would be interested to see if there's any consensus on this one.

Sweet spot training advocates training at around 90% of FTP.

Riding "tempo" i have understood to be pretty much the same thing - riding at zone 3, again at around 90% of FTP.

however, elsewhere i have read that you should use tempo intervals only for 5 to 6 weeks to bridge the gap to higher intensity work following base training, but after that training in zone 3 is pretty much a waste of time as you are effectively training in "no man's land" - junk miles - hard enough that they tire you out, but not hard enough that they bring decent gains to your FTP.

what's the story here - is the "no man's land" zone 3 theory outdated, and the revised view now that riding for extended periods at tempo/sweet spot is worth doing all year round? or have i missed something.

_________________
Bikes:

Look 585 2008, Campag Record 2008, Campag Shamal
Enigma titanium Esprit 2009, Campag Chorus / Record mix 2007, Campag Zonda
Kinesis Alu Racelight T 2009, Campag Centaur 2006, Ambrosio Excellight 28/32 handbuilts

SST is the zone between 85-95% of your SST.

The second chart shows the physiological benefits for training in each zone, including zone 3 - it helps Increase muscle glycogen storage better tan any other zone:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... oggan.aspx

_________________
My CAAD9

It largely depends on what you are training for ie: the type of racing or events. If a large part of your chosen type of event has a lot of "tempo level" effort then it will pay to spend a far bit of time in this zone.

_________________
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

There is no "no man's land" in training.

_________________
2013 rocky mountain vertex 29er
­Twitter
www.cyclingtrainingnuts.blogspot.ca

no it's not a waste of time.


You do realize that a kid in his first crit or a TdF stage winner will have the same power profile for a race. You're always in zone 3 if the race is longer than an hour. If your race is 4 hours long at your NP will be in zone 3/tempo, why would you not train that way?

Starnut

_________________
"Don't pedal harder, pedal faster!"
Q-FACTOR IS A RED HERRING

BB30.COM

i agree it makes sense to train in zone 3, but just that i was getting a bit confused as some (probably older) sources seemed to specifically advise against doing any real training time in zone 3.

you've probably seen it already, but here is a recent training article from pez which i stumbled across and which has some interesting comments on zone 3 training, and winter training in general:

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=7831

_________________
Bikes:

Look 585 2008, Campag Record 2008, Campag Shamal
Enigma titanium Esprit 2009, Campag Chorus / Record mix 2007, Campag Zonda
Kinesis Alu Racelight T 2009, Campag Centaur 2006, Ambrosio Excellight 28/32 handbuilts

I think they are effectively older sources.

My opinion is you get adaptations in every zone you train in. The adaptations are just different and specific to each training intensity.

_________________
2013 rocky mountain vertex 29er
­Twitter
www.cyclingtrainingnuts.blogspot.ca

exactly, you 'da man. This is exactly what I tell my guys. Along with, "you have to ride hard to ride hard and you have to ride fast to ride fast." That is training in summation. You will adapt to JRAing in zone 2 however, I don't think it's the adaptation a competitive cyclist would want.

My other favorite is the food example. All of my athletes are aware of what they eat to some degree. A few are OCD/neurotic and a few are the opposite end of the spectrum. I always tell the to listen to their grandmothers. "You are what you eat". It extends to training as well....... "you are what you train".

Specificity, Specificity, Specificity, Specificity, Specificity, & Specificity. Train how/what you race. Race with your PM and look at the file and build workouts from that. I have never been in a race (crit, RR, circut, CX, mtn, or TT) where my NP was below Zone 3, never. I've never seen a race file like that either.

Starnut

_________________
"Don't pedal harder, pedal faster!"
Q-FACTOR IS A RED HERRING

BB30.COM

STARNUT

It would have been nice to have your contribution in the "building muscles" thread, as I was fighting pretty much alone against the weight training myths.

You seem pretty much spot on training wise. In accordance to my training phylisophy.



Well, I think

_________________
2013 rocky mountain vertex 29er
­Twitter
www.cyclingtrainingnuts.blogspot.ca

Check it now

Starnut

_________________
"Don't pedal harder, pedal faster!"
Q-FACTOR IS A RED HERRING

BB30.COM

Currently I'm incorporating a fair bit of “sweet spot training” into my week broken down into 20min intervals within a 90-120min ride on the trainer. My sweet spot is around 156-159 bpm which is about 92-94% of my LTRH. I aim to do these intervals at a steady 90rpm but often find that I’m slowly dropping my cadence just to maintain my HR within the tight zone.

For my 2x20 threshold intervals, which I do at between 95-100% LTHR I concentrate on keeping keep my cadence steady and smooth and let my HR drift upwards through the zone. Should I apply the same when doing the sweet spot intervals and aim for an avg. HR during the interval of between 156-159?

Thanks

_________________
"I can accept failure. Everyone fails at something. But I can't accept not trying."
Michael Jordan

I would keep the steady cadence when doing sweet spot and let HR drift up. Cardiac dirft is a normal phenomenon, especially indoors, because you blood flows more superficially to evacuate heat, so thre is less blood to your working muscle, therefore your heart needs to pump faster.

_________________
2013 rocky mountain vertex 29er
­Twitter
www.cyclingtrainingnuts.blogspot.ca