Hermes

Periodized training plans go through phases. Phase I is strength and adaptation. During S&A, the goal is to build strength on the bike in different riding positions. However, this is done in concert with significant force generation with the pedals. I would not put my time trial bike on the trainer and remove the chain, pedal and watch TV in the aerobars and think that was S&A.

I like to ride low cadence on my time trial bike on flat terrain in a big gear at tempo power. Another S&A workout is to ride around the neighborhood alternating tops, hoods and drops in the big ring and smallest rear cog. Basically I muscle the bike around. Speed is not the goal but force generation. And the duration is not long.

By my definition, none of that is junk unless one considers the entire S&A phase of training, junk, and not worthwhile. I am sure that some athletes hate this phase of training and consider it a waste of time.

rubiksoval

After you've adapted to an aero position, continuing to roll around in it doesn't provide more adaptations...

rubiksoval

rubiksoval

I approach periodized training as general -> specific.

So for me, that involves more z2-z3 based volume (if time/weather permitting) or "strength" volume (SS/z4). Cuts out all the supposed ancillary stuff (weights, one legged stuff, spins ups, etc) that I've never believed were of any use (my opinion).

work4bike

I just came across this video of a guy that does triathlons, who's apparently in recovery from something...Anyway, he describes building mitochondria better than I did. His explanation starts at about the 8-minute point in the video.

downtube42

One man's junk is another man's treasure.

Last August I rode PBP, and the lead up included focused training. I ended my 5-year stretch of monthly 200k rides, because I considered those junk miles toward my goals. In October, two months after PBP, I broke my neck. Once the brace came off I just wanted to ride my bike. No performance goals, and no concept of junk miles. I've enjoyed doing rides without even seeing speed or distance. Now I'm at R-2 (two consecutive months with a 200k), and I'm just enjoying the miles. I'm starting to think about performance goals, but what I really want is to ride through a sunset and on through to the sunrise.

When you encounter someone on the road, you don't know what they're trying to accomplish. Same when you encounter someone on BF.

Sorg67

This is true. “Junk miles” is a prerogative term. But such miles are really only “junk” when they are inconsistent with someone’s program. I like just riding the bike and do not intend to be a slave to a program. But I have learned some things in this thread I think will help me get a more efficient training benefit out of my riding.

wolfchild

Every ride I do has a purpose, there is no such thing as junk miles to me.

hubcyclist

do not trust taren. Go visit the popular triathlon forum and see how he gets picked apart by those who know better. This fellow follows gimmicky stuff and has apparently done quite the number on himself physiologically as a result of doing fad diets and such.

work4bike

Not knowing which triathlon forums are the popular ones, I did a quick search and I found one site (slowtwitch) where there were comments about how he may have bitten off more than he could chew...However, they were just comments and there was no substance to the comments and it was in a forum, much like any other forum on the internet, where you see hateful comments.

Furthermore, Taren's points were about mitochondria building and it was in line with so many more resources out there, such as this.

https://pezcyclingnews.com/amp/toolb...e-your-engine/





.

Sorg67

@work4bike Really interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

Carbonfiberboy 

Yes, good article. However, it's nothing more than a rehash of the theory of Polarized Training, the 80/20 system.

1) The article uses the 3 zone system and says do little in zone 2, though lots of zone 2 is what we hear some expert riders on this forum advocating.

2) IMO the difference is the word "elite". When the training systems used by elite endurance athletes in all sports are examined, we see this same 80/20 (zone 1/zone 3) distribution.

Looking at this dichotomy, my thinking is that many riders simply don't have the time to do enough zone 1 or the ability to do that much zone 3. I mean . . . so an elite might train 20 hours a week. That's 4 hours of zone 3! Who can do that? Looking at a possible schedule for the usual 8 hour/week rider, that brings the zone 3 down to 1.6 hours/week. So one does 4 * 12' zone 3 twice a week and then three 2:15 zone 1 rides. I don't know. That still seems exceptional athlete to me. OTOH, I never tried eliminating all zone 2 riding from my schedule. 1.6 hrs. of zone 3 is a terrific load.

