Pog’s in-season training, last year, the shown weeks are between Tour of California and Tour of Slovenia. Would be interesting to know if these weeks were “pushing” or “relaxed” (just saw, 7 June and 9 June were races):
4 Likes
@SpareCycles
It is an inter-individual range at which he finds AeT/LT1/VT1/Fatmax to occur.
Not 100% sure he gives a range when he prescribes, he doesn’t say. This range is not a training zone. It comes from the “metabolic flexibility” paper. In short, pro riders come in around 1.3 mmol/L and recreationally fit riders come in around 1.8 mmol/L. Hence, “you are probably somewhere between 1.3 - 1.8”, according to him.
So if you’re world class, closer to 1.3? The rest of us closer to 1.8? Again, I use 2 mmol/L because I settled on this with my coach for reasons not relevant to this discussion…but close enough in this case I think is close enough. 
So I’ve been riding in this manner for well over a year now.
For others on the thread, what I’m saying by “inter-individual range…” to @SpareCycles is that San Millan doesn’t tell his riders: “ok, go out and ride between 1.3 - 1.8 mmol/L” (that’s neither feasible nor what is meant by this range). It’s not a training zone. It’s a finding in a paper. You can then use this to derive your target intensity. Once it gets to the prescription, it’s still power and HR targets (it is up to you to interpret as “target +/- bpm or wattage +/- 15w” or whatever you do to create a zone).
Furthermore, you may or may not find that it sits in some other zone system neatly, awkwardly or not at all. This fine because it’s actually an entirely different system. Unfortunately in interviews San Millan keeps using the term “Zone 2” and I think @old_but_not_dead_yet was making this point, it’s leading to confusion.
6 Likes
Sooo…is the conclusion that the ISM training model is not usable w/o lactate testing?
I think its possible if you have a decent idea of your power numbers, your HR for your given zones. I don’t think self coached cyclists should get hung up on trying to replicate what the pros do. Basically, if you know what power you put out in Z2 and Z3, try to max out the volume/time you train in these zones. Keep the volume as high as possible, make sure you’re recovering properly and keep an eye on your HR.
Edit to say: I don’t think there’s anything magical about what ISM is advocating for. I think most of the top coaches have a “similar” approach and maybe only differ in how they develop the top end of individual athletes.
3 Likes
Forgive me if I’m just repeating what @Berggeiss is saying (trying not to), but I think:
- might be too early to say, IOW, what about non-Z2, as @sryke has alluded to
- getting that number doesn’t require extensive testing, ISM does it his way because he’s working with world tour pros and publishing research, why would you settle for anything less that a full lab workup? So it isn’t “What’s my FTP?”…it is more like “what are ALL of my numbers?” and “I have all the tools at my disposal”
- certainly have a lactate meter has made this much easier for me, it’s a sub-threshold assessment and a few strips. No big deal. (also, this isn’t in place of FTP testing or testing top-end power)
My conclusion however would be ISM model is not usable without knowing your AeT/FatMax/LT1. You gotta figure that out somehow, and I argue that calculating it is inferior to measuring it. “Honey, how wide is the closet?” “Well I’m guessing it’s blah blah…based on how wide the top floor of house is and if take that percentage…” “You know you have a tape measure, right?”
4 Likes
One of the issues translating pro training to us mere mortals is how much room we have to work around that ‘high Zone 2,’ Aerobic Threshold-ish, BLa 1.3-1.8-ish target. This is illustrated well in San-Millan’s 2018 paper.
Take a look at the BLa to FATox curves in Pro athlete vs healthy individual
The Pro has far more room to play under her target intensity, if we’re estimating as ~1.5 mmol BLa. The healthy non-athlete has a much steeper lactate curve. And I would imagine most of us are somewhere in between these extremes.
In my opinion, the cost to us of going a few watts harder might mean our relative intensity is further off-target, than for the Pro. We have a much tighter range, and a steeper ‘cliff’ beyond which spending too much volume at too high intensity may diminish our returns. Not to mention fatigue resistance and response to duration (ie. a Pro will see less physiological drift over longer durations at the same relative intensity).
For that reason I think we’re better served by hedging lower for our low-intensity training, and not trying to push up on the limit of Zone 2/AeT/etc. Because it’s easier for us to go over, and the cost is higher if we do. Then add ‘glycolytic training’ (Tempo, SST, HIIT, etc.) as our high intensity sessions.
Another reason it might be better to hedge low if you don’t have access to regular testing?
10 Likes
Excellent topic and discussion thread! Excellent!
Having just completed a 24 hour time trial on the road, and as a fat adapted athlete who spends a ton of time training in Z1 and Z2 (Z1-Z5 scale), I can tell you that “strength helps speed.” When I am super strong aerobically, and then add some “efficiency” training with short intervals, I see great results. The mention of of the slow twitch fibers helping with the lactate generated by the fast twitch fibers is great. I’ve felt it.
My general summary, building muscle fiber creates more mitochondrial density which is needed to help with lactate. Adding intensity to the equation, helps create mitochondrial efficiency. Step 1: build more mitochondria. Step 2: train the “efficiency” of the mitochondria.
I believe there was some mention of the overall balance of training. Balancing the nervous system by monitoring HRV is important. If the nervous system is out of balance, it really messes with the athlete’s hormones which kills recovery and eventually their performance.
