Any reason to train at L2 or L3?

[Roadie_scum]

Keep in mind high L3 is in Dr. Coggan's "Sweet Spot."

I don't think it's that narrow... not to say that is a bad level at which to train.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Hi Alex

Gawd, what a plonker. Hadn't realised they were just numbered versions of the levels in the CP package, just assumed they were yet another set of levels! Extremely helpful thank you, I can now at least begin to understand what is going on here

Cheers.

PB

So now you have your head around that, here is another version of essentially the same thing but this time using MAP as the anchor point rather than FTP and with more zones, some of which overlap. I use these when prescribing training workouts:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern

 

[Porkyboy]

Hi Alex

So now you have your head around that, here is another version of essentially the same thing but this time using MAP as the anchor point rather than FTP and with more zones, some of which overlap. I use these when prescribing training workouts:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern

Thank you very much for your guidance.

Ok, the obvious questions now are:

1. Which are the better zones to use for day to day training and why?
2. Why the need for more than one set of zones, just to confuse folk like me?

Thanks.

PB

 

[mullerrj]

Hi Alex

Thank you very much for your guidance.

Ok, the obvious questions now are:

1. Which are the better zones to use for day to day training and why?
2. Why the need for more than one set of zones, just to confuse folk like me?

Thanks.

PB

Sorry Porkyboy..but I had to laugh at your questions. It reminds me of my tournament bass fishing days when I used to go on the Fishing Forums..and guys like you would ask: 1. where should I fish (hotspots) and what should I use for lure selection? and 2. why should I fish there with that lure? Not trying to be sarcastic..just pointing-out a similarity..and that is, there is no discreet answer. People train in particular zones to meet particular needs. If you're a "sprinter" you're not going to benefit from L1 or L2 work. Likewise, if you'e an "endurance rider" (like an Ironman Triathlete) you're not going to REALLY benefit from >L4 work. If you're an "all-rounder" you'd benefit from both. So, it pretty much depends on what you want to get out of your training..what are your goals? Best Regards, Rob

 

[Roadie_scum]

Hi Alex

Thank you very much for your guidance.

Ok, the obvious questions now are:

1. Which are the better zones to use for day to day training and why?
2. Why the need for more than one set of zones, just to confuse folk like me?

Thanks.

PB

I think you are referring to the specific question of whether the Coggan or Stern zones are better for day to day training? It's best not to get too hung up on. There is a strong equivalency between the zones and training regimes prescribed with the zones will end up being equivalent if you have a good coach.

As far as which specific zones to train in, that depends on your goals, strengths, weaknesses, etc.

 

[Roadie_scum]

Sorry Porkyboy..but I had to laugh at your questions. It reminds me of my tournament bass fishing days when I used to go on the Fishing Forums..and guys like you would ask: 1. where should I fish (hotspots) and what should I use for lure selection? and 2. why should I fish there with that lure? Not trying to be sarcastic..just pointing-out a similarity..and that is, there is no discreet answer. People train in particular zones to meet particular needs.

Absolutely.

If you're a "sprinter" you're not going to benefit from L1 or L2 work.

Weight control? Recovery? Road sprinters?

Likewise, if you'e an "endurance rider" (like an Ironman Triathlete) you're not going to REALLY benefit from >L4 work.

Absolutely and completely disagree! Any aerobic focused rider should do some L5 work at some stage of their training!

If you're an "all-rounder" you'd benefit from both. So, it pretty much depends on what you want to get out of your training..what are your goals? Best Regards, Rob

Indeed - structure your training based on your goals, strengths, weaknesses, event demands and training history. But it isn't so simple as sprinters never using low zones and enduro riders never using high zones.

 

[mullerrj]

Absolutely.




Weight control? Recovery? Road sprinters?



Absolutely and completely disagree! Any aerobic focused rider should do some L5 work at some stage of their training!




Indeed - structure your training based on your goals, strengths, weaknesses, event demands and training history. But it isn't so simple as sprinters never using low zones and enduro riders never using high zones.

