To Much training in Hardest Zones Possible?



Originally Posted by dkrenik

OK, so if I understand how you're using the terminology correctly, FTP is one's power over ~60 min's +/-. ME is the power required over a longer duration. Correct? YES

IIRC, my old Friel book (Cyclist's Training Bible, 1st edition) defines it similarly to how "Sweet Spot Training" is popularly defined.

Sounds like a semantics issue.
While interchanging the terms Sweet Spot, Tempo, and 90%FTP is pretty much semantics, what one does with that intensity (ie. the duration and # of repetitions of that duration during a workout) are not. To train appropriately for a specific discipline, what one does with that intensity level would likely be different things. Coaches will vary in that methodology, as will riders without coaches training for events. Riders with relatively little experience will often adhere to a specific methodology. Riders with deeper experience will often do what works based on their training history and the results derived. The only way to know for sure is to maintain training notes and reflect on the results over time, the more time the better the results.
When Boardman busted the hour record, I doubt he would have won The Tour of Flanders with the same training approach. When Tom Boonen won Tour of Flanders, I doubt he would have achieved the hour record using the same plan. They both likely spent good amounts of time at 90%FTP but how much and how often is anybodies guess. That however is based on nothing but my personal feeling and what information I've soaked up during my time on the bike.

Which btw is not to say that FTP will not increase during ME specific workouts, and ME will not increase during FTP specific workouts.

My notes from Friel arrive from his 4th Edition Bible (2009), and my notes from Hunter Allen arrive from his recent Battenkill training plan and his contributions to ROAD Magazine. What I do know with regards to building ME Allen is quoted as writing "There is no easy answer".
 
Originally Posted by WillemJM

This is what Joe Friel says, duration of 6 to 12 minutes in zone 4, total amount of intervals counting to TOTAL COMBINED TIME between 20 to 60 minutes once a week.

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/08/intervals-part-5.html
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2010/11/base-1-training-part-4.html

Muscular endurance workouts are best saved until after strength training has reached a peak. This is typically after Base 1. The workouts are long intervals done at HR, pace or power zone 3. In Base 3 the intensity of these intervals goes up one zone and the intervals become shorter—in the neighborhood of 6 to 12 minutes... Everyone's correct, I love a happy ending.

Seems somewhat dependent on where one finds oneself during the training cycle according to Friel. There's a lot of info out there, sometimes I think too much. As Voltaire supposedly once said "the multitude of books is making us ignorant" ;)
 
Quote: While interchanging the terms Sweet Spot, Tempo, and 90%FTP is pretty much semantics, what one does with that intensity (ie. the duration and # of repetitions of that duration during a workout) are not.
I never mentioned anything about tempo. I was only referring to how Friel defines "ME".
Quote: To train appropriately for a specific discipline, what one does with that intensity level would likely be different things.
I would rephrase that to "what one does at various intensities..." QA is also pretty handy here for ensuring specificity.
Quote: When Boardman busted the hour record, I doubt he would have won The Tour of Flanders with the same training approach. When Tom Boonen won Tour of Flanders, I doubt he would have achieved the hour record using the same plan.
No argument there. Again, just take a look at their respective QA plots (if those plots were available).
Quote: Which btw is not to say that FTP will not increase during ME specific workouts, and ME will not increase during FTP specific workouts.
Or "a rising tide raises all boats"
 
Originally Posted by dkrenik
Friel uses the term "tempo" in his Bible regarding ME. I didn't say you used it, but that doesn't mean it can't be included in a sentence I'm using regarding sweet spot. Apologies if it came off sounding contentious.
 
Originally Posted by danfoz

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2010/11/base-1-training-part-4.html

Muscular endurance workouts are best saved until after strength training has reached a peak. This is typically after Base 1. The workouts are long intervals done at HR, pace or power zone 3. In Base 3 the intensity of these intervals goes up one zone and the intervals become shorter—in the neighborhood of 6 to 12 minutes... Everyone's correct, I love a happy ending.

For those short on time (<12 hours), those type of workouts very well may give you a much better bang for the buck when incorporated from the onset of base.

