Coggan’s Razor
 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000608071197

Great podcast where Andrew Coggan takes on the mythology around Z2 and how to train aerobic capacity and lipolysis. I have no particular expertise in exercise physiology, but I am a physician and a working scientist and I think this guy is considerably more convincing than San Millán, whom he takes on directly. For those who don’t know Coggan, he invented FTP and the 7-zone power model and describes that history here too, dismantling more bro science in the process.

Sorry about the Apple-specific link. The podcast title is “Inside Exercise” and the episode is from April 9 2023.

Warning: That's almost an hour and a half long.

Good for downloading and listening to in your car, but if you're so inclined, the Youtube version has a table of contents with a time index you can skip to. Just click to expand the video description to get to the index.

Almost long enough for a short Z2 trainer session.

I just watched the video and it should be humbling to anyone that thinks they understand exercise physiology. Too many of us are jumping on the zone 2 bandwagon and promoting it as an end-all-be-all approach...including me.

I was attracted to this approach, because I know I do too many sprints during my rides. However, one thing I'm confused about...do we need to reset our aerobic base every so often?

If I understand him correctly we don't, but maybe I should listen to the podcast again...Or I could look into his 7-level training program.


.

(I may have missed or misunderstood something)
-I don't think he discounts the importance of Z2 training. (And his 7 zone model has plenty of time spent in Z2)
-He did say that the thought process of having to stay in Z2 for the entire effort, so you don't "mess up" the effort - is crap.
-He did say that only training in Z2 will leave you flat in race or punchy situations.

He also said that he didn't listen to Inigo's podcasts about Z2, he just read about things second hand on the interwebs.
Inigo also talks about the need for high intensity.

Both are actually pretty close - in my uneducated opinion. The strict staying in Z2 for the Z2 effort seems to be the sticking point. Along with a hint of doctor/scientist ego in the mix.

Thanks for the Cliff's Notes.

You're probably right, but now I'm reading more of his work so I can get a better sense of time needed in zone 2. But then again, as he said in the video a few times. Science can't really help the individual in finding the optimum training plan:cry:


https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/s...base-training/



.

Haven't got around to listening . . . I did a good bit of Z2 so far since October, in fact nothing else since my current heart issue won't let me, so it has been a good opportunity to check that out. Outcome was that my power/HR ratio just got better and better. Best it's been in years. So there's that. Of course that's not the end-all-be-all. A huge thing on the high end is to improve one's ability to burn lactate, and to burn lactate you have to make lactate, and you're going to have to do that as much as you work the low end to be strong on hilly rides. IME anyway.

Of course the longer the ride, the less one's going to be burning a ton of carbs up in the high end. Taking in 250 carb Calories per hour is about it for us duffers, so that limits the hourly output. It seems to me one could draw a graph of saddle time vs. zone distribution that might indicate what a good distribution of training zone effort might be for a target event. Not that I can of course, but that might be something to think about.

Actually, I have one distribution point to offer. In 2017 I had a good event ride, 9:47 saddle time, 15.8 mph average for 154 miles, 9400' when I was 72. The HR zone breakdown in a 5 zone system was about 19% Z1, 42% Z2, 36% Z3, 3% Z4, no Z5. Anyone can figure that breakdown for whatever length ride they're interested in AND have experience in doing.

Anyone think that's a valid way to assign training goals?

Yeah, important point. No one is saying Z2 isn’t important.

I think the disagreement is over whether aerobic/muscle-metabolic gains can be gotten simply by activating muscle, generating redox stress, releasing Ca+, etc (Coggan) or whether there’s something special about burning fat under low lactate conditions that promotes the adaptation (San-Millán). To my lay understanding, Coggan’s theory is wins by parsimony (hence my thread title). Then there’s the question of whether lactate per se inhibits lipolysis in a concentration-dependent manner (San Millán) or whether the apparent antagonism between glycolysis and lipolysis is just a result of blood flow being diverted away from fat depots under more intense exercise conditions (Coggan). On this point Coggan cites an amazing study from George Brooks where they infused lactate intravenously during exercise and were unable to reduce lipolysis. Pretty convincing to my way of thinking.

I think San Millán is very smart and certainly a legit scientist, but perhaps a tad obsessed with lactate, for instance as a promoter of tumor growth and even tumor genesis. I would love to hear these two guys debate these points at a high level. .

