An hour at zone 3, is it useful?

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:48 am
All the back and forth is there for others to read...unless you delete your posts eventually.
Yes - all the posts of the same 3 people saying I'm full of it, ridicule, etc., is all there in the last ten pages. How did you miss this?

Or is this actually how you talk to your colleagues and counterparties in the real world and think this is somehow normal?
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

Andrew69
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:52 am
Location: ɹǝpunuʍop

by Andrew69

I see pages and pages of three people saying IHB is wrong and when asked how they would coach, the answer is always the same, it depends

While that is obviously true, I think it's not too far fetched to say that for a very high percentage of riders it really doesn't depend
Most of us simply need to understand the basics and get out on the bike and apply those basic principles

It's worked for me so far
I'm now putting out the same power and recording the same segment times I was before, but at 30 bpm less and after only a few months

Everyone is always looking for the next big thing or a way to shortcut the basics, but while you can fake it for a while, sooner or later that lack of base, aerobic fitness is going to limit what you can do

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



TobinHatesYou
Posts: 10533
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Nobody disagrees about making hard rides harder and skipping tempo-ish stuff to get faster. That’s literally what a parrot can tell you.

There are just very serious red flags telling us IHB is not at all who he claims to be.

On the internet we can claim to be whoever we want to be. I can claim to have podiumed at state criterium championships, but who would/should believe me?

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:35 am
Nobody disagrees about making hard rides harder and skipping tempo-ish stuff to get faster. That’s literally what a parrot can tell you.

There are just very serious red flags telling us IHB is not at all who he claims to be.

On the internet we can claim to be whoever we want to be. I can claim to have podiumed at state criterium championships, but who would/should believe me?
First, on the point of people being nasty to me (for whatever reason, justified or not) - so you do admit that was the case? And presumably because you think I'm not who I say I am?

Second, red flags based on what? Have you ever been part of a junior program? Of course my perspective and approach will be very different. Are you calling something a red flag just because it is unfamiliar to you? Sorry, but isn't that way of thinking ignorant? Also, I never came into any discussion stating my credentials or my background. I only mention certain things about my past when people make statements like "I feel sorry for anyone you coached" or "don't listen to this guy, talk to a real coach." If you don't make things personal, I have zero need to mention anything about my past experiences.

Finally, if you said you were a state champion, I would take it at face value, and that would be the end of that. Why? Because I don't care. It doesn't matter what you did. All that matters if what you're saying here on this forum, because that's why we are here - to talk, to discuss, to bounce off ideas. Not to compare past glories or compete over who is most qualified to voice their opinion. There have been thousands of state champions, and tens of thousands of staff who worked for elite programs over the past few decades. Nobody cares.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 10533
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Like I said, who cares? Especially without proof?

And no, this isn't about unfamiliarity. The exact opposite...I've encountered too many of your ilk. You're easy to identify.

Andrew69
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:52 am
Location: ɹǝpunuʍop

by Andrew69

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:35 am
Nobody disagrees about making hard rides harder and skipping tempo-ish stuff to get faster. That’s literally what a parrot can tell you.
And yet so many "internet coaches" are advocating endless sets of SST and literally advocating tempo sets. Apart from Dylan Johnson (YT), I dont know of anyone that has said, forget that middle stuff, do most of your stuff easy, the hard stuff really hard, and make it more race specific as you approach your goal event
So if you all agree with IHB, then why are we arguing?
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:35 am
There are just very serious red flags telling us IHB is not at all who he claims to be.
Such as?
IHB has stated many times that he comes from a running background, not cycling.
So because we're splitting hairs about VO2 max intervals and at exactly what HR or power they should be done at, we're going to throw out everything he has said (including what you agreed to above??)
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:35 am
On the internet we can claim to be whoever we want to be. I can claim to have podiumed at state criterium championships, but who would/should believe me?
What has he claimed that you disagree with?
My understanding is that he has claimed to be a coach of junior runners and asked to look at applying those principles to cycling
Has he claimed to be a coach of a world tour team or something and I missed it?

I know some people think that because IHB is "giving" information away for free, then it isnt worth anything
Im of the opposite view in that I think you should be suspicious of coaches that arent willing to give away anything and expect to get paid for every little bit of information.
I guess no one wants to hear the truth from their coach. It takes years to get truly fast and there is no real shortcut
No fancy workout program with FTP, SST or HIIT intervals can replace miles in the legs

calleking
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:20 pm

by calleking

I cheat a bit with my polarized approach. Being time crunched I tend to do my easy rides closer to tempo as long as it doesn't impact my hard sessions. It's a fine balance.

