@bbarrera. Tim Cusick early base phase? Extensive aerobic training (perhaps drop the tempo intensity down a bit to .79-.82). I’m interpreting this ISM stuff as being basically that. Except you don’t stop and move on to SST etc when your coach determines you are “perma-fit”, a term I’ve heard Tim use. You’d have to come up with some way to know “I lifted my FatMax sufficiently close to threshold” or perhaps another way to determine “I’m ready to work glycolytic system/slam intervals”, “base is done”, if you think of it in phases that way.
If I didn’t have a lactate meter (or a desire to use one) and had I not gotten previous advice from my coach, I would do it this way…not saying you want to, this is just a thought experiment.
Basically, you know FatMax isn’t going to be lower than Zone 2, you know it’s not going to be higher than low-mid Zone 3 (realistically). Just work the two edges of that range because even the top edge is still “fatty”. Seems like you might get most of the benefits w/o changing your “workflow” too much.
So the zone 2 target zone suggest by ISM is getting on towards 3.5w/kg for me which is mid zone 3 using Coggan zones and mid Medio using inscyd zones.
fat max using inscyd is 2.6w/kg
@Kipstrong So what’s going on? Two different definitions (and measures) of the term FaxMax? Does ISM not mean FatMax so much as “cross over” point (Fat-CHO 50%-50%)? Basically, FatMax truly is at 2.6w/kg and it steadily decreases contribution until (roughly) at 3.5w/kg 1.8mmol you are at parity? (“at parity” being the intensity he is referring to)
Not saying this is what is happening. Trying to understand.
How was the INSCYD Fatmax (and Medio zone) determined? Gas exchange testing? Predicted from BLa/VLamax testing? Or predicted from power testing alone?
Did you continue the 10min steps to or beyond LT2?
Ya, also interested to reconcile that apparent difference. Seems like INSCYD Fatmax is predicted at a lower BLa and HR than I’d expect based on this ISM 10min step test, but not beyond the realm of possibility. And everything is protocol-dependent… hard to compare across protocols
Fatmax is from the inscyd power performance decoder. This is power only but they are happy at inscyd that lactate testing and the PPD are pretty much identical.
When looking at substrate utilisation in the inscyd software you can see that fat usage is high for a while after it’s peak before dropping quickly as it’s crosses into zone 4.
If you look at the ISM paper which is pictured further up the thread, the fat max is not the intensity highlighted. It is at a higher intensity which has slightly less yet still high fat oxidation which corresponds to zone 2 intensity.
I’m not convinced, but that’s another interesting debate I’ll take it at their word for now.
I still might not be clear on whether ISM’s priority is to work somewhere around Fatmax, or to work somewhere around 1.5-2.0 mmol BLa? In athletes where those are relevant differences, as appears to be the case for you. edit: I think you just answered this with the chart, thanks.
I think it’s a bit higher as he believes the extra lactate which can be cleared and utilised by the slow twitch fibres is part of the training benefit (training lactate clearance).
Also that lactate is an important signalling molecule(forgot the exact term).
In any case I have not been doing my basic volume anywhere near that zone or lactate level. More close to the 0.6mmol than 1.8mmol
Ya, I listened to his podcast with MHE. I will agree that CHO does drive fat oxidation and finding the level of CHO that works per individual is unique to the individual. From experience, I can handle up to maybe 80ish grams of carbs per hour late into a race, but anything more is going to block my stomach and screw up my hydration. So yes, CHO is necessary for driving fat oxidation. I learned that one the hard way . And I generally, although not always, will include 50 grams of CHO for every hour low intensity training in my recovery planning.
As far low carb/ketosis messing up/slowing down mitochondrial function, I don’t know on that one. My claim is that low intensity training, Z1-Z2 on a Z5 scale, creates mitochondria and builds mitochondrial density. Intervals develop the efficiency of the mitochondria. Building mitochondria versus efficiency is an apples to oranges discussion.