Very interesting.

There is a guy who rides with my group who needs to watch this. When he's on a recovery ride, he's adamant that he not get his HR above 130 bpm. So when we hit a hill, we either have to wait for him or drop him. Very often he does this on ride that nobody else declared or agreed that it was a recovery ride, so we drop him.

He should loosen up, put a little power into those hills, and then hang back in the draft and do the rest of the ride in his Z2.

It's interesting to see what Andy Coggan had to say about zone 2 training on the old wattage mailing list. It's certainly not the "oh yeah, everyone should be doing lots of zone 2" endorsement:

Terry Morse wrote:

> For which reasons do we train at level 2? Just about everyone does "endurance
> training", but why? From your chart (Expected physiological/performance
> adaptations resulting from training at levels 1-7), it looks like all of the
> listed performance adaptations occur more quickly at higher levels than 2.

I can think of lots of reasons:

1. It's fun.

2. It allows you to burn more calories, and thus eat more/be leaner.

3. It's a great way to work on your tan.

4. It helps condition ancillary/support muscles (having done a 120 mi
district road race on a borrowed bike as only my 2nd or 3rd outdoor ride
of the year, I can tell you that this is very important <g>).

5. You *might* be able to tolerate a greater overall "dose" of training
if it is achieved via lower intensity+greater volume vs. higher
intensity+lower volume.

The one thing about training at level 2 is that it is so pleasurable
(esp. at the low/middle end of the range) that it is easy to fall into
the trap of not maintaining an overload situation. Consequently, people
often ride and ride and ride and ride, and after a while simply don't
get better (until, of course, the racing season starts).

-- Andy Coggan, 06 Apr 2005

Thanks Mo for the podcast - Interesting. I love the title Coggan's Razor. In cycling, particularly track cycling, the technique of riding in the front of your opponent and no matter how hard he/she tries to pass, you deny the pass by modulation of your pace is called riding the razor. Of course, one has to be talented enough to actually do that.

Listening to Coggan talk about his construct reminded me of Morpheus and Neo sparing Kung Fu in the Matrix training video. Some rules are made to be bent and other broken. Do you think this is air you are breathing in this place? Do not think you can know you can.


I made the decision In 2007 to use a coach with a track record of success in the events I wanted to do with experience with athletes similar to me. IMO, small study science, as Coggan points out, does not get one there. Coaches know what tactics and plans works and which training protocols produce the desired training effect on athletes.

As far as San Millan and Tadej Pogačar, I could coach Tadej and look like a genius and come up with a theory about most anything and some people would believe me and I have no idea how to coach a UCI pro but Tadej is so talented most any protocol that you give him will work.

For the last 15 years, my coaches have focused on the event to determine duration of endurance training and intervals. Since San Millan came out with his z2 thing, our training group did that for a couple of weeks and then it sort of fell by the wayside. Sure we do endurance but it is about duration and we are back to embedding 110% longer effort in our 3 hour ride. And all of our training group is racing now. We have 2 pro women in Europe and a junior racing with the pro men in Europe as well as our local gang is racing including yours truly. When one races or participates in the event for which one is training for, one improves.

I think some of the confusion is over what is low lactate and fat burning. The rest of the confusion is over periodization and specialization.

An aerobic endurance ride should engage both types of muscles (plus their variants) and there is lactate generated, perhaps blood lactate is as high as 1.7-2.0 mmol/L. The lactate generated by type 2 muscles should be oxidized and not too much spilled into the bloodstream.

I like the science as explained from Brooks and prefer to read. One could argue that there are only two zones.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...118301864#bib6

Would the two zones be separated by lactate to blood spillover vs. non-spillover (essentially LT1)? From what I have seen on blood lactate vs. power curves, neither LT1 nor LT2 sticks out in any dramatic way.

