Trakhak

Yes, that was my point---that people used to talk about "junk miles" but no longer do. Just as coaches at one time told high-school athletes that the way to build endurance was to exercise in hot weather without drinking water, taking salt tablets instead.

PeteHski

Good videos thanks.

The first one is very practical and pretty close to what I now do with low volume training. I try to get at least one longer ride per week and the other 3 or 4 rides are quite short with plenty of intensity, although not very structured at this point. I do keep track of my training stress via TSS in the same app that I used for my polarised plan (PILLAR).

Polarised is interesting too. I followed a polarised plan for a full year and while effective I eventually found it a bit tedious and boring. I will probably come back to it when training for specific events, but otherwise I prefer free riding while monitoring my TSS as above.

I think polarised training works best on a high volume plan with several long, easy 4+ hour Z1 endurance rides, combined with one or two short VO2 max interval sessions. I found that it keeps overall training stress relatively low while training at a high volume. But on a low volume plan I’m not convinced about the efficiency of spending much of my limited training time pottering around in Z1. So in that case I prefer the approach of the first video.

bblair

I am no histologist, but I gotta really wonder if the whole mitochondria thing is for real. How is that measured? We all love to repeat the "science" without bothering to actually research it. Are there actual peer-reviewed research papers about this? If so, I'd love to read a few. The "new" zone 2 bandwagon is probably (IMO) another way of not overtraining and getting active rest.

I remember that there was agreement about carbo loading, lighter bikes are better, stiffer bikes are better, stretching before exercise, eating more meat, high pressure tires....the list goes on.

(I still stick to the carbo loading because spaghetti is delicious)

terrymorse 

There are many papers on mitochondria and exercise. A good jumping off place is Granata et al, Training-Induced Changes in Mitochondrial Content and Respiratory Function in Human Skeletal Muscle, 2018.

bblair

I will check that out. I did a quick search and most of the articles are either hidden behind a paywall or in vitro studies.

I guess it doesn't really matter, training is training and we want to do what is most effective.

I did not mean to be combative, so my apologies for that.

terrymorse 

The references in the article above are pretty good. If an article is behind a paywall, you may be able to find a free PDF by googling the title in quotes. That often works for me.

And, as you guessed, the “right way” to measure mitochondria in muscle is up for debate.

Road Fan

So this "80% easy with 2 sessions per week with chunks of intensity work" seems closely aligned with the general principle of Seilor's Polarized program. He renames what the 5-zone plans call Z1 and 2 into Z1, and (as far as I can tell) anything above Z3 is re-named as Z2 by Seilor. I see no point in arguing with his terms, or with anybody else's preferred language.

I'm slowly working back from getting my butt, glutes, quads, calfs, and lungs clobbered by COVID. Most of my aerobically significant work (indoor pedaling in Level 1, walking in metroparks up to 5 miles near the threshold of conversation, and a few small attempts at outdoor pedaling when the weather gods were speaking in my favor. Plus 1.5 to 4.5 hours of yoga per week, including standing poses, balance, Sun Salutes, balancing, leg isometrics and pretzel stretches, finally inversions to relax for meditation and the end. This is all lead by an Iyengar-certified professional instructor. So there's certainly improvements in strength, flexibility and balance. It seems to me that all of what I'm trying to do follows the bipolar (Seilor) pattern, rather than some partitioning of the 5-zone patterns. Even before COVID I have had a lot of trouble managing with 5 zones to watch out for.

Classtime 

I feel that “Specificity of Training” is the over arching principle. The last few years, most of my riding (not training) has been solo zone 2 and now I can’t even hang at the back when I run into the other 60 plus guys I regularly rode with before. I’m fit. I can ride and climb all day in zone 2 for 100 miles and 10,000 feet. But for 2024, I want to stay within sight of the other fellows as they try to tear each other’s legs off and that means regular intervals in zones 3, 4, and 5.

Hermes

Interesting article but long...not a criticism. With respect to mitochondria biogenesis, it seems murky. What I know is that 4 billion years ago, mitochondria merged with simple life to set the stage for humans today. Mitochondria is a separate life form with its own DNA. And we get our mitochondria from our mother via her egg. Thank your mom for your mitochondria. Does mitochondria density change over time due to training stimulus - biogenesis? Not clear. I am not sure that it matters to us since we know that we need more time on the bike if we want to ride longer. Also, cells need to "ask" the mitochondria to make ATP. The communication may be corrupted due to aging...one theory. Does exercise improve communication/fix corrupted communication between cells and mitochondria?