From experience, many athletes try and do intervals when they are not recovered enough to complete them properly. San Millan touched on this in the podcast when he was discussing adrenal fatigue in triathletes. Unfortunately, many athletes think “more is better” when “more” is simply more, and they would benefit greatly from proper rest. And, I believe he mentioned nutrient deficiencies which are also quite common in self trained and time crunched athletes. In speaking with people, I find a lot of them who are most likely nutrient deficient based on the description of their diet. These same athletes, in my opinion, are overloading their CHO and expecting a recovery because of it. Well, can be good and can be bad. Can be yes and can be no. There are other important metrics and side affects to consider.
The discussion on sleep was great! I had to laugh when he talked about people waking up at 4 A:M on a recovery day. That’s not recovery folks. That’s an active brain or whatever is driving them. Proper recovery requires proper sleep. Spot on!
The discussion on HRV was good and especially its relation to cortisol. In my opinion, the legs may say “go” but the HRV may so “no.” When in doubt, I follow my HRV.
At any rate, good discussion all the way around. In my personal summary, I know what works for me, and I wish others well figuring out what works best for themselves.
It’s 50g of CHO for every hour of low intensity training during the recovery meals. For example, a 4 hour low intensity ride equals 200g of CHO in my post training diet. Hope that makes sense.
To summarize what I think so far: ISM just wants you to train at LT1…right at it. He has some La values for two different study groups but the most important column is FATox (and where it drops precipitously). Knowing that it is 1.3mmol and 1.8mmol, respectively, is entirely academic and not necessary. Knowing where your LT1 falls is critical if you want to try this training. The zone isn’t 1.3mmol - 1.8mmol. The zone is: LT1.
I leaned toward 1.5-2.0 mmol idea until I took a second look at the tables and just followed the pattern of the FATox and La (going down the columns). It’s just LT1, simple as that. He happens to also provide the values of what his subjects’ power/La/FATox/CHO are at LT1 (non highlighted rows), but again, academic. His intention seems to be that you would determine your AeT (LT1 if you have a lactate meter), and train there, whatever the absolute lactate value happens to be.
So this intensity and the one a step below (visually above in the table) for base endurance (similar to FatMax + Medio in INSCYD, at least in intention although medio is a bit higher in terms of numbers). Maybe?
So @Kipstrong, I think his intention is to have you use this intensity the same way one would use Medio in INSCYD. It’s not base endurance. You would still do your 0.6mmol (or whatever) rides.
If we look at the below graph from Sieler, we can see that he describes LT1 at around 2 mmol or 80% HRpeak. SM estimates this same marker point at around 1.8 mmol. Would we not say that @Kipstrong’s LT1 is @ 3.5w/kg? So, let’s say that he is a 75kg rider, that would be at around 263w. I am not sure of his FTP (or weight for that matter) but I would be interested to hear what % 263w is of his FTP/MLSS.
Interestingy, if we combine the results of @DarthShivious below, we can see that around LT1 is at around 87-89% FTP/MLSS for him.
Off the back of minimal sleep I will try and have a crack at running some super rough numbers using @Kipstrong’s figures and @DarthShivious’s 87-89% range as backdrop to make a point about the different zones.
Assuming @Kipstrong is around 75kg, and that his LT1 is at 263w, I have calculated his FTP to be around 295-302w (4w/kg). This would mean that to train at the LT1 / 1.8 mmol range, he would have to be doing Sweet Spot work - definitely not Z2 in the Coggan model. You wouldn’t consider this base endurance either. You would also have to have some rides in there that hit, say, the 2.5w/kg mark - estimate of around 188w - which is much more manageable for LSD rides - 188w = 62% FTP = Endurance zone in Coggan model.
If this is the case, then wouldn’t the ideal training spot be the highlighted yellow section below AKA the highest FatOx number? So that would be @ 0.92 +/- 0.27 mmol (roughly 0.6-1.3 mmol). Which, in the example above would be 3w/kg @ 0.9w/kg for @Kipstrong. Assuming 75kg once again, that would be 225w.
Overall range 225w (@ 0.9 mmol) - 263w. (@ 1.8 mmol). If we take the lower end of this range, the 225w metric, and we assume the 75kg and 302w FTP, then cycling at 225w is 74.5% of FTP = Zone 2 Endurance on the Coggan model. Actually, right on the border of Zone 2/3 = Endurance/Tempo border in that model and smack bang at LT1 as per Seiler’s work. Interesting.