I found this article interesting. It is written by Stephen Seilers daughter: https://medium.com/@sirenameliaseiler/p ... bae4f888c5
2021 Cannondale Scalpel Carbon 2
2016 CAAD12 - SRAM Red 22 - Hyper 50mm

Retired:
2018 S-Works Tarmac SL6 Sagan Superstar DA 9150
2016 Aeroad CF SLX UDi2

scapie
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:19 am

by scapie

Andrew69 wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:16 am
And yet so many "internet coaches" are advocating endless sets of SST and literally advocating tempo sets. Apart from Dylan Johnson (YT), I dont know of anyone that has said, forget that middle stuff, do most of your stuff easy, the hard stuff really hard, and make it more race specific as you approach your goal event
Here's one from the 5w/kg thread not that long ago...
calleking wrote:
Thu Aug 12, 2021 7:56 pm
It is heavily inspired by the vast majority of the content Stephen Seiler has provided over the years.
  • Two hard sessions a week accumulating time at ~90% of HRMax.
    One longer endurance ride (3-4 hours, easy)
    Rest of the time just add easy rides that you can fit in. My commuting served this purpose
I did a lot of 4x8min intervals slightly above FTP. Don't race the intervals. Pace them. Save that extra for races. Going super hard every time creates a lot of stress hormones and is actually counterproductive.

I had an easy week every 3-4 weeks with less volume and only easy rides.

Once races start getting closer start doing specific rides mimicing the type of riding that you will find yourself in on raceday.

The easy rides are the foundation, the cake. The intervals are just the icing on the top.

Professional athletes don't really add more intensity than what I was doing but instead built that huge aerobic engine that pushes vo2 and mitochondrial adaptations. This is also true for juniors. Same intensity distribution but the accumulated time doing aerobic work as they get older increases.

It's a slow process to get fast for many. Takes consistency and a good life style over many years. Then we have some unique people who are on a very high level almost from start. Mother nature at its best 😄

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 10533
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

He’s not giving anything away for free other than basic knowledge.

Also don’t poop on SST and/or pyramidal training regimens. They’re all effective and “it depends” on what people can stomach mentally. Dylan Johnson, you say? The guy also spewing random shit about trans-athletes? Cool. IHB has made laughter inducing comments about HR vs power vs time that it’s impossible to take him seriously. As someone who is entering from the ground floor, why are you so trusting when so many people who are training at an even higher level than you are skeptical of him?

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

AeroObsessive wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:25 pm
iheartbianchi wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 12:33 pm

Personal insults aside, I am truly fascinated (not meant sarcastically) that you have this interpretation of that data. I can write more on this later (if people want), but I interpret that significant Wattage drop, combined with very high HR and RPE, over a period of 5 or so minutes, as a classic indication of anaerobic overpacing quickly followed by decceleration into LT intensity levels.
Yes, I concur with that analysis.

Just trying to find the last few elusive studies and I will write up "Why is it so" in relation to how this work in and around vo2max.
Trying to start over - I am going to post a more detailed analysis below. It is a work in progress - if you disagree with any portion of the analysis, please let me know. As a disclaimer, I never relied on CP or WBal, but I used it for purposes of this analysis because that is the data that is available.

1. The posted data:

-Segment is between 5-6 minutes long
-Peak power of 530ish W, lowest power of around 375W (Segment 1) at -7.9 Watt Balance
-Power curve is negative linear regression, as opposed to steps or plateaus
-Consistent HR average around 180
-Watt Balance - starts at 23.9, ends at -7.9
-Critical Power - 385 W

2. Assumptions

-Based on CP of 385W, we assume MAP of 480 ("the maximum power developed through a maximum heart rate aerobic metabolism, reached when the subject uses his/her maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max)")
-Based on MAP 480W, we assume power output of 95-100% of Vo2Max to be 456 W to 480 W (430 W = 90% Vo2Max / 408 W = 85% Vo2Max)
-Based on MAP 480W and CP 385W, we assume LT of 370W (I think the CP reading is low, and hence the LT is also too low. I think 400W or so is a more appropriate for LT, but I will stick with the numbers in the model)

3. Background Perspective

-An athlete can produce work at 100% Vo2Max for 5-8 minutes. At the end of this bout, the athlete is completely exhausted and cannot perform any more work.
-An athlete can produce work at 95% Vo2Max for 10-14 minutes. Complete exhaustion aftwards.
-An athlete can produce work at LT for 1 hour. Complete exhaustion aftwards.
-An athlete can produce work anaerobically for 1-2 minutes. Complete exhaustion aftwards.
-The above criteria are hugely important for coaches who work with athletes who have to participate in multiple races or heats in a single day, to manage pacing while ensuring advancement to the next round.