I have been very interested in the role that blood plays in aerobic power. Increase hematocrit and there is more oxygen capability of the blood. What happens to mitochondria when faced with MORE oxygen than is needed? Does that cause biogenesis and or increase in respiration or enzyme activity?

And when it comes to hematocrit the kidneys are the boss. They determine blood volume and signal the bone marrow to make more red blood cells and thicken the blood. More oxygen capability of the blood supply that occurs naturally (no drugs) improves aerobic performance and recovery. Long distance riding destroys red blood cells which have to be replaced during recovery. Intensity, on the other hand, creates a hypoxic condition that causes the kidneys request the bone marrow to make more red blood cells. Of course, intensity will also destroy red blood cells.

So the training question is what is the correct prescription for 1. mitochondria biogenesis / increases in enzymes and 2. increases in blood hematocrit and 3. individual genetics. Very complicated.

However, one can measure blood in the lab and get feedback on blood markers as well as kidney filtration and other markers to see if diet and training are improving blood. Mitochondria performance is too tough to measure and not practical.

Road Fan

Let me see if I got some of this. Mitochondria function beneficially by delivering ATP to cells upon a demand of some sort. It's not clear how sensitively this control function is regulated, nor if the dynamics of the response, say in fast actions, are always adequate or optimal. It's not clear how to measure mitochondrial action of this sort is measured effectively. We do have significant evidence that mitochondrial action at least has measurable and beneficial effects, so it is important to consider it in athletic nutrition and its influence on effective training program. We also seem to have a belief that "long, steady distance" (perhaps the same as conventional Zones 1 or 2 riding or Seilor's Zone 1) are training zones which promote mitochondrial action or the potential for mitochondrial action when demanded.

I need to map out a training plan for the year. I rarely satisfy plans fully, but I do more if i have one than if I don't.

terrymorse 

I think the research suggests that mitochondria content (number of mitochondria in muscle) is increased by the volume of exercise, which mitochondria function (ability to take in oxygen) is affected by the intensity of exercise. Both are beneficial.

So long rides promote the growth of mitochondria, and hard rides promote the ability of that mitochondria to do their job supplying energy to the muscles.

PeteHski

My simple take is that as you increase training volume it becomes more beneficial to devote a larger percentage of your time to z2 training instead of thrashing yourself into the ground with volume and intensity.

But the mistake to avoid is spending a lot of precious time in z2 on a low volume plan. I have friends who do this kind of thing (eg an hour or two of z2 riding 3 or 4 times per week) and wonder why they are slow.

terrymorse 

Yeah, some people call that the "zone 2 trap". It feels so pleasant that people want to do it all the time, so they get stuck in that slow plateau.

I think of zone 2 in a similar way, as a recovery ride pace. If I'm feeling fatigued from the prior day(s), but not so fatigued that I need a rest day, it's time for an easy zone 2 cruiser. But the notion that you must stay in zone 2 for the whole ride or you'll undo the zone 2 "benefit", or flip some metabolic switch, seems just plain goofy.

Pootling along at zone 2 for hours is boring. My favorite type of ride is plenty of zone 2 cruising, broken up by some harder efforts lasting 1 to 10 minutes. Mixing up the pace keeps things interesting, I'm getting a more well rounded workout, and I don't get so thashed that I can't go again the next day.

Road Fan

I don't have a zone 2 trap. I have a zone 0 trap - bone-idleness. Just restarting to ride (two at 15 minutes indoors, Z2) this week, these first few rides are very enjoyable. I'm hoping to get up to 30 minutes at this stress level "pretty soon!" Z2 is not so bad!

Hermes

Well San Millan is under the bus. And what if you do not need an easy day. Who decides that? Your inner Terry? What does he know? You know I am busting your ass. But it does beg the question if ones inner self is a reliable guide.

For me, if I am working out with my coach and faster people, my inner self STFU. YMMV.

terrymorse 

Are you saying that my inner Terry is not well calibrated? Maybe not perfect, but those subjective measures seem fairly reliable. I don't see the value of suffering away on a down day, and maybe it keeps me out of the "gonna make yourself sick" zone.

But I hear you. When riding in a group, my inner Terry doesn't get the attention he deserves.

Jughed

according to the good doc, the one we are ignoring , bouncing out of Z2 and producing lactate essentially ruins the effort for 25-30 min.

All he really preaches is - if your doing Z2, do Z2 so you get the best benefit from the workout.

terrymorse 

According to another good doc (rymes with "froggin"), the good doc we are ignoring is spouting nonsense:

"This whole notion that it takes a prolonged period of time to reset metabolism (after high intensity) has no physiological basis whatsoever. In addition, who cares? Because you don't have to burn fat to get good at burning fat."

