Zone 2 training....do short periods work as well?

Trev The Rev

bahzob wrote:

SBezza wrote:

To be honest the majority of training we do as amatuers is probably not sufficiently hard enough I would suspect to need 48 hours off the bike. .

Spot on. There are lots of reasons pros ride better than amateurs and one of them is they simply train much harder and longer. It will be quite normal for them to do 2 sessions per day for example. Non of this rubbish about needing to plan a rest day after doing some workouts at 85%.

It's ironic that when Lance Armstrong said he won more events than other riders it was because he trained harder he was telling the truth. Drugs don't magically make you fitter, a big part of their benefit is that they allow you to train much harder and recover from those sessions quicker. But you still have to put in the effort and feel the pain.

Which is why its just daft for people to talk about 2x20 at threshold being "hard". If they think that is hard they have pretty much given up before they even turn the first pedal.

If you can only train every 3rd day, you need to do more than a little bit of poncing about at threshold, you need to do some really hard stuff over threshold and do some real suffering so you do need 48 hours to recover. If you only ponce about below threshold obviously you will need to train almost every day to get anywhere.

Pros are sparing of the amount of time they spend over threshold because they know about recovery.

I detect you still admire Armstrong. Exactly when did you become one of his bitches?

Trev The Rev

Trev The Rev wrote:

bahzob wrote:

SBezza wrote:

To be honest the majority of training we do as amatuers is probably not sufficiently hard enough I would suspect to need 48 hours off the bike. .

Spot on. There are lots of reasons pros ride better than amateurs and one of them is they simply train much harder and longer. It will be quite normal for them to do 2 sessions per day for example. Non of this rubbish about needing to plan a rest day after doing some workouts at 85%.

It's ironic that when Lance Armstrong said he won more events than other riders it was because he trained harder he was telling the truth. Drugs don't magically make you fitter, a big part of their benefit is that they allow you to train much harder and recover from those sessions quicker. But you still have to put in the effort and feel the pain.

Which is why its just daft for people to talk about 2x20 at threshold being "hard". If they think that is hard they have pretty much given up before they even turn the first pedal.

If you can only train every 3rd day, you need to do more than a little bit of poncing about at threshold, you need to do some really hard stuff over threshold and do some real suffering so you do need 48 hours to recover. If you only ponce about below threshold obviously you will need to train almost every day to get anywhere.

Pros are sparing of the amount of time they spend over threshold because they know about recovery.

I detect you still admire Armstrong. Exactly when did you become one of his bitches?

As for this,"Drugs don't magically make you fitter, a big part of their benefit is that they allow you to train much harder and recover from those sessions quicker. But you still have to put in the effort and feel the pain." I first heard that about 25 years ago and have heard it repeated again and again - usually by people who take drugs.

bahzob

LOL. Have I touched a nerve? I don't have any time for Armstrong but its still true that the harder you train the better you ride. That's one reason why drugs work.

I think you can be reasonably sure Armstrong et al did not go to all their trouble just to be able to do a 2x20 then take a weekend off to recover.

okgo

mclarent wrote:

Depends how fat he is...

Exactly, I imagine I've taken mine from around that figure and roughly doulbed it. Losing a wheelbarrow of fat helps

Trev The Rev

bahzob wrote:

LOL. Have I touched a nerve? I don't have any time for Armstrong but its still true that the harder you train the better you ride. That's one reason why drugs work.

I think you can be reasonably sure Armstrong et al did not go to all their trouble just to be able to do a 2x20 then take a weekend off to recover.

Now I have killed off 'Trev The Rev' and I can be myself and say what I really think, I don't see why I should be restrained from lashing out at anyone I think might be an Armstrong Apologist. However, point taken and as you have no time for Armstrong I apologise.

I agree with you that you don't need to take 48 hours off to recover from 2 x 20 at threshold.

I think generally many cyclists train too much, but not hard enough and, paradoxically, don't rest or recover properly, and race too often. I know that sounds like a sweeping statement, but I'm often amazed by the low power figures quoted by people who put in so many hours.

okgo

"I'm often amazed by the low power figures quoted by people who put in so many hours."

