I think the chronic load is where the orange juice helps.
7 Likes
Big difference between 80% and 90% ftp/ threshold/ 4mmol on how much you can do and recover from.
From what I recall from his forum he suggested not to push the top of zone. Better to get more time in zone.
2 Likes
He doesn’t really recommend doing them much.
2 Likes
Just adding this since I came across this several times in his forum: for Soglia (threshold) he always recommends increasing duration instead of increasing intensity.
2 Likes
I’d be interested to know what the 1 - 2min soglia intervals look like.
I’m enjoying this, the pro cycling and the ISM threads. Ferrari’s stuff reminds me so much of how I used to train when I was younger. I’m now going to structure my winter training around a lot of the training I did in my youth. I’ve even ordered a set of rollers.
Simply do some 1-2min threshold efforts during a longer ride? I’d say this is the least important aspect of his Nov-Jan training.
6-8x(2mins on, 2mins off) in the middle of a 4hr lento/medio. I hate doing threshold on the trainer but I could get on board with these.
1 Like
I don’t think this is what he means. This seems alredy too much but I don’t know.
In terms of big-picture intensity distribution, this looks like Lydiard or late 80s-early 90s HR-based training, where zone 2 HR was -30 to -15 beats below LTHR, and about half of the training time would be spent in that zone 2 HR range.
As folks have noted before, that “classic” zone 2 HR tends to produce wattages that fall into the 75-85% FTP range.
As a side note, I’m doing 50% of my training on the rowing ergometer this fall/winter, and rowing levels correspond to this same view. UT2 for rowers would be high zone 2 to low zone 3 for cycling watts levels, and UT1 would be the upper half of zone 3. Most rowers spend the bulk of their time in UT2 to build base, with a couple of days of UT1 each week.
For a pro cyclist riding 30 hours+ a week, I’m not sure how that kind of distribution would work out – one thinks of Sebastian Weber’s comment that a pro can’t ride at 70% FTP day in, day out for six hours without excessive fatigue (his example was Tony Martin – 70% FTP for him would be 300w, and “six hours at 300 watts, that’s Paris-Roubaix.”
For us with lower volumes, maybe not a bad approach.
That’s what I don’t quite yet understand with ISM/Ferrari approach vs Seiler/Weber.
ISM was refering to high level pro cyclists when he suggested doing a lot just around LT1 but Weber says it’s a way too high demand to do that.
Isn’t it at least for pro cyclists a clear contradiction?
But who does this these days? 30+ is really exceptional these days. Yes, some pros like big miles (like Bernal) but on average we’re in the lower 20s. Furthermore, you have to substract the hours coasting. Many pros live in mountainous regions (Andorra, Girona, Monaco). And the coffee breaks need consideration as well. Actual time “working” is significantly lower than what we could deduce from looking at Strava at first sight.
That comes from my mind being stuck in the 80s and 90s. I still thought that most pros do big volume, which, of course, erodes any credibility I might have had, but then again, as just another punter, I had none to start with. So there you go.
I hate sprinting on a trainer, so does “sprinting” on the saddle count as a sprint? Peak watt will be much less, but it is still “all in sprint”.
1 Like
I don’t think the purpose of these sprints is to improve your sprint. Therefore, in line with what other coaches recommend as well, consider these more as accelerations. And if you do them in or out of the saddle is really not that important. But this is just my take on this, which is highly influences by what other coaches say on this.
As with the threshold efforts in this period, really not that significant. Medio and low cadence work with alterations, this is significant for the Dottore
Wouldn’t these be more like strides in running (common in base)?
The INSCYD Medio intensity is close to what Ferrari suggest for AT2 ranges. And mid-low Medio in INSCYD is right around LT1. I think Weber, Ferrari, and ISM are more alike in this regard than either of them are with what many think Seiler means (LIT + suprathreshold).
None are suggesting you do all low intensity at theses levels.
To me the purpose of what Weber. Ferrari, and ISM are doing at those particular intensity is “how hard can ride that is still high FATox but gives me a bit of muscular work?” (applies to all riders, pro or amateur).
Seiler seems more like “fatigue with longer duration using LIT to get the muscular work”, which incidentally would be much more feasible for a runner in terms of time commitment. Also, not sure that is actually what he means because his messaging on podcasts sometimes contradicts and confuses based on how he applies his own ideas to his daughter’s training.
2 Likes
To add the above, most cycling podcasts and articles identify the “yellow” zone as starting at 75% FTP, ot 70% HR Peak. But Seiler’s “green” zone, and Sylta’s, go up to 80% HR peak…in other words, the top of the “traditional” HR zone 2.
I come back to rowers here. They have to get “bang for the buck” with water, and especially erg, time, due to the stress on the back. Their UT3 is equivalet to power zone 1, and they do a lot of that cross-training. Most of the rowing takes place in UT2 (70-80% HR peak).
1 Like
This really needs stressing, DrMF recommends 20-40% Medio. The bulk of the training is still Lento and very Lento (LL). Same with ISM. You don’t hammer around all the time every day at this intensity.
Exactly my thoughts. What is confusing: DrMF’s lipid power article. Medio is clearly past the highest fatox rates. This contradicts what he is writing. Fatox is still elevated though. So as you say, the benefit would be that you get the best out of both worlds: train fatox and glycolysis or muscular work at the same time. However, it is easy to overshoot this range, especially when this range is based on an overestimated FTP.
+1
1 Like
