An hour at zone 3, is it useful?

[ichobi]

With this approach I wonder how one begin to train for time trial race? Do we need adaptation at high intensity zone? If so, how much would be ideal?

[iheartbianchi]

With this approach I wonder how one begin to train for time trial race? Do we need adaptation at high intensity zone? If so, how much would be ideal?

Depending on the duration of the time trial you would need to incorporate a series of tempo rides and interval training at some point. When, how and how often and how hard completely depends on your aerobic base, your age, your background, the course, your time available for training, when the event is, etc etc etc.

Not to trying to be rude, but as you can see from the above, you can’t post such a vague and generic question like that and expect any serious response. I know its probably not intended, but I do hope you realize it is borderline disrespectful to spend so little thought or effort in formulating a question requiring a serious response, and expecting to be spoonfed information which nobody can possibly give you based on the provided information. If you dont even know where to begin you can find a lot of resources on Google.

Unless of course you would be satisfied with the below meaningless response:

Lots, now and do them hard.

[ichobi]

Sorry if that vagueness offends you. Didn't mean that of course. I was expecting more of a macro level answer rather than detailed, specific reply. Actually your first sentence already answered most that (because I can pretty much figure out the next step - as I particiapted in this discussion in this thread earlier, I am not starting from zero knowledge).

[iheartbianchi]

Sorry if that vagueness offends you. Didn't mean that of course. I was expecting more of a macro level answer rather than detailed, specific reply. Actually your first sentence already answered most that (because I can pretty much figure out the next step - as I particiapted in this discussion in this thread earlier, I am not starting from zero knowledge).

The problem with time trials is, depending on who you are and the event, the answer would vary wildly.

For example, if you are a trained athlete and entering a competitive time trial, obviously you would already be aware of your target intended race pace and would need to focus on as much race pace training as possible.

But if you are just a deecnt amateur entering a more of a "fun" time trial or a casual event, then obviously you would have little to no emphasis on race pace training and focus entirely on your aerobic base and threshold training.

[AeroObsessive]

I don't rely on power meter data because there's just no reliable science behind it. At least when it comes to heart rate based training regimes, you have leading medical and chemical experts who have conducted peer-reviewed studies that have been published in major medical journals, so it is at least somewhat reliable.

It is ridiculously hard exercising at such a low heart rate. It sounds ridiculous. Most people complain that they are going too slow, that it's harder to go slow than fast! Even Olympians have this reaction when they try this type of training. It may feel awkward, but people are missing the KEY POINT:

The point is, to train your body to be able to do the same effort as before, BUT AT A LOWER HEART RATE! Let that sink in...

So you used to ride 30km/hr at 135bpm for 3 hours? The goal is, for you to be able to do 30km/hr at 120bpm, or lower. Why? Well quite simple...so you can go faster at those higher, costlier heart rate zones. So efforts that would have pushed you close to lactate or Vo2Max will now be a purely aerobic effort that you can maintain for extended periods of time. If you look at highly trained cyclists, it is uncanny how fast they are going at heart rates under 150bpm. It's not that they are able to simply ride faster than you because they can simply push higher watts...no...it is, "at the same heart rate (effort), they are able to go faster than you."

Here are some links below for further reading, or you can go to the National Health Institute to read the actual scientific studies that have been conducted, of which there are dozens.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737930/

Summary: A HIIT group compared to a low intensity group showed that the HIIT group only experienced a relative gain (compared to low intensity group) in Vo2Max, while other cardio benefits were the same for both groups.

Some decent articles on the benefits of low intensity efforts:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... e-training

http://robertsontrainingsystems.com/blo ... ty-cardio/

https://www.active.com/articles/aerobic ... get-faster

For someone besmirching the benefits of utilisation of power meter for training you
1) post some hideous vague articles which would aren't exactly in line with what one would expect from "medical and chemical experts who have conducted peer-reviewed studies."

2) the tools used for monitoring of effort and biological output, and training methodologies are two different things. A core principle you don't, or won't, understand.