*“Zone 2 training is the lowest intensity zone of aerobic training. It is one in which you can hold a steady conversation.” - San Milan
It is also interesting because what may be Sweet Spot work for @Kipstrong at 1.8 mmol or Endurance/Tempo at 0.9 mmol, metabolically speaking, may be completely different for someone else who reaches 1.8 mmol at say 70% FTP.
It does highlight that other peoples figures might not suite you and might put you into a zone that is way off the intended zone to target. It really does come down to each individuals mitochondrial efficiency. The only real way to test that is in a lab or using your own Lactate measurements.
Either way, the inner nerd in me is keen to bite here. I am very keen to get my own figures so I may just have to buy a lactate monitor sometime over these next few weeks. Can someone point me in the direction of the testing protocol by SM in order to do the lactate test? I’ll post my lactate scores and applicable zones here as soon as I do them so people can have a look for comparison.
Great thread guys! Best that I have been a part of.
For those jumping on this thread later on in the posts thinking what the heck is all this about, a reading of these two articles will assist:
this argument is funny because good ol’fashioned endurance training is kinda exactly what this is, no?
the fact that he gets fancy with the lactate analyzer (because he has the ability and, working with world tour riders, the incentive) doesn’t really change that, does it?
back in teh day when i first started racing, i used to go out and do long rides that were “hard”, not in that they felt hard at first but that they felt hard eventually. I used to use the talk test and heart rate because I didn’t have a power meter. They probably started out at “tempo” but then became more like this high zone 2 / endurance + kinda thing as i got fitter. And i got great results with that. The difficulty i had was adding intensity. I never knew how much endurance to subtract and so often ended up overdoing it.
Honestly setting aside all this discussion of how to determine the perfect zone, i think what i was doing was a lot like this ISM zone 2 training. I used to do these days back to back to back so i know they weren’t too hard. If anything, maybe a little easier than the ISM prescription, but really . . . i’m sure it was close enough.
This is almost like a, what’s old is new again. That after all the attempts at short-cuts and magic bullets, things like SST to “maximize your TSS” etc., for those who have the time, the best prescription is still traditional endurance.
Since this theme keeps popping up here, basic endurance conditioning has never been old. Those at a higher level with the time have always used it as a staple. Cars 100 years ago had 4 wheels. These days as well. Are they alike?
What has changed is that there is a stronger focus on how much an athlete can assimilate. Training has become more holistic. In the old days it was eat or die, survival of the fittest. I still remember those days, in my junior years our coach made us ride rollers for 2-3hours. Facing a white wall. Character training were his words. Good old East German school.
It is this focus on a block of training, sustainability. And this is where many modern top coaches converge to, despite differences in details.
yes, this zone 2 training is not new. We may just be able to apply it better than in the past.
My lactate meter is to be delivered today, looking forwards to it. With 3 school kids at home some quarantine will be very likely this autumn/winter. At least I have something to play with now.
I’m 65kg. A tad under but my trainer would would only work in 5w increments.
Anyway…
LT1 is one of these definitions that had many meanings (2mmol, 1 mmol above base line, etc)
But I’d say it’s very close to that 3.5w/kg step of 1.8mmol. This is about 87% of FTP taken from 4mmol of lactate and my inscyd report (and my feeling).
1.8mmol feels and looks like sweetspot training to me and I think probably on the high side of the intensity that ISM is looking for.
3.5w/kg is 230w and my ISM zone 2 range I think will be 200-220w.
I already have been following a polarized training model for nearly 3 months, with 2 x vo2 workouts and the rest mainly at low intensity (fatmax from inscyd which is Mid zone 2 Coggan). Doing about 12 hrs per week.
So if I take out the 2 x 1.5 hours of my vo2 workout there is no way I can change my other volume to ISM zone 2 as that will mean another 30-50w on all average power last from rides.
My plan is to build up from 2 hours to 5hrs of ISM zone 2 as part of my 12 hour week and see how that goes.
I’ll take it at their word for now.
. And I generally, although not always, will include 50 grams of CHO for every hour low intensity training in my recovery planning.