In summary, great thread. I’m quite pleased to see this discussion in a TR forum. The physiology and exercise science is a little elevated for my level, but that means I need to do some research! Great time of year for research.
Thank You!
Be Well and Ride On!
10 Likes
To be honest I don’t know if you really need to test for a ballpark figure of eg fatox zones. If you look at all those graphs, fatmax is somewhere between 40%-60% VO2max. That’s a fairly wide range, even if you’re out bit, you should still get a bit of it. (Even taking @SpareCycles point about narrow power ranges into acount - yes 200W FTP just leaves a lot less to play with than 400W FTP)
One thing I’d want to mention though is that for women, the fatox curve seems to be shifted towards higher intensities. I’m on my phone so hard to find the studies, but think that cropped up fairly regularly in publications that looked at gender differences.
3 Likes
Great point. This was the first chart I could think of on female & male substrate oxidation that shows what you’re talking about
For Women the relative fat/carb combustion crossover point tends to be right-shifted toward higher %VO2max, and I believe maximal fat oxidation rates (g/min) tend to be higher relative to bodyweight in women. Although accounting for lean muscle mass mitigates some of that difference. Either way, very relevant to training prescription for women v men.
2 Likes
Absolutely true. But keep in mind, under this particular model, you are not “pushing on the limit of Zone2/AeT/high Zone 2” at the same time as doing glycolytic work (tempo/SST/HIIT), or at least not much.
Until my numbers tell me otherwise, high Zone 2 IS my intensity It’s treated like tempo in an “endurance + tempo” phase, so you would also do lower intensity long rides and basic aerobic rides. Those are more like maybe .65 IF.
@SpareCycles
Easier to just link than try to summarize what I wrote elsewhere:
I think my approach happens to coincide with an aspect of ISM model (the focus on AeT), but my intention was by no means to mimic a pro. Having said that, I do think the take-away is that amateurs are not thinking enough about this area of PD curve and maybe that’s because it’s not as easy to measure as threshold (FTP, etc), maybe because we don’t value it because many riders “only race an hour” (crits, XC, CX, etc), not sure.
4 Likes
That is my take as well. Spring 2020 I did a lot of volume (for me) and completed an INSCYD test, my zones:
| Power Zone | low | target | high |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zone2 Coggan/TR/FasCat | 140 | 189 | |
| Zone2 INSCYD | 148 | 175 | 192 |
| FATmax INSCYD | 153 | 170 | 187 |
169W for Coggan classic mid zone2, which coincidentally was virtually the same as INSCYD FATmax.
To be honest I overcooked (upper zone2) some of the longer rides, but overall I tried to keep zone2 rides in the 160s. Lessons learned from this past spring: less is more, fresh is faster (less z2 power is better). Adding in the context of this thread simply reinforces being conservative on zone2 targets while putting in the hours.
Here is a 3 hour zone2 ride this weekend:
Zone2 power is highlighted. I did this by HR, started with temps in low 60s and so power was a bit higher than second half when temps were in mid 80s. Those are 1-min tempo bursts every 5-min. My aerobic endurance is recovering after low-volume month+ due to smoky air (forest fires in NorCal), so it was nice to finish this but it capped off a 10 hour week and I was TIRED yesterday
2 Likes
This is what I was thinking of:
The curves on the left at male triathletes, mtb’ers, and road cyclists, the one one the right female triathletes (they didn’t have any females for the other disciplines)
From here: Maximal lipidic power in high competitive level triathletes and cyclists - PubMed
1 Like
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying and totally agree with that. Just want to make sure we aren’t spending every ride trying to push up on Aerobic Threshold. There is still a lower-intensity/higher-intensity polarization to the plan. Not just monotonous same-intensity every ride.
Great example of the overlap between ranges via different measurement protocols/systems. None of those are one specific number. And you’re allowed to train at the bottom of the range and still get the intended benefits!
1 Like
1 Like
I have done an INSCYD test and have similar zones. So fat max and base Zone overlap. But with inscyd, base is not a fixed percentage.
So my base/zone 2 is pretty close to coggan zones but for Wout Van Aert base is not upto 75% ftp as that would mean riding everywhere at 300w.
So my fat max which is bang in the middle of zone 2 is a pretty modest pace, but I can ride right at the top of that zone, still be at pretty much max fat ox (using inscyd calculations), and this feels a bit brisker and probably close to the 1.3-1.8 zone 2 pace of ISM. And this can be done in intervals during a long ride or as a continuous block on shorter trainer sessions.
1 Like
Not a field test but similar to what Xert calculates for Lower Threshold Power (LTP).
…you should start seeing an increase in breathing and it should be harder to talk at LTP. Below LTP is “conversation pace” riding.
Just curious, why is this not the case?
1 Like
WvA actually said in an inscyd clip he did intervalls at 350W to bring his lactate down…
Yes he said that he did 350w fat max intervals.
20 mins every hour in a long ride.
His fat max and pro riders have fat max intensities much higher up their intensity range.
So they ride steady (50-60% ftp base zone) and add fat max intervals.
For me and others I’ve tested (I’ve got an inscyd coaching account) their fat max is in base zone so they can ride fat max at a continuous pace.
3 Likes
Rephrasing my question, is there any reason why metabolically a pro athlete is not a “scaled-up” version of an amatuer?