In my mid-50's, I could do 1 day/week with 6 X 8' zone 3 plus 1 hour of zone 2 during the weekly group ride, plus ~3 hours of zone 1 on the group ride and another 3 hours zone 1 JRA. That was my upper limit and I quickly aged out of being able to do that. Thus my weekly distribution was about what is mentioned in the article right after "When we speak about intensity, it can be helpful to summarize using a 3 zone system:" Back when I was able to work that hard, riding with that distribution created a quantum leap in pack position for me.

In the system advocated in the article, "junk miles" are in zone 2, and unfortunately, these zone 2 miles are where the fun has always been for me.

I realize that this article does not prescribe an 80/20 distribution and that there has been much discussion of whether 80/20 relates to hours or number of workouts. My memory is that Seiler said that elite records indicate it's hours.

Sorg67

@Carbonfiberboy All good points. Plus, what seems like zone 3 to a lot of recreational riders is probably honestly the higher end of zone 2 in the three zone system. I am considering getting a power meter so I can be more honest about my zones rather than estimating based on heart rate and perception. And I want to measure my FTP to get a more accurate reading.

OTOH, I think aging athletes need to be efficient with their training to minimize over use injuries. I work at home so I am able to get a quick ride in the am. Sometimes a lunch ride. Kids are grown so I have my weekends to myself. I have a lot of time to train if I want. I am also finding that as I am riding more, zone one is extending to faster and faster speeds. If I am on an easy ride, I mostly take it easier going up hills.

My sister is a PhD in genetics. We have discussed the general topic of optimal stimulus to get the body to grow stronger. She has stated that there is quite a bit of disagreement among experts in this area. It is possible that a very little of the right kind of training can make a big difference.

gregf83 

I haven't seen any 'elite' riders following Seiler's polarized model. I believe the 80/20 is supposed to apply to workouts not total duration, i.e. 2 out of 10 workouts include zone 3 work and the rest are done mostly in zone 1.

I follow Robert Gesink who's a little past his prime but still a solid domestique for JV. He's living and training in Andorra these days and while he will occasionally include climbing at threshold he does most of his climbing in the dreaded zone 2, i.e. SST. Living in Andorra, a training session in Zone 1 would be rare and certainly not 80% of the time.

Hermes

I do not know of anyone that rides around at low levels for hours hoping for an upside. There is a podcast on polarized training featuring Seiler, Coggan, Pierce and a guy who trains Tony Martin. In the podcast, against his peers, Seiler struck me as a buffoon. Under pressure, he said his polarized system was predominantly to protect less knowledgeable from overtraining. Hey that is great.

A point that Martin’s coach made was since Martin’s FTP is 425, he cannot ride a lot of SST or tempo since he runs out of glycogen. We all only have about 2000 calories of glycogen stored in our liver and muscles so Martin and many similar pros have to keep the power lower in order to get in the miles to train for a grand tour and use more fat burning than glycogen. That is not a problem for the 99.9999% of us who are not UCI pros with 425 watt ftp’s that race 3 week grand tours.

One of the key benefits from riding long hours at a reasonable level of effort is training the body to select fat over glycogen. This is very beneficial for stage racers, brevet riders, long distance riders and others as burning more fat preserves muscle glycogen and we all have plenty of fat to burn. For shorter distance efforts and getting the most training buck per unit of time, in general, the harder we ride the better assuming some kind of plan and recovery.

With respect to genes, I have been interested in genetics for over 15 years and did the 23andme profile. I have used other software platforms to take my genome and search for performance markers for a point of interest. It has all been at best equivocal. And there is the field of epigenetics that is about the regulation of genes and it seems that exercise plays a role whether a gene stays turned on or not. Generally, we do not want genes to turn off unless they are causing disease. And there is debate whether aerobic versus intensity makes a difference. Simply stated...use it or lose it.

rubiksoval

80/20 relates to training sessions.