Like what? How do you know what is good or bad for someone, you'd have to know their weight too surely?

Trev The Rev

okgo wrote:

"I'm often amazed by the low power figures quoted by people who put in so many hours."

Like what? How do you know what is good or bad for someone, you'd have to know their weight too surely?

I am referring to power figures quoted with weight - however to make a scientific study of it I would also need to know fat percentages.

Full Merckx

"I'm often amazed by the low power figures quoted by people who put in so many hours."

That was exactly my problem with Marmotte training. I increased my mileage hugely but dropped the intensity and despite being at a lower wattage I did feel chronically tired. My plan this year is to add more zip with intervals and some time on the track and rather than just long steady rides supplement them with some big gear work and intervals.

bahzob

Back on OP. I have been doing what I think of as real sweetspot training for a while now (described here:http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12888793

Latest is fairly typical of what I would aim to do (assuming FTP is 325W based on most recent MAP test weight is 71kg atm)

Whole workout 76 mins 277W 85% FTP
Peak 60 mins 296W 91% FTP
Peak 30 mins 319W 98% FTP
Peak 20 mins 326W = FTP

I would plan to do a workout like this 4-6 times a week between now and next Feb. Doing so:
> I can be pretty confident about how I am doing and what my real FTP is
> I will end up being at least as fit then as I am now, maybe more so and in a good position to push intensity up.
> I can plan a training schedule that doesn't depend on the vagaries of the UK weather and (with nod to unfortunate news today) doesn't risk putting me in hospital
> I am quite reassured/confident about going and doing some fast big climbs, which is my main training focus, since they just involve repeating these workouts (re above post. If you just did this and nothing else you would be pretty well prepared so long as your bike fits, has the right gears and you eat sensibly).
> If the sun shines and I go out on my bike I can do it just for fun, not for the training.
> At 1000 cals/hour means I can have my 2 pints per day with a clear conscience and continue to lose weight at a steady 1kg/month

Having been there/done that in terms of doing massive long rides in the past I am quite convinced the above will leave me at least as well trained, probably more, with considerably less time/discomfort.

amaferanga

bahzob wrote:

Back on OP. I have been doing what I think of as real sweetspot training for a while now (described here:http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12888793

Latest is fairly typical of what I would aim to do (assuming FTP is 325W based on most recent MAP test weight is 71kg atm)

Whole workout 76 mins 277W 85% FTP
Peak 60 mins 296W 91% FTP
Peak 30 mins 319W 98% FTP
Peak 20 mins 326W = FTP

I would plan to do a workout like this 4-6 times a week between now and next Feb. Doing so:
> I can be pretty confident about how I am doing and what my real FTP is
> I will end up being at least as fit then as I am now, maybe more so and in a good position to push intensity up.
> I can plan a training schedule that doesn't depend on the vagaries of the UK weather and (with nod to unfortunate news today) doesn't risk putting me in hospital
> I am quite reassured/confident about going and doing some fast big climbs, which is my main training focus, since they just involve repeating these workouts (re above post. If you just did this and nothing else you would be pretty well prepared so long as your bike fits, has the right gears and you eat sensibly).
> If the sun shines and I go out on my bike I can do it just for fun, not for the training.
> At 1000 cals/hour means I can have my 2 pints per day with a clear conscience and continue to lose weight at a steady 1kg/month

Having been there/done that in terms of doing massive long rides in the past I am quite convinced the above will leave me at least as well trained, probably more, with considerably less time/discomfort.

So to be clear, you plan to do exactly the same training week on week between now and February and you think that's the right thing to do to get the most benefit from your training?

You're banging on about this session as if there's something special about it. Do you have some evidence to show that it's more effective than the multitude of other threshold workouts?

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

Drugs don't magically make you fitter, a big part of their benefit is that they allow you to train much harder and recover from those sessions quicker. But you still have to put in the effort and feel the pain.

While it's true that these guys train very hard, and that's a necessary part of being competitive at that level (and most upper category levels), some forms of doping can and do make you magically fitter (improve power output) without doing anything.

