can’t answer that question. What I do know, though, is that 1) “back loading” a long ride (i.e., going harder towards the end, the way many long road races play out and when muscle glycogen is low) is a long-standing and seemingly often highly effective way of enhancing fitness, but at the same time 2) it can also backfire, and you end up leaving your best in training and need a prolonged period to recover.
The big picture issue here is overload - how much is enough, and how much is too much? All I can say in that regard is that steadily taking “baby steps” seems to be more effective over the long term than doing sporadic epic workouts (or repeatedly digging really deep for 3 wk then backing way off for 1 wk). As well, I subscribe to the AIS’s philosophy that if you ever set a personal best in training (on the bike or in the gym), that’s it, pack it up and go home. Better to save it for race day than to overextend yourself during routine training just because you’re feeling good, then having to dial it back for a prolonged period while you recover.
5 Likes
Seems like this is a bit of an overstatement. I get what you are saying, but have you seen the entry level VO2max to aspire to be a GT contender?….At least in the modern era lower 80’s is the bare min.
I prefer the AJones model of vo2, threshold and efficiency.
It can in an indirect way, if whatever changes you do allow you to train MORE. But I concede that I wasn’t addressing the main question It appears.
I’m not talking about any lactate testing or basing training on HR zones. I’m responding to OPs initial question.
Many devices calculate a threshold HR by some max - age variant. Thats not the best to start with.
Doing a test gives you some values to go off for HR threshold that are closer to reality such as in Joe Friel's Quick Guide to Setting Zones | TrainingPeaks
For example, my max HR is 193 and my threshold HR by Friels test 167. My endurance zone goes from ~ 120 to 137. That’s bang on where I sit when I ride with power in Z2, even though I’m not basing any training on HR.
So if OP with his max HR 185 ends up with a threshold in the same ballpark they may well have been in HR zone 2 for the 120-130 that they mention.
That’s not Andy Jones’ model. It’s a concept that predates his entry into the field, with Ed Coyle (my PhD mentor) and Mike Joyner (both trainees of John Holloszy, my post-doctoral mentor) being the ones who probably deserve the credit for most clearly articulating it.
In any case, my point stands: muscular metabolic fitness, not cardiovascular fitness, is the primary determinant of endurance exercise performance:
1 Like
Yes, I understood what you meant. It doesn’t change my point.
Does it mean for average non-time-crunched amateur cyclist, time is better spent at SS/Z4 compared to Z5? Of course, unless power associated with Z5 is specific to target event.
No. Z5
More is more… ya da ya da.
and HR doesnt matter… 
Basically, back down only for recovery reasons to consider long term plan?
I’d never looked at that chart before but I’m pleased (and very, very surprised) to see that I can do 500W just under threshold HR. If only that were true 
I wish HR was as good a predictor of day to day performance for me as it is for you. I presume I’m not a unique specimen and it’s similar for others. Using Golden Cheetah’s Power:HR for power at 150bpm for my last 16 workouts over 3 weeks:
318, 296, 306, 315, 264, 340, 314, 319, 270, 317, 291, 311, 288, 229, 293, 297.
The 264 was a massive 6hr ride, I knew it was hard without looking at HR and took two days off before my next ride.
The 229 was just a 3hr ride with high heart rate. It felt easy. I wasn’t fatigued, stressed or ill. I didn’t adjust plans and did the 7hrs of workouts as planned over the next two days.
These swings just happen sometimes. Even excluding those two, the range is 270 to 340 all on rides where I felt fine. I thought they happened for many others/everyone but maybe that’s not the case?
“Train for performance, and let your physiology sort itself out.”
IOW, maybe, or maybe not. It all comes down to:
-
What are the demands of the event?
-
What are the characteristics of the athlete with respect to the above?
-
How do you best prepare this athlete for this event?*
-
Return to step 1.
*Or maybe they’d find more success choosing a different event. That’s what my wife did. Although she was good enough on the road to race the HP International in her first full year of racing, it was clear to her that she would never be really competitive climbing big mountains at altitude against the best in the world. So, she took her coach’s advice, focused on the pursuit, won nationals, and was asked to represent the US internationally.
1 Like
of course “it depends” on what you did before and after, but I’d definitely keep riding. It could be a one day anomaly and you’re not going to do any damage IMO by finishing a 2h ride. Take note of this, see if it continues, and if so, then ask some more questions.
also, Prob not C…if you were blazed, you’re HR would stay insanely low for most athletes. Maybe you’re too fresh, so A!
also re: the “edit”, prob just fresh HR pumping a ton!
good luck
Ok. Curious to know why are you ignoring the evidence of performance at the pinnacle of our sport where the entry ticket to contend is a Vo2 max 3 or 4 std than the average.
You are talking past each other. Somewhat making up numbers, if you take a bunch of 70-80 vo2max athletes then metabolic fitness is more trainable and tied to endurance performance. His point.
1 Like