An hour at zone 3, is it useful?

[Andrew69]

Moving on, if anyone wants to have an informed discussion as to why slow, average recreational marathon hobby joggers have comparable Vo2Max as Masters level cycling racers (which is in stark contrast to the fact that elite cyclists dominate the list of highest Vo2max holders, and running legends like Hicham El Guerrouj have a rather "average" Vo2max when compared to the pro peleton), I'm happy to discuss.

I would have thought it was due to total muscle mass recuited??
Same reason why elite cross country skiers have the highest Vo2Max numbers

[Atmungskette]

If you have nothing constructive to add, please go away. You have done nothing but misinterpet studies, refuse to engage in any thoughtful discussion or analysis, and I have now spent far too much time and far too many posts trying to correct your severe misunderstanding of the study you claim to have read. I suspected as much from your early posts when you asked questions or made points that someone who carefully read the studies could not have possibly asked, but I have come to the conclusion that who are clearly here with an agenda, and I refuse to engage with your dishonesty any further.

I'll just ingnore all the nice things you said about me and assume you had a bad day.

To get the starting point clear here is your definition of a recreational cyclist again:

Recreational or amateur cyclists mean precisely what it means - people who ride bicycles as a form or recreation, or as amateurs, as opposed to professional or at an elite classification.

Then you claimed:

The interesting thing is, for cyclists engaged in a so-called endurance sport, why amateurs struggle to get their Vo2Max significantly above the age-weighted averages for their population despite supposedly being engaged in aerobic activity somewhat regularly.

I couldn't see that from the studies you provided. But apparently it did not become clear why. Let me try again:
To compare amateur cyclists (i.e. everyone who cycles as a form of recreation according to your definition) to amateur runners you cannot select a sample of slow, nor a sample of fast amateur runners to compare with. You have to take a sample of amateur runners.

In your last post you again introduce a completely different sample:

Moving on, if anyone wants to have an informed discussion as to why slow, average recreational marathon hobby joggers have comparable Vo2Max as Masters level cycling racers (which is in stark contrast to the fact that elite cyclists dominate the list of highest Vo2max holders, and running legends like Hicham El Guerrouj have a rather "average" Vo2max when compared to the pro peleton), I'm happy to discuss.

Now you want to compare recreational marathon hobby joggers (interesting qualifications btw.) who are
a) slow and b) average
to master level cycling racers?
In runners you select a subpopulation that is slow and average (whatever that might mean), while in cyclists you select a subpopulation above age 30 and then you compare them. This seems to me like a shifting of goalposts - we wanted to compare amateur runners to amateur cyclists - and the samples you selected are certainly not representative for the population of amateur cyclists and amateur runners according to your own definition.

[iheartbianchi]

In runners you select a subpopulation that is slow and average (whatever that might mean), while in cyclists you select a subpopulation above age 30 and then you compare them. This seems to me like a shifting of goalposts - we wanted to compare amateur runners to amateur cyclists - and the samples you selected are certainly not representative for the population of amateur cyclists and amateur runners according to your own definition.

Do you realize that literally hundreds of thousands of people run marathons in the United States alone each year? And millions worldwide? Each year? Maybe you're surrounded by obese, unfit persons who have never run a mile in their lives, but completing a full marathon is a bang average task. The average male marathon time is somewhere around 4 hours, which is well within the range of 3 - 4:30 slow runners who were tested and exhibited Vo2Max on par with masters level cycling racers. Even the "hard to get into" Boston Marathon has over 30,000 participants annually. People who complete marathons in the 3 - 4:30 range are slow, average runners. Running at 7 min/mile to 9 min/mile pace, i.e., from a brisk pace at the low end to jogging/walking at the slow end (walking a mile takes about 15 minutes for your reference). I don't think you realize how slow 8 min/mile is. Or that 9 min/mile is literally a trot. Yet this tested group of hobby trotters had Vo2Max in the high 50s. That's a real interesting thing and that's what you should be focused on. And the answer to this has nothing to do with "these guys suck and are slow." It's all about their training specifically to complete a 3-4 hour long endurance event.

And as I said before, I spent roughly an hour copying/pasting studies in that rather long post (as I have done in numerous posts in this thread). I lost track and don't feel bothered to go digging through more research just to satisfy you. Go do your own research if you're so curious.

[iheartbianchi]

Moving on, if anyone wants to have an informed discussion as to why slow, average recreational marathon hobby joggers have comparable Vo2Max as Masters level cycling racers (which is in stark contrast to the fact that elite cyclists dominate the list of highest Vo2max holders, and running legends like Hicham El Guerrouj have a rather "average" Vo2max when compared to the pro peleton), I'm happy to discuss.