Maybe even harder, 88-95% of FTP for 20-60 mins a couple of times a week. This subthreshold work can be very valuable for bolstering aerobic fitness with a bit less time to train. Straight zone 3 can be done for hours on end with no breaks at all if you have that kind of time.

If not, hop on the bike, 10 min warm up. 40-45 minutes at ~90% (straight or broken up), 5-10 mins home or cool down and you're done. Big workout, short time. Good for winter!

6-12 mins is a bit short unless you're approaching 105%+. Zone four should be sustainable for much longer if FTP is correct.
 
I also think Friel's use of drills and what not is a waste of time of valuable training time. Especially if you're time-crunched.. 1 legged stuff, spin ups, big gear stuff. I've never seen any crossover with specific aspects of racing, in my experience. 2-3 hours in a 10 hour week just leaves someone training 7-8 hours instead of 10.
 
Originally Posted by needmoreair
I also think Friel's use of drills and what not is a waste of time of valuable training time. Especially if you're time-crunched.. 1 legged stuff, spin ups, big gear stuff. I've never seen any crossover with specific aspects of racing, in my experience. 2-3 hours in a 10 hour week just leaves someone training 7-8 hours instead of 10.
Agree fully on the drills - I think I've spent a total of 30 seconds over the last 30 years pedaling with one leg. My own feelings on training tend toward specificity. Including Friel's note was to illustrate, at least from a methodology standpoint, there seems to be more than one way to cook an egg. Anything I am personally doing over 6 minute intervals is probably at VO2 level, and for ME building doing "long intervals done at HR, pace or power zone 3."(as quoted above from Friel's blog) adding time as the build progresses (which more closely follows Allen's methodology). Specificity. YMMV.

Subliminal-SS, I hope you don't feel we've hijacked his thread and see it more that you've inspired a lively discussion.
:)
 
Originally Posted by needmoreair


For those short on time (<12 hours), those type of workouts very well may give you a much better bang for the buck when incorporated from the onset of base.

Maybe even harder, 88-95% of FTP for 20-60 mins a couple of times a week. This subthreshold work can be very valuable for bolstering aerobic fitness with a bit less time to train. Straight zone 3 can be done for hours on end with no breaks at all if you have that kind of time.

If not, hop on the bike, 10 min warm up. 40-45 minutes at ~90% (straight or broken up), 5-10 mins home or cool down and you're done. Big workout, short time. Good for winter!

6-12 mins is a bit short unless you're approaching 105%+. Zone four should be sustainable for much longer if FTP is correct.
Training 45 to 60 minutes in zone4, close to zone5 twice a week was something I did way back, before a good coach helped me along the path of not riding like a triathlete, but rather road racing and getting to the finish line in the bunch, with a chance for the sprint.

I use to be able to ride 100 miles without fatigue at a reasonable pace, but my pace was as flat as a pancake.

Have a look at this article and scroll down to figure 2, to see the effect of short high intensity bouts on muscular fiber mitochondrial content, for what it is worth.

But again, what works for me may not work for you and if this works for you, keep doing it. For me the longer duration will take care of my level I, muscle fiber, but neglect level IIa and level IIb, both critical for road racing.

http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-54-muscle-adaptations-to-aerobic-training

Quote:
However, the influence of exercise bout duration is not linear (Dudley et al., 1982); as training sessions become increasingly prolonged, the additional training time appears to be relatively less important as a signal inducing an increase in mitochondrial content. Further, exercise intensity interacts with the duration of the exercise bout to make the initial minutes of exercise even more effective in establishing a stimulus for adaptation.
 
Originally Posted by danfoz
Subliminal-SS, I hope you don't feel we've hijacked his thread and see it more that you've inspired a lively discussion.
:)
Not at all, I'm glad that as you say a great discussion is taking place, just sitting back and taking in all the good information

I like to think I don't have to worry about all this stuff quite so intensively until my second Summer is under my belt.
big-smile.png
 
Originally Posted by WillemJM

Training 45 to 60 minutes in zone4, close to zone5 twice a week was something I did way back, before a good coach helped me along the path of not riding like a triathlete, but rather road racing and getting to the finish line in the bunch, with a chance for the sprint.

