Heathpack 

I know that you are just relating what TTCC says but you seem to know what you are talking about, so just a follow-up question if you don't mind.

Why do you think Carmichael advocates such a long back-off period between cycles, the 4-6 weeks of non-interval training? Is there something unique about intervals when they comprise the majority of your training that makes it unsustainable over time?

For example, for me if I were to do three 2-hr trainer interval sessions per week and my coach made them really hard, they'd come out to 150 TSS (in WKO) each, or 450 TSS/week. Then a 2 hour zone 2 endurance ride would be another 150 TSS. Total 600 TSS/week.

My average TSS per month, including rest weeks, is 3000/month, which works out to 750 TSS/week. (I know this is higher than many people, but its not a totally-off-the-chart number and it seems to work well for me.) Why is TTCC's training plan with a TSS of 600/week less sustainable than my more balanced training plan of 750 TSS/week, when my training load is actually higher? Or is the downtime just a CYA disclaimer from Carmichael?

Kopsis

The explanation is that the progressive overload nature of the program never allows you to fully recover from the muscular and neuromuscular fatigue. And because the program doesn't build a strong aerobic base, the rider is drawing heavily on the glycolitic system even during lower intensity efforts. Toward the end of the program, accumulated fatigue makes it tough to hit power targets, so the rider has to work even harder and there's a bit of a snowball effect.

Training stress is not really interchangeable. A 100 TSS VO2Max workout is going to have a different effect on the body than a 100 TSS Zone 2 endurance ride. Think about this scenario: You do a VO2Max workout and create a large training stress on the glycolitic system. You take a rest day and get partial recovery. If your next workout is VO2Max, you load more stress on the not-fully-recovered glycolitic system. But if you next workout is a long endurance ride, you're loading the new stress on the aerobic system. The next recovery day provides recovery for the previous aerobic stress, but it also gives more recovery time for the glycolitic stress three days prior.

Coggan's work with TSS and ATL and CTL decay rates is based on data from balanced training programs. It doesn't differentiate stress types because it assumes training is structured to maximize recovery for each workout type. It stands to reason that an analysis of data from a TTCC style program would show that the Acute Training Load and Chronic Training Load decay rates are much lower when the same type of training stress is applied repeatedly. That, in turn, would lead to a much lower sustainable weekly TSS. TTCC goes well beyond this "sustainable" level and that's what pushes CTL to a point where an extended recovery is believed necessary.

Heathpack 

Thanks, @Kopsis.

One more question: who the heck are you & what are you doing posting in the 41, where the most common poster is more the type who sits in the back of the bus and lobs spitballs at anyone who takes cycling seriously?!

eyewannabike

From a pure ability of your heart and circulatory system, you don't see athletes in highly paid sports like soccer, hockey, etc, do hours and hours of training to get more cardiovascular endurance, so that would make a lot of sense. I'm pretty sure they'd have Christiano Ronaldo doing 4 hour exercise routines if it meant improved cardio.

I would imagine that for a highly competitive cyclist (ie not me), that a trainer could present a more stable, steady training environment than roads.

therhodeo

Comparing cycling to soccer is like comparing apples to computers.

eyewannabike

I'm talking about how a heart works. It's a muslce and doesn't know if you're playing a sport or cycling.

caloso

If I only had an hour, I would focus on super-threshold and VO2max efforts. See the sticky "workout recipe book" thread at the top of the 33. I think the ZeCanon Interval set is a great bang for buck workout:

ZeCanon Intervals
Good warmup (that's a given)
5 or 6 x 5' @ 103-108% FTP
60" rest between intervals
Cool down

The goal, as I've said before, is optimal (maximal) fiber recruitment. The first two feel easy - your anaerobic system is providing a good portion of the power. 3-end, you have exhausted anaerobic power and are relying entirely on the aerobic system.

Basically the first two are simply prepping your system, and are not providing any threshold gains in and of themselves. Gains in studies have been on the order of 2-3x standard 20min intervals. My favorite intervals by far.

therhodeo

Where would those be heart rate or PE wise for those of us with no power meter.

caloso

I did these before getting a PM, and it was a challenge because HR lags. What I ended up doing was trying to hit that 103%-108% of FTHR in the 3d or 4th interval. RPE is around 8-8.5 out of 10.