I would have thought it was due to total muscle mass recuited??
Same reason why elite cross country skiers have the highest Vo2Max numbers

As a start, the absolutely priority for hobby joggers who want to complete a full marathon, which is repeated universally across running websites, training programs, even Olympic coaches, is the long slow run. Little to no emphasis on intervals or hard running at all. Just long, slow miles.

And running, unlike cycling, is very unforgiving of pace changes. So the training itself tends to be very zone centric. Unlike cycling, it is very hard to overpace for a minute, then recover by "slow pedaling." There is also minimal drafting or sheltering behind other riders for a "rest."

Other factors as well.

[TobinHatesYou]

I don't think you know what you're contending / arguing about anymore, iheartbianchi.

[iheartbianchi]

I don't think you know what you're contending / arguing about anymore, iheartbianchi.

Same as before - commonly prescribed amateur/recreational cycling training is less effective than running training in terms of aerobic fitness.

Which ties into the entire theme of this thread - are amateur cyclists training too hard?

Does it not trouble you that masters cycling racers have vo2max comparable to slow runners? Especially when on the pro side the cyclists dominate the vo2max charts? This incongruity warrants some thought.

When I see popular amateur youtube cyclists considered very good posting their rides with average heart rates in the 150-160s, but with segments where they go to 180 or higher in the same ride before dropping to the 130s for a minute then spiking up again, all in the span of 20 minutes and its not an interval session...boggles my mind.

[TobinHatesYou]

I don’t know how you can infer anything from YouTuber videos without knowing at the very least their LTHR.

[jasjas]

When I see popular amateur youtube cyclists considered very good posting their rides with average heart rates in the 150-160s, but with segments where they go to 180 or higher in the same ride before dropping to the 130s for a minute then spiking up again, all in the span of 20 minutes and its not an interval session...boggles my mind.

Tricky though isn't?
As you say running doesn't really rely on the importance of being able to stay on the wheel (or feet) lose that wheel and your toast, staying in a gruop, even in a so called steady ride there will be efforts, s not everyone will remain totally disciplined.

I really don't get the long slow training argument, everyone (i know inc myself) who has ever trained that way off just a few hours per week, ends up being very good at riding slowly.
Comparing that with a young pro knocking out 25 to 30 hrs per week is rather false.

I get it with running, which is punishing on the body (crashes accepted)

Plus, many of us like going out and enjoying our bikes, be that sprinting over the top of hill or staying with your mates, we are amateurs and many of us are not that young any more!

[montana05]

I think jasjas hasn't read the whole thread, or doesn't get the long time approach to long 'slow' riding. I'm an example of smashing it often when my base wasnt broad enough, changed to easy riding a year ago, very little high intensity and I had my 1st race a few weeks ago since I stopped racing 2 decades ago. I had a good result, and what I noticed is without training for hard efforts be it sprints or whatever I had a lot of power throughout the race. I recover fast too, at 52 ,I walked my dog after the race in the mountains nearby. Again riding slow after a while is very relative: i use all the gears i have during my rides, 52x36, 11x 28 . This morning i rode along the adriatic coast for a few hours but can push big gears without my heartrate rising big time.
You said you did lsd for a few hours a week, you need more time to invest into lsd for it to work, I'm convinced that with intensity discipline it's a great way to train.
In my twenties i was an elite amateur but nobody told us how to train: I just rode fast almost always: so called trainers didn't know any better , I studied at the university and had plenty energy at that age, never felt burned out. Now in my 50s
I'm glad I finally discovered lsd, more power on the bike at a lesser cost.

[iheartbianchi]

I don’t know how you can infer anything from YouTuber videos without knowing at the very least their LTHR.

Did I say I got it from the videos? People post their data...

Also, don't sit there and pretend like I'm saying something crazy. Every since that one study from a US university (slips my mind) that came out 10 or so years ago which implied that (right or wrong) cyclists are generally less fit than runners, and may even be worse at cycling than runners after adaptations, this whole "what are cyclists doing wrong" concept has been a relatively hot topic.

And no, don't ask me to cite it or engage in a long discussion on the merits of this study as I found it interesting and nothing more. Just something to think about without jumping to conclusions.

[iheartbianchi]

Tricky though isn't?
As you say running doesn't really rely on the importance of being able to stay on the wheel (or feet) lose that wheel and your toast, staying in a gruop, even in a so called steady ride there will be efforts, s not everyone will remain totally disciplined.

I really don't get the long slow training argument, everyone (i know inc myself) who has ever trained that way off just a few hours per week, ends up being very good at riding slowly.
Comparing that with a young pro knocking out 25 to 30 hrs per week is rather false.

I get it with running, which is punishing on the body (crashes accepted)

Plus, many of us like going out and enjoying our bikes, be that sprinting over the top of hill or staying with your mates, we are amateurs and many of us are not that young any more!