And I'd say anything that permits you to "train much harder and recover ... quicker" also represents a significant improvement to your fitness. That's something I strive for with many of my clients, it's part of what I call "depth of fitness", but we do it in a legal and ethical manner, unlike those cheats.

SBezza

okgo wrote:

"I'm often amazed by the low power figures quoted by people who put in so many hours."

Like what? How do you know what is good or bad for someone, you'd have to know their weight too surely?

I am always amazed when people who put out high powers for 60 mins but can't keep near on this level for alot longer. Fitness is more than just a high FTP IMO.

SBezza

amaferanga wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Back on OP. I have been doing what I think of as real sweetspot training for a while now (described here:http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12888793

Latest is fairly typical of what I would aim to do (assuming FTP is 325W based on most recent MAP test weight is 71kg atm)

Whole workout 76 mins 277W 85% FTP
Peak 60 mins 296W 91% FTP
Peak 30 mins 319W 98% FTP
Peak 20 mins 326W = FTP

I would plan to do a workout like this 4-6 times a week between now and next Feb. Doing so:
> I can be pretty confident about how I am doing and what my real FTP is
> I will end up being at least as fit then as I am now, maybe more so and in a good position to push intensity up.
> I can plan a training schedule that doesn't depend on the vagaries of the UK weather and (with nod to unfortunate news today) doesn't risk putting me in hospital
> I am quite reassured/confident about going and doing some fast big climbs, which is my main training focus, since they just involve repeating these workouts (re above post. If you just did this and nothing else you would be pretty well prepared so long as your bike fits, has the right gears and you eat sensibly).
> If the sun shines and I go out on my bike I can do it just for fun, not for the training.
> At 1000 cals/hour means I can have my 2 pints per day with a clear conscience and continue to lose weight at a steady 1kg/month

Having been there/done that in terms of doing massive long rides in the past I am quite convinced the above will leave me at least as well trained, probably more, with considerably less time/discomfort.

So to be clear, you plan to do exactly the same training week on week between now and February and you think that's the right thing to do to get the most benefit from your training?

You're banging on about this session as if there's something special about it. Do you have some evidence to show that it's more effective than the multitude of other threshold workouts?

I think I would get very bored in a very short space of time, and it would likely lead to a nice plateau. Training is more about the total package of training intensities rather than just bang out 1 session day in day out.

okgo

SBezza wrote:

okgo wrote:

"I'm often amazed by the low power figures quoted by people who put in so many hours."

Like what? How do you know what is good or bad for someone, you'd have to know their weight too surely?

I am always amazed when people who put out high powers for 60 mins but can't keep near on this level for alot longer. Fitness is more than just a high FTP IMO.

I guess it depends what you target for events, there are plenty of people who will only ride events that last around an hour, be is 10' and 25's or just crits, but yeh, the longer the better I suppose! But I would imagine muscle type would come into it at some point, you could find someone very strong over a 10 or 25 that may suffer over a 50 due to muscle type, same goes for a crit rider over a prem calender rider maybe?

bahzob

amaferanga wrote:

So to be clear, you plan to do exactly the same training week on between now and February and you think that's the right thing to do to get the most benefit from your training?

You're banging on about this session as if there's something special about it. Do you have some evidence to show that it's more effective than the multitude of other threshold workouts?

Broadly speaking yes. My goal over that period is simply to roughly where I am now in terms of fitness so I don't see the need of doing more intense sessions. And as I have said I think doing lots of hours at low intensity is a waste of time from a training pov. If the sun shines and I have the time I will go for a ride outdoors but with the goal of riding for fun, knowing I don't need to stress about needing to train.

If you actually take a look at the session you will see it offers a lot of scope for variety. The first 2/3 is a ramp that takes you from high endurance zone (because you start it cold) through to threshold. The last 1/3 consists of over/under repeats.

The slope of the ramp and the intensity of the under/overs can both be adjusted to take account of mood and to add variety. The session as a whole crams the most work into an hour that it is possible to achieve on a regular basis (which is why it also works as a pacing guide for climbs).

