Al Bundy

A couple of interesting discussions have come up since I got back on the horse but rather than continue to pollute those conversations I thought it appropriate to post a new thread. My own understanding of the situation...

Performance improvement requires a certain amount of training stimulus to drive adaptations that subsequently enable greater athletic achievement. On average this stimulus must be matched with recovery time.
Given unlimited time to play with Polarised training appears (to me), to be the best approach for long term endurance and building robust fitness. This approach; lots of time of which a large percentage at low intensity, leads to a less fleeting high level of fitness and greater resistance to set backs. For best performance over shorter time periods HIIT appears to be required also, but it is not clear to me that it is necessary if you don't care about shorter efforts.
The maximum training load is limited by the ability to recover, so for those who can devote the time it becomes necessary to use a lot of Z2 (sub LT1), because if you don't then the training stress will ramp up to the point of failure. Equally there are allegedly some adaptations that are driven by Z2 time that are useful/important for endurance, robustness, a more lasting fitness plateau etc.

Time crunched people who want to achieve similar performance gains are better served by spending a larger percentage of their time at a higher intensity because they a, have limited time and therefore need to be at a higher intensity in order to generate the stimulus for improvement and b, they are less limited by recovery as they have a lot more time when they are not exercising. Also, if all your target goals are for relatively short events, then perhaps a time crunched HIIT plan is just a more accurate `event specific' training approach.

However, recent posts in threads point to glycogen storage and some other arguments to promote polarised (Z2 Stephen Seilor), over HIIT Coggins type plans. I appreciate the physiology is a big subject and complex beyond a simple forum post, but I am curious to improve my understanding..?

Steamer

I've been studying such things myself for about 9 months or so and I agree with the essence of what you said.

Not sure what the question is. Are you wondering what approach to take personally? If so, talk to us about your available time budget and cycling goals.

In my own personal experimentation, given my 6 to 9 hour per week time budget and my main goal to enjoy randonneuring (i.e. prevent it from being excessively difficult), I have abandoned my older ways of thinking intervals were the tide that raises all boats and have adopted a pyramidal approach. It's been great. I feel better and have better endurance. I still do some unstructured intensity, but it's only about 5% of my time on the bike, max.

GhostRider62

If you do not have much time and are doing shorter races, do a time crunched plan. It will be fine.

Al Bundy

This comment from the thread First time "training" for a long time cyclist set me ruminating. Also many of Seilor's youtube presentations talk about `other benefits' of lots of Z2:

Steamer

Except at very high intensity, the substrate utilization varies, and is influenced by a lot of things including training.

The elite athlete may be burning more calories per hour, but they are likely also burning a higher percentage of fat. So the glycogen burn rate may not be as different as some think.

Al Bundy

So we can infer that elite athletes do a lot of Z2 time in order to maximize their ability to burn fat at so as to burn less glycogen for a given power output?

Steamer

Probably. Although perhaps something else about their training also contributes to their right-shifted fat utilization curves. It's not all completely understood.

Z2 has other purported effects too, not just fat burning improvement.

Jughed

I don’t know how this fits in…

To treat T2, I’m a fat burning, time crunched “keto” cyclist.

I can ride at 90% of my FTP for 2+ hours with no carbs, all day at 70-80% of my FTP. Low intensity training is easy for me food wise.

The moment I go high intensity- everything can go bad in a hurry. So I’m forced to supplement with targets carbs for intense days, but I can’t consume post ride carbs.

Recovery is a disaster. I’m destroyed after a two week training block…

Just about every training plan, Coggan included, relies heavily on carb intake.

Steamer

Perhaps this suggests that you should still adopt a polarized or pyramidal distribution despite being time crunched. At least till you become healthier, metabolically speaking. I don't have trouble recovering from Z2 rides on a low carb diet. Would be a different story if I was doing a time crunched sweet spot plan.

MoAlpha

My anecdotal data point is that for this 67 yo lifelong endurance wannabe, 10-14 hrs a week of 80:20 just doesn’t cut it. Once I have a base in, I need more like 60:40 to keep up with the other old knuckleheads and make good (for me) numbers. Of course, that’s polarized too and I take my easy rides truly easy and mostly solo.

MoAlpha

From what I’ve seen and the authorities I’ve listened to, there doesn’t seem to be good evidence that burning fat (Z2) makes you any better at burning fat, despite the prevalence of this view among fitness influencers.

The superhuman lipolytic capacity of elite cyclists seems to be part and parcel of their general fitness.

GhostRider62

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26892521/

Disclaimer: I am no longer a LCHF athlete but was one for about 2 years. Some would say the 64% of VO2 max is trivial but in terms of long distance endurance racing, that power level far exceeds what racers hold for power. Most have an FTP of about 80% of VO2 max. So, th study was done in low tempo or zone 3.