I use to be able to ride 100 miles without fatigue at a reasonable pace, but my pace was as flat as a pancake.
Upper zone 4 to zone 5 is absolutely not what I was suggesting. Triathletes don't train like that. Only people who don't know what they're doing, do.

With that said, my post may have been a bit confusing.

I was referring to a base/winter type of training with limited time. In that case, since you don't have the time to build up that aerobic foundation with miles of trials and all, you can use a lot more subthreshold work to give you an improvement boost.

Then, once longer days roll around and you start getting more specific with your training, you have a fairly solid base from which to incorporate that suprathreshold work which is so vitally important for racing.

8 hours on a trainer at Z2 is a huge waste of time compared to 8 hours on a trainer with 3-4+ hours of upper Z3, low Z4.
 
Originally Posted by needmoreair

Upper zone 4 to zone 5 is absolutely not what I was suggesting. Triathletes don't train like that. Only people who don't know what they're doing, do.

With that said, my post may have been a bit confusing.

I was referring to a base/winter type of training with limited time. In that case, since you don't have the time to build up that aerobic foundation with miles of trials and all, you can use a lot more subthreshold work to give you an improvement boost.

Then, once longer days roll around and you start getting more specific with your training, you have a fairly solid base from which to incorporate that suprathreshold work which is so vitally important for racing.

8 hours on a trainer at Z2 is a huge waste of time compared to 8 hours on a trainer with 3-4+ hours of upper Z3, low Z4.
Doing ME at upper Z3, lower Z4 (90% of FTP) agrees with most of the advice out there at the right time of the year, but I think we are all different and there is no once size fits all.

Personally, I do not go hard in winter and find that once my base is established Z2 lower Z3 the rest comes really fast and I get to form within 8 weeks, with fast recovery and not get burn-out.

It could be that I dig deeper, or it could just be my DNA, but 90% of FTP for me is just about busting my b@lls and I don't hurt myself other than FTP tests and a few selected A races during the year.
 
Originally Posted by WillemJM
Doing ME at upper Z3, lower Z4 (90% of FTP) agrees with most of the advice out there at the right time of the year, but I think we are all different and there is no once size fits all.

Personally, I do not go hard in winter and find that once my base is established Z2 lower Z3 the rest comes really fast and I get to form within 8 weeks, with fast recovery and not get burn-out.

It could be that I dig deeper, or it could just be my DNA, but 90% of FTP for me is just about busting my b@lls and I don't hurt myself other than FTP tests and a few selected A races during the year.
Again, the issue is getting the most bang-for-the-buck with limited training time.


Someone with 10 hours of training can get in a much higher percentage of intensity (and has to to accumulate similar TSS) than someone with 20 hours.

If you have more time, you can do less intensity and still accumulate the same workload. Less time + more intensity to accumulate the same workload. It's all a matter of balancing time and intensity to get what you need out of the training.
 
Originally Posted by needmoreair


Again, the issue is getting the most bang-for-the-buck with limited training time.


Someone with 10 hours of training can get in a much higher percentage of intensity (and has to to accumulate similar TSS) than someone with 20 hours.

If you have more time, you can do less intensity and still accumulate the same workload. Less time + more intensity to accumulate the same workload. It's all a matter of balancing time and intensity to get what you need out of the training.
There was a time when I was still young and pretty, training with my team up to 6 hours a day. Trust me, if we could get the same result with a couple of hours of high intensity, we would much rather have done that. There is no substitute for time in the saddle.
 
Originally Posted by WillemJM
There was a time when I was still young and pretty...
Ain't it the truth. Take a look at the worst picture you took when younger and you'll wish you still looked that good :)
 
Originally Posted by needmoreair


Again, the issue is getting the most bang-for-the-buck with limited training time.


Someone with 10 hours of training can get in a much higher percentage of intensity (and has to to accumulate similar TSS) than someone with 20 hours.