As for whether it works. Well it works for me. I think the figures speak for themselves.

SBezza

okgo wrote:

SBezza wrote:

okgo wrote:

"I'm often amazed by the low power figures quoted by people who put in so many hours."

Like what? How do you know what is good or bad for someone, you'd have to know their weight too surely?

I am always amazed when people who put out high powers for 60 mins but can't keep near on this level for alot longer. Fitness is more than just a high FTP IMO.

I guess it depends what you target for events, there are plenty of people who will only ride events that last around an hour, be is 10' and 25's or just crits, but yeh, the longer the better I suppose! But I would imagine muscle type would come into it at some point, you could find someone very strong over a 10 or 25 that may suffer over a 50 due to muscle type, same goes for a crit rider over a prem calender rider maybe?

Appropiate training will allow you to keep the power up for longer though, muscle fibre type will have an effect, but I would have thought the differences would have been more pronounced comparing a kilo rider to a 1 hour TT rider for example. The power difference between a 25 mile TT and a 50 mile TT is not that great, and certainly less than the difference between 10 and 25 miles, if you training the right way for it.

Never doing training rides over a hour at a sustained effort means you don't get the adaptions this training will provide. W/kg is one component of fitness, but it isn't the only component.

bahzob

SBezza wrote:

Never doing training rides over a hour at a sustained effort means you don't get the adaptions this training will provide. W/kg is one component of fitness, but it isn't the only component.

I can think of several other things but they are only trained by high intensity work e.g.
- Ability to sustain close to threshold power for long periods of time
- Ability to make high intensity effort and (most crucially) recover and repeat them

So I think it would be worth being more precise about what the other components are because it cuts to the heart of this topic.

What exactly will become better as a result of doing 5 hours slow rather than 60-90 minutes hard?

I can only think of 2 possible things and am not sure about both

- How much glycogen your body can store (the special case described here is an example but extreme and doesn't need regular training just a one off special: http://velorunner.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/laurent-fignon-and-super-compensation.html

- The ratio of energy from fat/carb moves towards using more fat so you can go further (since carb stores are limited and fat are not)

- Anything else?

SBezza

The ability to ride for long periods at a high intensity, but then again the 2 points you state are very useful for even shorter duration events.

You need to incorporate high intensity I have never said anything about high intensity, it is very much needed, as are 60-180 mins of hard endurance riding, but is isn't the only thing you might do. If you are happy not doing long rides as part of your training it is fine, but it MIGHT not be the best solution to everyone and you need to remember that.

6 days of your hour session just wouldn't give me the sufficient training load I go best at, so for me it is far from ideal to just do that session, I do plenty at that level, but I do other stuff as well to become a better all round cyclist who happens to do long distance TT's (but not too shabby on short stuff as well ) I like to race at a very high percentage of my FTP for 1.5 to 3.5 hours, one hour sessions just wouldn't cut it in isolation.

amaferanga

bahzob wrote:

Broadly speaking yes. My goal over that period is simply to roughly where I am now in terms of fitness so I don't see the need of doing more intense sessions. And as I have said I think doing lots of hours at low intensity is a waste of time from a training pov. If the sun shines and I have the time I will go for a ride outdoors but with the goal of riding for fun, knowing I don't need to stress about needing to train.

If you actually take a look at the session you will see it offers a lot of scope for variety. The first 2/3 is a ramp that takes you from high endurance zone (because you start it cold) through to threshold. The last 1/3 consists of over/under repeats.

The slope of the ramp and the intensity of the under/overs can both be adjusted to take account of mood and to add variety. The session as a whole crams the most work into an hour that it is possible to achieve on a regular basis (which is why it also works as a pacing guide for climbs).

As for whether it works. Well it works for me. I think the figures speak for themselves.

Any training will work to a point, but if you do the same thing for weeks or months on end then you'll plateau eventually (and get very bored). I don't know what your figures are, but what is certain is that if you just keep doing the same thing then they won't continue rising indefinitely.