He also says that lactate does not in any way inhibit lipolysis (fat burning).

ofajen

Yeah, that’s not something I’m going to worry about. When my running plan says start by running some miles at an easy pace, I do try to stay at a high zone 2 level. If I go faster, I just won’t be worth as much on the sprints or intervals at the end.

But on long days, if I work a little harder up a hill or something that’s just fine. And biking is now kinda the cross training thing so it’s mostly zone 2 but again I’m fine with pushing a bit more up a few hills.

Otto

PeteHski

I think that makes sense if you are on a 25 hour per week pro training plan where overall accumulated stress and fatigue becomes critical to your success. But for us mere mortals, “ruining” a z2 ride by adding in a few harder efforts probably just gives us slightly different beneficial adaptations. As long as we are not overtraining then it probably doesn’t matter.

IIRC didn’t the guy who interviewed San Milan experiment with a very strict z2 plan leading up to some amateur race and ended up under-performing?

Jughed

OK OK - I guess both experts have some valid points.

For me personally, possibly due to my low carb diet, I see decent gains just doing Z2. Recovery is a big part of it - I just don’t recover well from intervals or intense sessions, so my overall volume suffers.

San Milan’s work is more than just about cycling performance - it’s also about researching the effects on heath issues and disease. I’m biased towards his line of thinking because of this, and what he preaches works for me personally.

And I’m not out doing any crit or TT races - my goals are to improve my steady state power outputs with the ability to hit the higher zones when needed without blowing up. So large amounts of Z2 with a few blocks of intervals here and there to polish things up seems to work well - for me.

Hermes

Coggan is an excellent cyclist and physiology geek that created a model - not a coach. San Millan is a coach, with athletes, and researcher who is trying to optimally build mitochondria with the focus on biogenesis. The measurement method seems to be lactate testing.

When our training group did San Millan z2 for one hour at the track fixed gear no brakes, it was very difficult. Tooling around z2 guided by ones inner self is another matter. There is no happy spot riding San Millan z2. It is not surprising to me that UCI pro tour racers did well racing following the long San Millan z2 workouts - it matches the distance / duration of racing they do. San Millan gutted the pro racers 6 hour group hammer and nail rides and replaced them with solo z2. Of course, they do high intensity intervals, train at altitude and race (part of the training program) leading up to one day classics and grand tours.

I think it is hard to follow / shadow a UCI pro tour riders training program and turn it into a personalized training plan. They are genetic freaks. Even if one scales a pro program back with the idea that most of their riding is z2, it may not work well for individual time constraints, goals, genetics and etc.

Jay Turberville

Everything I've heard on this suggests that you do both Zone 2 and High Intensity Interval Training. I think it is almost surely a mistake to say things like "the best and most effective way to develop and maintain healthy mitochondria" The first problem is you have to define what "healthy mitochondria" even means.

Mitochondria do so many different things. They supply energy during endurance exercise. They do the same for short high intensity exercise. Is "healthy" the ability to do either or both of these things? Or is that just performance?

I've been taking terrymorse 's challenges regarding actual research seriously and what I've turned up so far is that there are at least three major categories of mitochondrial enhancement. Mitochondria can combine into larger and more complex mitochondrial networks. Then can split into many smaller but more numerous mitochondria. And we can form new mitochondria (biogenesis). So, much like other systems in our bodies adapt differently depending on the various stresses, it seems that mitochondria do likewise. And the research I've seen so far is not easy or simple reading. So far none of the research seems to say that "zone 2" or endurance training is "the best". Likewise nothing says that high intensity training is "the best" either. BTW, typically every paper says something like, "There is much more to understand. We need to do more research." None of this is down pat yet.

In the meantime, we can have our opinions about what we think is happening - even if none of us actually knows. That said, it seams seem clear that just about all the data says that it's important to "build an endurance base" and to do "high intensity stuff". And I suppose that if you are all about optimizing performance, this is where you start journaling, recording biometrics and maybe getting some coaching. For the rest of us, understanding that there needs to me a mix is probably the important bit. Pushing hard all the time is unlikely to be the better strategy.

terrymorse 

That "we need more research" section at the end of a paper is so common, I tend to think of it as a "please remember to fund our next proposal" statement.

NTTAWWT

Jay Turberville

Sure. But it's a good reminder to anyone reading the paper that they want to see whatever result the paper reports repeated a few times before getting filing it in the "almost surely true" folder.