As I said before, and I'll repeat just so we're all on the same page - if you're only training a few hours a week (less than 6 or so), I would not recommend a polarized training approach for cycling for numerous reasons.

And you hit on one of the big reasons - cycling tends to be a group activity, with a lot of variables that affect pacing during an outdoor ride (traffic lights, inclines, etc.). This obviously makes cycling far more enjoyable than running alone, so I don't really run anymore because it's just boring But that's a separate issue from whether or not you want to be the best cyclist you can be given real life constraints on time.

In running, you are more or less forced to maintain a steady pace. Running is a high impact activity involving a lot of pounding, and where sudden changes in pace / overpacing even for a few short seconds is punishing and can abruptly end your run.

Anecdotedly, this is part of the reason so many cyclists struggle with the triathlon. They're used to cycling hard, changing pace, etc., having fun, so when they try to run hard, or do more intervals than they should be doing, they find themselves injured.

[spartacus]

When I see popular amateur youtube cyclists considered very good posting their rides with average heart rates in the 150-160s, but with segments where they go to 180 or higher in the same ride before dropping to the 130s for a minute then spiking up again, all in the span of 20 minutes and its not an interval session...boggles my mind.

Well how do I like... not do that then? I would love for my HR to be lower.

[AJS914]

Well how do I like... not do that then? I would love for my HR to be lower.

You start doing long rides at 65-70% of MaxHR. Start with one 3+ hour ride a week. Two or three will put you on another level over time. It's a time committment many don't have.

I did my first polarized training block two years ago. It was my base training block in the winter. I did 70% of my maxHR (125bpm) for 11 weeks. I started at 5 hours per week and ended the block at 13 hours per week. I did all long/slow rides plus a single group ride on Saturday as my only intensity. 125bpm was really slow at first - like 12mph. A few months later 125bpm was maybe 18mph. My long ride topped out at 4-5 hours.

By week 7 of that block, I was breaking all my PRs on Strava. My FTP had risen by 20 points. What I noticed on my group ride was that my HR was 10-15bpm lower at every intensity across the board. So instead of breathing slightly heavy at 140bpm sitting in the group, I was cruising more comfortably at 125-130bpm which left me much fresher for efforts at pinch points.

This training takes a lot of time and patience. I think one can still do it on 6-7 hours per week with 1x3 hours on Sunday and 3x1 hour during the week. Or maybe better 1x2 hours Sat, 1x3 hours Sunday, and then 2x1 hour Tues/Thurs. It's not as ideal as being able to do two or three 3+ hour rides per week but it's probably enough.

[spartacus]

Thanks, I should give it a shot. Need to try to make time for longer rides during the week. Usually my long weekend ride has too much intensity for polarized training. Yesterday I did a 5 hour ride with 150BPM average and periods of 170-180 (my max is 200). I could squeeze in 2hr rides during the week sometimes but 3hr would be tough.

[Brokenladder]

@iheartbianchi Just a brief note of thanks for your many musings over this interesting thread. As a runner/cyclist/skier/tennis player in my 50s, the discussion has made me reflect on a lifetime of misguided training! A few years ago, I started experimenting with MAF method ideas in my trail running. At the same time, I came across a description of "Aerobic Defiency Syndrome" in Training for the Uphill Athlete. While seemingly "fit" for my age, I would freely admit that my aerobic conditioning was dubious at best. My training strategy prior to this "ephiphany" was simply to go out and suffer to the point of exhaustion/soreness--and then do it again... Fast forward to the present day, adopting a polarized approach with some 80-90% of my training at < 65% of MHR seems like a far-more enlightened approach for longer-term results and general fitness. Based on the decades of ride/run data that I have, I know that this approach is yielding improvements. However, it's a struggle. I live in a large metropolitan area. I start out every run/ride trying to keep MY pace, but it's hard when you encounter others and the ego kicks in! LOL. Still I try....

For me the merits of this polarized approach were more apparent in my running: it's fascinating to see your running times come down, your average heart rate come down, and diminshed muscle soreness. I am experiencing similar improvements now with my cycling....

All that said, I think that the predominant sports/fitness/general culture is aligned against thoughtful consideration of one's own exercise/training regimen. Beyond the no-pain, no-gain mantra, the lifehacking culture and the advent of Strava lures people into focusing on short-term gains/outcomes. Interestingly enough, I have a personal case study as my neighbor is about the same age and an active cyclist. He goes out every day on group rides or with a few young guns and kills himself. He constantly regales me with Strava news from our locale. What's more interesting is that I have watched his times plateau and his weight increase--all while riding probably double my 10 hours a week....

So please don't harangue me for the data-point of one. I'm just a hobbyist looking to share my experience to date and again to say thanks for the insights and opinions shared here by so many.