[AeroObsessive]

I'm a time poor cyclist who's week typically goes like this:
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday - 50min HIIT Roller session zone 4/5
Thursday
Friday - possible HIIT Roller session zone 4/5
Saturday - possible longer social ride
Sunday - 90min Club run, zone 3/4/5

However recently I've found some motivation to do some late night sitting on rollers in zone 3 for an hour whilst watching netflix/races/whatever..

It's better than 'nothing' I get that... BUT it is actually useful..?
It's not zone 2.. and it's not for very long .... as I can't do more than an hour on rollers my arse hurts too much.

I understand HIIT interval stuff and although there's no structure to my riding, it's clearly unbalanced with most of what I do at higher intensity.. I'm sort of hoping that by adding in an hour a night at steady state, maybe two or three nights a week, it 'might' balance out the HIIT stuff... what do you think?

Late to the party, but FWIW, the definitive answer is "it depends". From what I have seen of the thread, I think most things have been covered to some extent. The variables to consider are things like - history of training, ability to recover, training goals, acute training load etc. All training is useful, until it isn't.

[iheartbianchi]

For someone besmirching the benefits of utilisation of power meter for training you
1) post some hideous vague articles which would aren't exactly in line with what one would expect from "medical and chemical experts who have conducted peer-reviewed studies."

2) the tools used for monitoring of effort and biological output, and training methodologies are two different things. A core principle you don't, or won't, understand.

1) I take it Harvard Medical School does not meet your high standards. And please do clarify as to what exactly you found "hideous" or "vague" about the numerous academic papers cited here. "It was complicated and I simply couldn't understand it" is not the answer I am looking for.

2) What do tools for monitoring and training methodologies being two different things have anything to do with anything? Nobody said they are the same thing. And that's not even a "core" principle. That's just a fact - they are different things...not that I even know why we are talking about "core" principles in the first place.

Training methodologies have evolved in accordance with the results of studies using tools to monitor human response to physical activity. You know those static stretches we used to do in gym class? Well that's from like the 1910s when the US Army was gearing up for WW1. Studies have shown that static stretches before exercise not only increase the prevalence of muscle injury, but also result in a decrease in power. Guess who doesn't do static stretches before sprinting a 100m? Usain Bolt. He reads (or at least his coach does). Science is cool.

I could go into a long history on the evolution of aerobic exercise (maybe in another thread) and training methodologies, dating back to the days of Paavo Nurmi and his insane high-intensity approach, to the highly successful Finnish method of the 50s-70s of mixing high-intensity with high volume, or the failed American approach of the 1980s/90s of high-quality, low volume, or the highly successful African paradigm of high volume polarized training. The landmark German national cycling team study is also cited elsewhere in this thread, and is still emulated today. I love this stuff. As the slowest member of my team, I read the most and studied the most to find any possible advantage since I couldn't rely on my natural gifts to take me to the top (ever wonder why the top coaches are always second-tier athletes and world class athletes make poor coaches?).

Depending on the tools used, the sophistication of the study, etc., the results of certain studies are directly applied by coaches in their training methodologies, hence the reason elite coaches spend so much time at the lab with their athletes. When I was doing Vo2Max or lactate testing my coach was standing right next to the lab technician taking down notes. He would often consult with the doctors. Our team had a director of sports science, a medical doctor, along with various athletic trainers, physiotherapists, etc., who would be in the room when the coach is formulating a training regime. He would then adjust my workouts for the next week depending on where my lactate threshold was relative to my heart rate. If my heart rate was spiking during training, or not going up sufficiently, he would consult with the team doctor and make adjustments to my training. Sometimes we would have to write off an entire month of racing just to get me back in shape. We did this every week. And of course there have been changes in the way we test for lactate, and changes in the interpretation of the results of such tests, which also flows into our training methodologies. But I don't even know why I need to write this given it's so obvious.

Sorry for being long-winded, but training is my passion and has been for the past 2 decades of my life and I welcome any respectful discussion with anybody. But if you're here just to bang on your chest and insult, please do the reasonable thing and just move on.