GhostRider62

First thing to understand is 80/20 means 80% of sessions are below VT1 or LT1, which can be as high as low tempo or as low as low zone 2. The 20% of sessions are intervals. Time in zone would be more like 90-95% being endurance based and 5-10% time in zone being intervals over the course of a year. These distributions are also consistent with elite marathoners and other endurance athletes. What most don't take the time to understand is Seiler's observation that time in zone and the distributions change as competition period gets closer. As the competition season approaches, the training becomes more specific.

Everyone can handle different training loads. I know when I was a Seiler and LCHF type athlete, I could do criteriums and stay with the pack of mostly ex Cat 1 racers who were also old. I also know my fat oxidation was off the charts. I also know that once I gave up LCHF, my FTP was higher (glycogen takes less O2 compared to beta oxidation) but my endurance on 12-24 hour races was no where as good.

For a variety of health reasons, I have not been able to handle much high intensity or my normal volume. January until now, I have "only" been doing 10-17 hours per week building CTL from the mid 40's into the 90's. I did not do intervals until into June. The intervals got me another 5-6% or about 20 watts on my 5 minute power and I am setting personal bests on short 3-5 minutes climbs that I have data going back 10 years. So, 6 months of Zone 1 and 2 did not hurt me.

Kipchoge runs really slow in training but does a ton of volume. The real question to OP, what type of event are you preparing for? If you are trying to break 4 hours for 100 miles, this is very different than wanting to do a Grand Fondue respectably.

https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/trai...hoge-training/

Al Bundy

I'm 59 and I've been off the bike for 10 years. 10 years back a typical week was a long climbing ride, a semi aggressive club training ride and a couple of sub hour trainer SS sessions on the trainer. Best guess at FTP was 230 at 165lbs. I did not race but have enjoyed longer group rides the toughest of which was Markleeville Death ride in a bit over 10hours and I'd like to go back and get another jersey. So nothing spectacular, perhaps a fairly typical MAMIL sportif rider at best. Current goal is 1 day Seattle to Portland in 2024.
Recently retired I now have time... Weight is coming down from 195 to a target of 154 (5'7"). I am on a diet of 1hour per day on a trainer at 120W until I get my heart rate drift down to ~10bpm at which point I will take a ramp test and reassess.

Steamer

If you have the time, and it's sounds like you do, I think it's clear that an approach that emphasizes Z2 is best, especially considering your focus on long events.

GhostRider62

At your age and with your riding objectives, zone 2 should probably be better for you (at this time) than a time crunched HIIT plan, especially since you have not ridden in 10 years and you are retired I am sure you could do Seattle to Portland next year if you are consistent with your riding.

PeteHski

Neal Henderson (Wahoo fitness coach) said that you needed a minimum of 15 hours per week of low intensity training to see any significant advantage compared to a more balanced intensity, relatively low volume plan.

Being cynical you could just say that he was promoting Wahoo training plans. But I think he was just being realistic about the training volume available to most amateur cyclists and what is actually likely to be the best bang for their buck. Anecdotally, I know a few older riders who do 10+ hours of riding per week at moderate intensity and deliberately avoid higher intensity intervals. They are all relatively slow and struggle to deal with changes in pace when riding in a fast group. I seem to cope better despite often training on a sub 10 hour plan. This year in particular my volume is down to as little as 5 hours per week and yet I still feel strong on tough century group rides.

The key seems to be a measured dose of VO2 max intervals along with a couple of 2 hour Z2 rides and maybe the odd 1 hour sweetspot session. I find this to be pretty efficient when I don’t have any more time available to ride.

Steamer

Those riders you reference doing 10+ hours of moderate intensity may be over-trained - if by moderate, you mean zone 3. 10 hours to a LOT of zone 3. They'd be faster if they did 9 hours of z2, 1 hour of z3, and 15 minutes of z4 per week. But it would take a while for a rider to even build up to that much z2. Once you get a solid aerobic base built, Z2 isn't easy riding at all.

However, if they are doing 10 hours of z2 per week, and never, ever above that - well, there you go. It's going to be harder for them to ramp up the wattage on demand.

Neither of those scenarios make any sense for a rider who wants to do fast group riding. All z2 might be ok for a solo long distance rider, though.

PeteHski

By moderate I meant mostly Z2. I think that we agree that it's not a very efficient strategy for performance. At least not without some higher intensity intervals. I don't know anyone who does 15+ hours of lower intensity riding to see how much benefit it may give over a sub 10 hour balanced interval plan.

I've followed a polarised plan this year, but at quite a low volume (around 6-7 hours average) with mixed results. On that volume I think I might be better with a more balanced plan. My best fitness has been with around 10 -12 hours volume with mixed intensity intervals. Also more fun! So will probably go back to that routine again if time allows.

MoAlpha

Yup, the way I see it, there has to be an absolute minimum amount of high intensity required to stay snappy, especially in old age, and the lower one's overall volume, the greater proportion that minimum takes up.