My aim for the winter is to increase FTP, not just stay where I was at the end of the summer. Your aim seems like an easy option to me. I don't get the thing about pacing on climbs at all. I've never ridden a climb in the way you're suggesting anyway.

trickydisco

and just to throw this into the mix. Dave smith who used to coach many high profile athletes states

I hardly ever prescribe what the OP refers to as zone 2. IME it's an utter waste of time for the vast majority of riders.

Hours at zone 2 give very few exclusive fitness gains - you can get fitter/faster, in less time with a different approach. Even training to be efficient at fat burning can be achieved by certain interval sessions at certain times.
IMO many coaches prescribe zone 2 as it fills time in a schedule and makes it look like they're earning their fee's. I'd rather make efficient use of a clients time, but of course some can't see that I've saved them x hours per week. They think that paying for training means there should be lots of training rather than the minimum effective amount which is closer to my approach.

and this is what Alex has said in a previous thread

Base training is training that improves threshold power.
Pretty much anything that keeps you riding, motivated, includes efforts at all intensities, with the majority of work up to and including threshold power levels is base.

Tooling about at recovery / low end power levels all the time really is a wasted opportunity IMO. OK for a week or two for a break and some fun, or if you've had a long break and are restarting.

And for those who are indoors a lot in the winter, heck, up the ante on the trainer so you don't have to spend so much time on the turbo for good effect.

Herbsman

So how hard should one be riding during the winter? Or how hard shouldn't one ride?

Sprool

you lot need to get together and get your story straight. What a huger thread of mis-advise!

bahzob

amaferanga wrote:

Any training will work to a point, but if you do the same thing for weeks or months on end then you'll plateau eventually (and get very bored). I don't know what your figures are, but what is certain is that if you just keep doing the same thing then they won't continue rising indefinitely.

My aim for the winter is to increase FTP, not just stay where I was at the end of the summer. Your aim seems like an easy option to me. I don't get the thing about pacing on climbs at all. I've never ridden a climb in the way you're suggesting anyway.

I've said lots of times, one point about the workout is that it does not involve doing the same thing over and over again. The shape is consistent:
- A ramp from cold through to threshold for around 40-45 minutes
- Under/overs for 15-20

Both can be adapted to fit conditions/mood/variety. E.g yesterday I had a hangover so I started the ramp higher to kick myself into action but held it for longer under threshold and did the under/overs at shorter duration to cut myself a bit of slack at the end. Previous day I felt great so pushed the overs very hard.

At all times the goal of the workout is to do big amounts of work in an hour, averaging around 85% of FTP with 20 mins at FTP. I find this hugely enjoyable and motivating, far more so than getting on a bike and riding in the cold/wet for 4-5 hours, which is what the OP was asking.

My figures are 325W@71kg. I'll be quite happy to maintain the power through to Spring while losing a bit of weight. Since the workout is quite stretching it wouldn't surprise me if FTP went up a bit.

I'm slightly baffled by your approach. You want to improve FTP over winter? Yet previously you said that 20 min intervals should not be done above threshold???? Not sure how you plan to do this unless you have been a particularly good boy and expect Santa to give you a FTP boost as present.

Tell you what, instead of being negative why not say what your FTP is now and how you intend to improve it. Then at least I can see come March if your opinions are worth listening to.

(Sorry you don't understand about how this can be applied to climbing btw. tbh I don't care. The advice is given in good faith by someone with a lot of experience and a pretty good track record in terms of results but if you think you are better then fine, go ahead and do it your way. Though again it would help if instead of being negative you could say what this approach actually yields in terms of results.)

bahzob

SBezza wrote:

The ability to ride for long periods at a high intensity, but then again the 2 points you state are very useful for even shorter duration events.

You need to incorporate high intensity I have never said anything about high intensity, it is very much needed, as are 60-180 mins of hard endurance riding, but is isn't the only thing you might do. If you are happy not doing long rides as part of your training it is fine, but it MIGHT not be the best solution to everyone and you need to remember that.