[AeroObsessive]

1) I take it Harvard Medical School does not meet your high standards. And please do clarify as to what exactly you found "hideous" or "vague" about the numerous academic papers cited here. "It was complicated and I simply couldn't understand it" is not the answer I am looking for.

Appeal to authority. The linked article is a fluff piece worthy of Men's Health. As for the one and only journal article, meh, not really seeing the relevance of what you linked to the discussion at hand.

2) What do tools for monitoring and training methodologies being two different things have anything to do with anything? Nobody said they are the same thing. And that's not even a "core" principle. That's just a fact - they are different things...not that I even know why we are talking about "core" principles in the first place.

Because you come out with drivel like this:- "I don't rely on power meter data because there's just no reliable science behind it." A power meter is not the training.

Training methodologies have evolved in accordance with the results of studies using tools to monitor human response to physical activity. You know those static stretches we used to do in gym class? Well that's from like the 1910s when the US Army was gearing up for WW1. Studies have shown that static stretches before exercise not only increase the prevalence of muscle injury, but also result in a decrease in power. Guess who doesn't do static stretches before sprinting a 100m? Usain Bolt. He reads (or at least his coach does). Science is cool.

Cool story bro.

I could go into a long history on the evolution of aerobic exercise (maybe in another thread) and training methodologies, dating back to the days of Paavo Nurmi and his insane high-intensity approach, to the highly successful Finnish method of the 50s-70s of mixing high-intensity with high volume, or the failed American approach of the 1980s/90s of high-quality, low volume, or the highly successful African paradigm of high volume polarized training. The landmark German national cycling team study is also cited elsewhere in this thread, and is still emulated today. I love this stuff. As the slowest member of my team, I read the most and studied the most to find any possible advantage since I couldn't rely on my natural gifts to take me to the top (ever wonder why the top coaches are always second-tier athletes and world class athletes make poor coaches?).

That would be educational, please do.

Depending on the tools used, the sophistication of the study, etc., the results of certain studies are directly applied by coaches in their training methodologies, hence the reason elite coaches spend so much time at the lab with their athletes. When I was doing Vo2Max or lactate testing my coach was standing right next to the lab technician taking down notes. He would often consult with the doctors. Our team had a director of sports science, a medical doctor, along with various athletic trainers, physiotherapists, etc., who would be in the room when the coach is formulating a training regime. He would then adjust my workouts for the next week depending on where my lactate threshold was relative to my heart rate. If my heart rate was spiking during training, or not going up sufficiently, he would consult with the team doctor and make adjustments to my training. Sometimes we would have to write off an entire month of racing just to get me back in shape. We did this every week. And of course there have been changes in the way we test for lactate, and changes in the interpretation of the results of such tests, which also flows into our training methodologies. But I don't even know why I need to write this given it's so obvious.

Even coooler story.

Sorry for being long-winded, but training is my passion and has been for the past 2 decades of my life and I welcome any respectful discussion with anybody. But if you're here just to bang on your chest and insult, please do the reasonable thing and just move on.

No chest banging. Just calling out bullshit when I see it.

[iheartbianchi]

Only thing I will respond to is the point about not “relying on power meter data.”

Power meter says I am at 200watts or 75% of FTP. I don’t rely on that data because I don’t trust FTP to be an accurate indicator of my LT, in fact I think it underestimatss how close I am. Thus, I don’t rely on power meter data in training, or in other words, I don’t think power meter data is a reliable indicator of my effort levels.

Everything else, well I spelled it out as simply as I can and it seems, sadly, we are just not meant to communicate with each other.

[Kingston]

1) I take it Harvard Medical School does not meet your high standards. And please do clarify as to what exactly you found "hideous" or "vague" about the numerous academic papers cited here. "It was complicated and I simply couldn't understand it" is not the answer I am looking for.

Appeal to authority. The linked article is a fluff piece worthy of Men's Health. As for the one and only journal article, meh, not really seeing the relevance of what you linked to the discussion at hand.