If you have more time, you can do less intensity and still accumulate the same workload. Less time + more intensity to accumulate the same workload. It's all a matter of balancing time and intensity to get what you need out of the training.
It's more the other way around though -- ideally you want to have as much time to ride as you can, in order to take on more workload. If you can't put in that much time, then you need to try and get as much workload as possible.

In my experience, the higher my CTL the better I am. Obviously if I can't get my CTL as high as I want because my riding time is limited, then I do more intensity to make the TSS I can do count for as much as possible. But choosing between doing 700 TSS in 10 hours a week and 700 TSS a week in 20 hours is not the choice you need to make. It's choosing between 700 TSS in 10 hours and 1200 TSS in 20 hours. But even that's not a choice because most of us don't get a chance to ride 20 hours a week!
 
Originally Posted by needmoreair


Again, the issue is getting the most bang-for-the-buck with limited training time.


Someone with 10 hours of training can get in a much higher percentage of intensity (and has to to accumulate similar TSS) than someone with 20 hours.

If you have more time, you can do less intensity and still accumulate the same workload. Less time + more intensity to accumulate the same workload. It's all a matter of balancing time and intensity to get what you need out of the training.
I think you have it backwards. With limited time you need to make more effective use of your time than with unlimited time. That means that with limited time you are forced to use higher intensities. When you need to hit 100% of your critical power for each of your (limited time) workouts, you physically cannot do more. So there is some real limitation on training with limited time.

In addition, some systems need long duration efforts. Somewhere after an hour one needs to drink.After 3 hours one needs to eat. Traing your body to tolerate drinking and eating requires riding longer than 1 and 3 hours. That raises the needed intensity or duration of the other rides for a limited time plan.

It is very difficult to come up with good limited time training plans. Chris Charmichael's with his time crunched plans recognizes this and indicates these plans are suitable only for shorter events - 1-2 hours. But a lot of events are of that duration.
 
Originally Posted by smaryka
It's more the other way around though -- ideally you want to have as much time to ride as you can, in order to take on more workload. If you can't put in that much time, then you need to try and get as much workload as possible.

In my experience, the higher my CTL the better I am. Obviously if I can't get my CTL as high as I want because my riding time is limited, then I do more intensity to make the TSS I can do count for as much as possible. But choosing between doing 700 TSS in 10 hours a week and 700 TSS a week in 20 hours is not the choice you need to make. It's choosing between 700 TSS in 10 hours and 1200 TSS in 20 hours. But even that's not a choice because most of us don't get a chance to ride 20 hours a week!
How is that the other way around when that's exactly what I said?

More time mandates lesser intensity for a comparable workload. You can ride 30 hours of Z2 and rack up a helluva workload.

But 10 hours at that same Z2 intensity is going to leave you wanting so in order bolster that workload higher intensity is required.

As you say, it's not a choice for longer versus shorter. So the choice is 10 hours at 700 or 10 hours at 400 (fairly arbitrary numbers). Low hours necessitate a higher intensity. What I've said multiple times now.
 
Originally Posted by WillemJM
There was a time when I was still young and pretty, training with my team up to 6 hours a day. Trust me, if we could get the same result with a couple of hours of high intensity, we would much rather have done that. There is no substitute for time in the saddle.
I'm struggling to ascertain what that has to do with someone limited to 8-10 hours of saddle time a week?
 
Originally Posted by needmoreair

How is that the other way around when that's exactly what I said?


Quote:
Originally Posted by needmoreair .
If you have more time, you can do less intensity and still accumulate the same workload.


I just picked up on this line... which I thought was a weird way to express "if you have less time, do more intensity". You seemed to be saying "if you have more time you should still aim for the same workload but do it on less intensity" which is not the point at all. The point is getting as much workload as your time and body can handle. On a week where I have more hours to train, I don't just aim to do the same workload as on a week with fewer hours, I aim to do more...

It probably seems like splitting hairs to you, but other less-experienced cyclists may think they should be doing the same workload whether they ride 8 hours or 12 hours and that's completely misleading.