Zone 1 all the way to VO2 max = aerobic (at least that was my thought)


There plenty of well documented cases of marathoners who come close to 100% of VO2 max over the full 26.2 miles. I know at one point I got my "FTP" around 90%. Enhancing fractional utilization (% of FTP to VO2 max) is about the ability to use lactate. Of course, genetics plays a role. From a training perspective, one can conjure up any scheme but practically what I wrote isn't meaningful because we are all time and energy limited and therefore, we have to do the best we can with limited resources. The question is how much time does one spend between the first and second breakpoint (or LT1 and LT2) in order to move "FTP" closer and closer to VO2 max. Almost all of the studies are to short (6-12 weeks), so, there isn't much to support other than looking at lifetime long distance endurance athletes and their training patterns. What is interesting to me are the different substrates used as output increases as a percentage of VO2 max because that can hamper the onset of fatigue (I can't eat 500+ calories per hour, hour after hour but can output that). I'm just trying to learn


Some many years ago, I twice asked Andy Coggan a question about my training and he was kind to answer, especially since he was nice. Basically, he acknowledged my zone 2 work with occasional intervals was working for me and to keep doing it until it stops working and then try something else (presumably some ideas he was posting about). When I struggling on my M5 CHR, I remembered what Dr. Coggan said and changed my training. Low and behold, I started to make significant improvement. Just saying because I think sometimes this training stuff can have some art to it or it can feel that way.

I have gotten my FTP up to a high percentage of my VO2max simply by getting old and having my top end go to ****.

A couple of points from that conversation:

1. All roads lead to Rome - Essentially, there are many ways to train that will get you to the same level of fitness. So there's no need to obsess over how much time spent in each zone.

2. You don't need to train in fat burning zone to improve your fat metabolism. - Another nail in the "must do gobs of zone 2" coffin.

3. The best measure of performance capability is performance itself. - Seriously? Thanks for that tautology, Andy. I blame this bit of silliness for the demand to do those unpleasant FTP tests.

You got no Zen in you, man.

Yeah, the long recovery from Covid did something similar to me.

Here's Andy's list of seven ways to estimate FTP (from the Wattage List, in 2004). This is his "Seven deadly sins.." post.
I use #5 on Andy's list. I don't see much reason not to, and some reasons that make it preferable.
Note that Andy never had the "95% of 20-minute test" on his list.

Most of my "50 something" riding peers do endless Z2 rides with very little high intensity. What I notice in our events (typically hilly century sportives) is that they are easily dropped on punchy climbs or accelerations. I think Z2 training certainly has its place, but can leave you flat-paced if you don't do enough higher zone efforts. But obviously depends on what your target events actually consist of. I'm finding a more polarized approach in training successful this year. Only thing I'm struggling a bit with is keeping my weight down. I've crept up about 5 kg with reduced Z2 volume. I was obviously burning more calories before and haven't compensated enough for it. I basically eat the same.

What's happened to your overall volume, and overall kJ or kcal?

I think one side-effect of Andy's work is that many riders base their training "volume" on TSS or TSS-like measures, and trade-off volume for intensity; at least, I'm often guilty of that when I'm time-crunched (and almost all of us are at some point time-crunched). But volume is a pretty handy tool to have even if it's not the perfect one, and often you can also move performance in the right direction by using an okay tool at more-or-less the rightish neighborhood of time. For an endurance athlete, volume makes up for a lot of non-optimality and imprecision in plans. I have a friend who lives in a close-to-century-old house, as do I, and he likes to say that paint is a tool that covers a multitude of deficiencies. Volume is sort of like that.

Volume is a tool that covers a multitude of deficiencies -- I like it, and that seems to be in keeping with Andy's "all roads lead to Rome" concept.

As Andy said in the podcast, you have just three levers to pull: time, repetition, and intensity (or two levers if time + repetition = volume).

As a not-time-crunched person who doesn't recover as quickly, I've been adding in more time at lower intensity, while the weekly TSS stays about the same.

My overall volume is well down, both in hours and TSS. Without digging into it, I'm averaging around 6-7 hours per week vs 11-12 hours. TSS is currently averaging around 450 per week vs 600+

[Sorry for two posts in response, I thought I had commented about this in my previous post, but obviously this part was excised.]
Long steady riding may help with long steady rides but it's sort of like many of these discussions about marginal gains: mass-start racing isn't like TT'ing, so it often doesn't make sense to think about marginal gains in steady state. Mass-start racing is much more about a series of crises that you must survive. If you do survive, you get to recover until the next crisis. The marginal gain hardly matters when you're between crises (it matters, but hardly). Marginal gains help when the **** hits the fan and you're clawing to hang on. This is sort or what happens during your sportives: separation doesn't occur in marginal increments spread out over the century, nor when things are easy and slow: separation occurs when things get tough.