2) What do tools for monitoring and training methodologies being two different things have anything to do with anything? Nobody said they are the same thing. And that's not even a "core" principle. That's just a fact - they are different things...not that I even know why we are talking about "core" principles in the first place.

Because you come out with drivel like this:- "I don't rely on power meter data because there's just no reliable science behind it." A power meter is not the training.

Training methodologies have evolved in accordance with the results of studies using tools to monitor human response to physical activity. You know those static stretches we used to do in gym class? Well that's from like the 1910s when the US Army was gearing up for WW1. Studies have shown that static stretches before exercise not only increase the prevalence of muscle injury, but also result in a decrease in power. Guess who doesn't do static stretches before sprinting a 100m? Usain Bolt. He reads (or at least his coach does). Science is cool.

Cool story bro.

I could go into a long history on the evolution of aerobic exercise (maybe in another thread) and training methodologies, dating back to the days of Paavo Nurmi and his insane high-intensity approach, to the highly successful Finnish method of the 50s-70s of mixing high-intensity with high volume, or the failed American approach of the 1980s/90s of high-quality, low volume, or the highly successful African paradigm of high volume polarized training. The landmark German national cycling team study is also cited elsewhere in this thread, and is still emulated today. I love this stuff. As the slowest member of my team, I read the most and studied the most to find any possible advantage since I couldn't rely on my natural gifts to take me to the top (ever wonder why the top coaches are always second-tier athletes and world class athletes make poor coaches?).

That would be educational, please do.

Depending on the tools used, the sophistication of the study, etc., the results of certain studies are directly applied by coaches in their training methodologies, hence the reason elite coaches spend so much time at the lab with their athletes. When I was doing Vo2Max or lactate testing my coach was standing right next to the lab technician taking down notes. He would often consult with the doctors. Our team had a director of sports science, a medical doctor, along with various athletic trainers, physiotherapists, etc., who would be in the room when the coach is formulating a training regime. He would then adjust my workouts for the next week depending on where my lactate threshold was relative to my heart rate. If my heart rate was spiking during training, or not going up sufficiently, he would consult with the team doctor and make adjustments to my training. Sometimes we would have to write off an entire month of racing just to get me back in shape. We did this every week. And of course there have been changes in the way we test for lactate, and changes in the interpretation of the results of such tests, which also flows into our training methodologies. But I don't even know why I need to write this given it's so obvious.

Even coooler story.

Sorry for being long-winded, but training is my passion and has been for the past 2 decades of my life and I welcome any respectful discussion with anybody. But if you're here just to bang on your chest and insult, please do the reasonable thing and just move on.

No chest banging. Just calling out bullshit when I see it.

Please, if you can`t contribute and argue in a positve way, but only give lame comments, then please concider go some where else.

I'm a time poor cyclist who's week typically goes like this:
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday - 50min HIIT Roller session zone 4/5
Thursday
Friday - possible HIIT Roller session zone 4/5
Saturday - possible longer social ride
Sunday - 90min Club run, zone 3/4/5

However recently I've found some motivation to do some late night sitting on rollers in zone 3 for an hour whilst watching netflix/races/whatever..

It's better than 'nothing' I get that... BUT it is actually useful..?
It's not zone 2.. and it's not for very long .... as I can't do more than an hour on rollers my arse hurts too much.

I understand HIIT interval stuff and although there's no structure to my riding, it's clearly unbalanced with most of what I do at higher intensity.. I'm sort of hoping that by adding in an hour a night at steady state, maybe two or three nights a week, it 'might' balance out the HIIT stuff... what do you think?

Late to the party, but FWIW, the definitive answer is "it depends". From what I have seen of the thread, I think most things have been covered to some extent. The variables to consider are things like - history of training, ability to recover, training goals, acute training load etc. All training is useful, until it isn't.

WOW, if this is level of knowledge, we have a lot to expect.

[AeroObsessive]

Please, if you can`t contribute and argue in a positve way, but only give lame comments, then please concider go some where else.