6 days of your hour session just wouldn't give me the sufficient training load I go best at, so for me it is far from ideal to just do that session, I do plenty at that level, but I do other stuff as well to become a better all round cyclist who happens to do long distance TT's (but not too shabby on short stuff as well ) I like to race at a very high percentage of my FTP for 1.5 to 3.5 hours, one hour sessions just wouldn't cut it in isolation.

I remain puzzled. What exactly does doing 5 hours of slow rides give as an exclusive benefit, that no other form of training provides? How do you measure these or know you are improving? Can you give any specific examples with numbers like I can?

bahzob

trickydisco wrote:

and this is what Alex has said in a previous thread

Base training is training that improves threshold power.
Pretty much anything that keeps you riding, motivated, includes efforts at all intensities, with the majority of work up to and including threshold power levels is base.

Tooling about at recovery / low end power levels all the time really is a wasted opportunity IMO. OK for a week or two for a break and some fun, or if you've had a long break and are restarting.

And for those who are indoors a lot in the winter, heck, up the ante on the trainer so you don't have to spend so much time on the turbo for good effect.

Hm if Alex really did say this then it contradicts his opinion here that there is benefit in doing a 20 minute interval at less than FTP target so he seems a little confused.

bigpikle

bahzob wrote:

trickydisco wrote:

and this is what Alex has said in a previous thread

Base training is training that improves threshold power.
Pretty much anything that keeps you riding, motivated, includes efforts at all intensities, with the majority of work up to and including threshold power levels is base.

Tooling about at recovery / low end power levels all the time really is a wasted opportunity IMO. OK for a week or two for a break and some fun, or if you've had a long break and are restarting.

And for those who are indoors a lot in the winter, heck, up the ante on the trainer so you don't have to spend so much time on the turbo for good effect.

Hm if Alex really did say this then it contradicts his opinion here that there is benefit in doing a 20 minute interval at less than FTP target so he seems a little confused.

...I dont think it does. Alex suggests that sub-threshold work is ideal as long as you do the right volume of it. He is a continual voice for suggesting that base is NOT all about tooling around at low power levels and that base is anything that builds threshold.

I'm with you though in that you really dont need those long low power 4-5 rides except for the specific experience of riding for long periods. The one possible exception is to experience, and hopefully adapt, to long periods of exertion in the high temperatures you might experience in some foreign events. This year's Maratona was a good example for me as the temps were constantly >30 degs and I really suffered in the last couple of hours due to the heat and resulting effects. It wasnt about a lack of power or fitness, it was all about the heat making me want to throw up every time I turned the pedals for the last 20km! I suspect long rides in similar conditions would have helped train me for this, but thats not likely to be easy to train for in the UK anyway and certainly not in winter :roll: :roll:

I've found that lots of solid 1.5-2 hr tempo and 1 hr threshold rides on flat routes with steady power outputs are the perfect prep for climbing mountains...along with some weight loss

Psychotext

I just wanted to say that I don't understand much of this (something I plan on rectifying), but I've found the discussion very interesting.

vs

Chapple (2006, pg.9) states: when I review the fitness data for athletes, I often find that their bodies burn too much carbohydrate at easy to moderate levels. In some cases they burn 60% carbohydrates at even the easiest effort levels. These athletes have a history of training at high intensities frequently.

To support your body's ability to ride harder longer, you need to teach it to spare carbohydrates. To develop your body's fat-burning, you need to ride slower. In other words you need to ride slower, to get faster.

Chapple, T. (2006) Base Building for Cyclists. Velo Press. Boulder, CO, USA.

jgsi

mind you, thanks to our wonderful 'sports' fuel industry we can pack our pockets with at least 10,000kcals worth of nossh....

vs

JGSI wrote:

mind you, thanks to our wonderful 'sports' fuel industry we can pack our pockets with at least 10,000kcals worth of nossh....

Cheaper to use the calories you've already paid for though.

We've all got between 60,000 to 100,000 calories of fat available, it's just a matter of teaching your body to use them at as higher intensity as possible. In contrast we only have 2000 calories of available carbohydrate.