4 out of 5 training sessions are Z1 (of the 3 zones).

rubiksoval

So that'd put his Z2/endurance zone around 235-320ish. At ~276w you're burning around 1 mJ an hour.

That's utterly mindboggling thinking of dong 3-4 hours of that as a pretty easy ride day in and day out.

Carbonfiberboy 

Ahem. https://www.velonews.com/training/fa...tephen-seiler/

This is not theory. This is from Seiler's analysis of what the elite athletes he studied actually did. There's a huge difference between what Seiler found and your idea of the theory, namely volume at intensity. Big difference, and this difference is the reason that I and many other wannabees can't and couldn't train like the elites. That's why they're elite, right there.

A US National RR champ, Fred Rodriguez back in 2000, spent the last two weeks of training for the Nationals riding nothing but zone 1, ~20 hours/week of it. I guess that worked.

Hermes

I will raise your podcast bet 51 with this podcast 72 featuring Coggan / Seiler et al with the coach of Martin and Sagan. IMO, the PC could be edited to about 10 minutes and they could still get out the key points.

What I am most happy about is that if we ever start doing outdoor cycling events with lots of people again, I will hire my old coach and do what he says.

https://www.fastlabs.com/fasttalk72/

gregf83 

The references in the link you provided include papers authored by Seiler that refer to the distribution of intensity over sessions not time.

Regardless, time or sessions, I don't see it in the elite cyclists I follow while racing or training. They spend more time in zone 2 than 3.

rubiksoval

And polarized training, aka the 80/20 training, is training sessions, not time.

rubiksoval

So, he tapered?

Okay...

Flip Flop Rider

um. this could be taken a couple of ways

Carbonfiberboy 

Quite correct, Sir. Perhaps my memory of the original Seiler video of a decade ago or so has faded or perhaps he's changed the emphasis, but yes, 80/20 for sessions. Seiler estimates that this will result in about a 90/10 time percentage in zones 1 and 3 in the 3 zone system.

I found a more recent Seiler interview here: Yes, it's 93 minutes, but entirely worth it if one might be interested in serious training.

An interesting thing I particularly noticed is that he says that if one is doing a zone 1 workout indoors and finds that HR is drifting up at a steady power, one's power is too high - try lower powers until one can hold HR steady for say an hour, then gradually increase the power. I think that assumes good hydration and a big fan! That's a different way of getting rid of HR drift, over the months, of course. He said that when he tests elites at the top of their zone 1, their lactate will be .5-1 mmol, while most amateur riders will be around 2.5 mmol already. I'm pretty sure I'm in that latter category and I'm going to work on that.

Which is completely upside down from what most riders do for training, i.e. SST and VO2max intervals. Seiler says do 100%-105% FTP work, no harder, and tons of work below VT1, no SST. My home terrain is much more compatible with SST and VO2 max work than it is zone 1. There's pretty much is no flat here on any road that's compatible with cycling safety. I'm contemplating a theory of getting good enough at zone 1 work indoors that I can venture onto hills and climb them in zone 1 with itty-bitty gears. It's going to start raining here anyway pretty soon. Maybe by February? I'll find out, I hope, assuming that my saddle sore doesn't come back.

For the subject of this thread, Seiler's "junk miles" would be anything between VT1 and VT2, which is the range where many riders wind up spending most of their time.

Hermes

Seiler is an academic / university professor that developed a training construct. He is not a coach or successful athlete i.e. Olympic, national and etc. He relies on real coaches applying his construct to real world training situations where athletes expect results. Coggan is similar in that he is a geeky PHD who created a training construct but like Seiler coaches no athletes per se.

I know many coaches that use Coggan’s training construct and none that use Seiler’s. That could mean I do not know enough coaches. And I do not know any athletes that use Seiler’s construct but many of my friends and those on this forum use Coggan’s.

I do not think that either Seiler’s or Coggan’s training constructs have anything to do with categorizing miles as junk other that to say if you pick one of them and then go off the reservation doing as you please then you are not getting the most out of what that training platform is supposed to provide.