RS- I agree with what you said..just using EXTREMES to make a point. Rob

 

[Porkyboy]

Hi Rob

Sorry Porkyboy..but I had to laugh at your questions. It reminds me of my tournament bass fishing days when I used to go on the Fishing Forums..and guys like you would ask: 1. where should I fish (hotspots) and what should I use for lure selection? and 2. why should I fish there with that lure? Not trying to be sarcastic..just pointing-out a similarity..and that is, there is no discreet answer. People train in particular zones to meet particular needs. If you're a "sprinter" you're not going to benefit from L1 or L2 work. Likewise, if you'e an "endurance rider" (like an Ironman Triathlete) you're not going to REALLY benefit from >L4 work. If you're an "all-rounder" you'd benefit from both. So, it pretty much depends on what you want to get out of your training..what are your goals? Best Regards, Rob

Pleased to have given you a laugh but unfortunately this was the result of you misunderstanding my question. I'm clear about training needing to be geared towards one's goals but thanks anyway.

PB

 

[Porkyboy]

Hi RS

I think you are referring to the specific question of whether the Coggan or Stern zones are better for day to day training? It's best not to get too hung up on. There is a strong equivalency between the zones and training regimes prescribed with the zones will end up being equivalent if you have a good coach.

Thanks for the information, you have correctly interpreted my query, appreciated.

PB

 

[mullerrj]

Hi RS

Thanks for the information, you have correctly interpreted my query, appreciated.

PB

PB..my apologies..I have a habit of misunderstanding questions at time. Glad to see you got your question answered. Regards Rob

 

[Porkyboy]

Rob

PB..my apologies..I have a habit of misunderstanding questions at time. Glad to see you got your question answered. Regards Rob

No problem at all, if anything I'm the worst offender when it comes to that

Cheers.

PB

 

[sidewind]

Go here:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp

In the "Table 2 - Expected physiological/performance adaptations resulting from training at levels 1-7:" There are listed lot of adaptations, but none of them seem to be cycling specific, wouldn't eg training by running at similar intensities bring the same kind of adaptations into mitochondria, enzymes etc? But, has the adaptations which make cyclist a cyclist and runner a runner listed somewhere? Which training intensities are related with those adaptations?

 

[Roadie_scum]

In the "Table 2 - Expected physiological/performance adaptations resulting from training at levels 1-7:" There are listed lot of adaptations, but none of them seem to be cycling specific, wouldn't eg training by running at similar intensities bring the same kind of adaptations into mitochondria, enzymes etc? But, has the adaptations which make cyclist a cyclist and runner a runner listed somewhere? Which training intensities are related with those adaptations?

This probably isn't the whole answer... but I'll give it a shot. Maybe Ric, Andy or Alex can chime in and correct me or add to my thoughts.

1. In addition to the physiological things listed, there is a neuromuscular component to fatigue at all levels... not just sprinting. Neuromuscular improvements are seen only when training at specific joint angles and velocities. Thus the crossover between cycling and running is limited.

2. Running requires muscles adapt to very high eccentric forces (esp running downhill) and hence fatigue muscles more and reduce the specificity of the exercise.

3. Even when attempting steady state efforts, cycling is fairly stochastic in terms of energy demands (you go hard up little hills, etc). This may not be the case running (I don't really know), but would also influence the specificity and the level of crossover.

I actually like my neuromuscular theory... a lot of good middle distance runners I've seen crossover take a while to adapt to cycling (3-12 months), but then are very fit and fast. Or they are fit (they climb) but they are too sketchy in bunches to be bike racers.

 

[acoggan]

In the "Table 2 - Expected physiological/performance adaptations resulting from training at levels 1-7:" There are listed lot of adaptations, but none of them seem to be cycling specific, wouldn't eg training by running at similar intensities bring the same kind of adaptations into mitochondria, enzymes etc? But, has the adaptations which make cyclist a cyclist and runner a runner listed somewhere? Which training intensities are related with those adaptations?

1. Training specificity is related to the mode of exercise, not the intensity.

2. Who cares about running/runners?

 

[john979]

Back to the original topic. Both my FTP and VO2 max peaks are produced when my base consisted of a large volume of L3 training in the winter. Since I don't have multiple hours to train during the week, that rules out longer L2 rides. OTOH, when in the past I added in too much L4 training, my FTP peaked early and did not rise much thereafter.

 

[rmur17]

Back to the original topic. Both my FTP and VO2 max peaks are produced when my base consisted of a large volume of L3 training in the winter. Since I don't have multiple hours to train during the week, that rules out longer L2 rides. OTOH, when in the past I added in too much L4 training, my FTP peaked early and did not rise much thereafter.

wrt. to the bolded comment, would you mind describing a typical week that worked well for you and one that did not (too much L4?). I'm interested in the volume of L4 in relation to total weekly volume and the intensity and format of the L4 workouts themselves.

If you use PMC, an idea of CTL at various phase is also of interest or a chart of course.