WOW, if this is level of knowledge, we have a lot to expect.

In the same post too, how ironic.

[bikeboy1tr]

Only thing I will respond to is the point about not “relying on power meter data.”

Power meter says I am at 200watts or 75% of FTP. I don’t rely on that data because I don’t trust FTP to be an accurate indicator of my LT, in fact I think it underestimatss how close I am. Thus, I don’t rely on power meter data in training, or in other words, I don’t think power meter data is a reliable indicator of my effort levels.

Everything else, well I spelled it out as simply as I can and it seems, sadly, we are just not meant to communicate with each other.

So do we need more tools to have accurate indicators of what our LT level are at or do we need to better understand what our HRM and powermeters are telling us? Do we need to do blood lactate tests to verify what our LT is and HRM and PM as the feedback?
Today when I did my endurance ride I did pay more attention to my HRM and kept it at 130 as much as I could. This is something that I normally do for the endurance rides anyway.

[iheartbianchi]

So do we need more tools to have accurate indicators of what our LT level are at or do we need to better understand what our HRM and powermeters are telling us? Do we need to do blood lactate tests to verify what our LT is and HRM and PM as the feedback?
Today when I did my endurance ride I did pay more attention to my HRM and kept it at 130 as much as I could. This is something that I normally do for the endurance rides anyway.

This is an excellent question and really deserves another thread. I am directing my posting with the understanding that the vast majority of people reading will be amateur or recreational cyclists who want to improve. Serious cyclists will have access to labs that can accurately and frequently test not only your Max HR, Vo2Max but also AT/LT using a bunch of means such as blood lactate and respirartory rate.

But these means of testing I think are wholly inappropriate for an amateur. Highly fit athletes are capable of recruiting the necessary muscle mass to perform sufficient levels of effort ot make such tests meaningful. They also tend to have higher AT/LT as a result of training and a greater resistance to lactic acidosis.

Let's say you're an amateur that has been riding 3-4 days a week now for 5 years. You have a $2,000 bike and want to get better. Would I tell you to go and buy a $700 power meter? I personally wouldn't, but if you can afford it, go for it. A $50 heart rate strap is sufficient for an amateur/recreational rider's perspective, but that's just my view.

Now the testing. Are the numbers derived from the commonly used by recreational riders, such as the Max HR test, LTHR or FTP sufficently accurate for your purposes? Generally I would say yes, although it won't be nearly as accurate as a lab test. But what does this mean for you? Well, from my experience a Max HR test for cycling (for amateurs) consistently tends to err low, and LTHR/FTP tends to err high or low. The latter tending to err high is dangerous because it would mean you could be doing too much effort too close to your LT.

In short, the tools are good and all, but if your baseline numbers are off, then the tools mislead you. It is far easier for an amateur to assess Max HR than LTHR/FTP so I tend to rely more on Max HR for amateurs than the other metrics. It's not an exact science, hence the range of HR for each zone, and you shouldn't expect to get exactly correct numbers. But overall, I would err on the low side.

[zefs]

I don't think setting the zones by using max hr is correct as you would be working 1 zone harder than LTHR, so it would be even more important for amateurs to use LTHR instead and re-test it after the block period. Although it would be wise to just ride for a few months to get used to the position and everything, then start doing structured training if needed to improve quicker.

[AeroObsessive]

Without a lactate monitor and going through a testing protocol anything else is going to be a guess. Some guesses might be better than others.

One "easy" fix is to look at local universities, often they need guinea pigs for various studies and that includes a barrage of testing for "free". Sometimes they'll work up all the data for you so you can have your HR/power charted for LT1 and LT2 which can help in formulating a training program.

Not to mention labs are cool. Real time lactate monitors, gas exchange monitors and core temperature etc etc are fun to see in action.

Of no surprise, I would advocate a power meter (and HR) for most amateurs who are serious about training. Their benefits are legion. Not only a useful tool for training, a power meter can be used for aero and rolling resistance testing, and that really has some solid potential for making you faster. If you're into that kind of thing.