Steamer

My emphasis above. To that statement - yes and no. I think it depends entirely on the type of event one is trying to perform in. For me, a training diet of 95% z2, 6 to 9 hours per week, from December to May, had me performing better in spring brevets than I ever did before. In past years, my preparation included a lot of z3, z4, and z5 riding, but my endurance and 'durability' was poor with that older approach. I was putting in slightly less time on the bike overall then. About 5 to 7 hours per week. GhostRider62 was very helpful in providing inspiration and guidance to try things a different way, and I couldn't be happier with how it turned out. My z4 and z5 performance probably sucks, but it's basically irrelevant, for me, as I would not typically alter my chosen pace at any given time to try to ride with others, be they slower or faster. I did a lot of solo riding in those brevets, but that's fine by me. Comparing my riding between last year and this year, I am now riding a bit faster, with a 10-20 bpm lower heart rate, with much greater bonk resistance and much less tendency for my legs to fade as the miles go by.

For someone who wants to do a double century or similar long distance event, but specifically in a group setting with pack of riders, they need to care very much about their z4 and 5 power, so they don't get dropped on the hills, etc. So they might still want to have a z2 based training plan, but they need to do a couple 4-week blocks of different length intervals as they approach their event. And maybe even do an abbreviated interval workout every 10 days or something like that during their build up / base phase.

PeteHski

That all makes sense. My typical target events are century group rides on rolling terrain with plenty of very steep, relatively short climbs. The climbs often require VO2 max efforts just to keep moving. Weaker riders are walking those climbs. A good example would be Mow Cop (the killer mile). So repeated high intensity efforts are essential for my riding. Endurance is important too and that's where I'm at my weakest on a lower volume plan. But if I gradually extend my longer training rides in the lead up to events I usually finish strong. I guess that would be the reverse of a traditional winter base plan.

This reminds me that a lot of my riding friends really back off their training intensity over the winter and wonder why they are dog slow in spring! I tend to reduce my winter riding volume, but do plenty of mixed indoor interval training throughout the winter months. Then I add volume in the lead up to my target events. I guess you would call that reverse periodisation?

GhostRider62

The appropriate training plan for an individual athlete is probably more complicated than picking the right medicine for an illness. OP should start slow and build up, maybe see his MD for clearance if there is a question there.

Goals vary. Train history varies. The length and intensity of the event varies. Age, genetics, muscle fibre proportions, and the big one is external stress.

I am not thrilled with my personal training this year, averaging a relatively low 12 hours per week peaking at 19 hours in May. Almost all of miles were zone 2 and zone 1 until about June 11 where I added intensity. Two blocks. I gained 5-6% but this also coincided with my long covid and respiratory difficulty easing up. Almost all of the HIIT studies are very short in duration. I am thrilled with 5-6% more power (5 minute) although I usually get 4% but I also do VO2 max intervals year round, but not too often and not too many due to the effect on SNS. My 5 minute power is a little more correlated with volume than intensity and for sure, fractional utilization is volume driven for me. When I am riding 25-30 hours per week for 6-9 months, my FTP is close to 90% whereas now it is just under 80%.

OP...do whatever makes you happy. If you like riding and it is fun, just ride a lot. If it becomes a chore and time is short, add intensity. At some point, you may want to hire a coach to help you sort out what works best for you.

kcjc

Who the heck is Coggins? Dr. Andrew Coggan? He's not a coach and has never promoted a HIIT centric training plan as far as I know; whereas, Dr. Stephen Seilor has and it is central to his observation while pretending not to be a coach. Polarize, mostly Zone 1 with limited efforts in zone 3 to have a weekly training density of 80/20, whatever that means and the word salad hasn't improved. That's Dr. Seilor's observation derived from cross country skiing Olympians. Most time crunched prescription doesn't limit one to just HIIT. In fact sweet spot is one of the primary substitution and is the dreaded Zone 2 that polarized harps against. It just depends where you are in relationship to your key events.

Just to make it clear, Coggan's power training level is composed of 7 zones where zone 2 is defined as endurance @ 56%-75% of FTP. Polarized training has 3 zones and only Zone 3 is tied to a philological marker, LT2/VT2 (> or equal to 100% of FTP depending how you measure CP). Polarized Zone 2 is defined by breathing hard, LT1/VT1.

This is taken from another post.

rm -rf

Near 70 years old, I was surprised how much my new Zwift riding helped this winter and spring. Any Zwift group ride needs 95% pedaling time; no coasting or you are dropped. And the pedal resistance on my Kickr v5 is subtly different than riding outdoors -- there's no "micro coasting" within a pedal stroke. That helped with a more efficient pedal stroke, more like "pedaling in circles". I notice the difference on the road this year.

The custom Zone 2 workout that I made was really good for me. a short warmup, then 8 minutes Zone 2 wattage, 30 seconds free ride--to get off the saddle! Repeat for 45 to 75 minutes. And I can bump or reduce the target wattage: 95%, 110%, etc. The trainer adapts to whatever cadence I'm using, adjusting the resistance to keep the watts consistent.

My cycling goal is just for general riding fitness, 40-50 miles and 2200-3000 feet of climbing. I'm not looking for PRs. So Zone 2 for endurance, and selected hill climb attacks for speed and power.