4. Observations

-(Period 1) He spent roughly 25% of the segment at anaerobic intensities, above 100% Vo2Max. Or roughly 60 seconds
-(Period 2) This was immediately followed by a rapid deceleration over a period of 45 seconds from anaerobic, to 400 W or so, or 85% Vo2Max.
-(Period 3) The next 45 seconds or so saw a gradual acceleration from 400W to about 475 W, or from 83% Vo2Max to 99% Vo2Max.
-(Period 4) Then the next 60 seconds or so saw a sharp deceleration to around 430W, or about 90% Vo2Max.
-(Period 5) The final 90 seconds or so were spent betwen 370W and 430W, or 77% Vo2Max and 90% Vo2Max, respectively.
-In his first segment, his HR stays flat - it doesn't decrease, it doesn't increase. This is a classic sign of anaerobic overpacing. You start too fast, your body begins anaerobic metabolism and is unable to utilize all of your muscle aerobically, so your HR actually falls flat, and then it remains high throughout the effort as your body seeks to recover. Contrast to the second effort, where his HR actually increases throughout the effort, peaking at the end. That is what we want to see in a true aerobic effort.

5. Summary

-In Period 1, he was engaged in anaerobic exercise. The substantial anaerobic overpacing here skews to average power figure all the way up to 463W, or 96.5% Vo2Max. So it makes sense why people who take a superficial view view this as a Vo2Max segment. If removing Period 1 from the equiation, average power would be close to 410-420W, or 88% Vo2Max.

-In Period 2, he decelerated from anaerobic velocity to LT velocity over the course of 45 seconds. He did not stop at Vo2Max, he continued straight to 85% Vo2Max. If the power curve had presented as a step and plateau, as opposed to a continual negative linear regression, then we may have concluded that he paced himself down to Vo2Max intensity. That's not what happened - rather, his body continuously and consistently slowed him down due to oxygen debt, and he was not capable of produce maximal aerobic work at Vo2Max in Period 2. Think of a car travelling at 300km/h, and you ease off on the gas to slow down. Yes, your speed decreases through and past slower velocities, but you're not applying much gas. You may have spent a few seconds at 200km/h as you slow down, but your engine is not producing the work to actually maintain speed at 200km/h - you are merely deccelerated through this point.

-In Period 3, after some recovery from the oxygen debt, he was able to increase his power over 45 seconds. I think it is fair to say he performed work at or around his MAP during the latter half of this Period 3, when he crossed over 450W, or 94% Vo2Max, and held it for roughly 20 seconds.

-In Period 4, he begins to feel the "long-term" effects of his anaerobic Period 1. His power again drops to 90% Vo2Max. His Watt Balance cross into the negative at this point, which means he is more or less finished.

-In Period 5, he struggles to hang on. Wobbles between 77% Vo2Max and 90% Vo2Max. CP hits rock bottom.

His second effort was much better, and what we want to see in terms of power curve. However, the average power for the second effort is around 410-420W, or 85% to 88% of Vo2Max. Except for a period of about 20 seconds where he was above 450W, the remainder of the effort was below 450W, and usually below 430W. But his HR data is good. This was a much better paced effort.
Last edited by iheartbianchi on Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:03 am, edited 11 times in total.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:38 am
IHB has made laughter inducing comments about HR vs power vs time that it’s impossible to take him seriously.
I actually have no idea what you're talking about. My views on Zones are, don't use the old Coggan 7 Zone system, if you want to use training zones, use HR zones, or create your own zones. Not sure what time is - are you referring to training durations? Or your incorrect prior statement that you can sustain efforts at 100% Vo2Max for only 4 minutes? (oh don't worry, I caught that, I just didn't feel like nitpicking at the time). Actually, now that I think about it, it makes sense why you think it's only 4 minutes, since you apparently don't do any Vo2Max specific training.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

AeroObsessive
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

So let's look at what kicked this whole thing off.

The question is:

Is it possible to train VO2max in a virtual race setting?


Let's have a look at some terms and definitions.

Vo2max is defined at the maximal amount oxygen uptake and utilisation that the body is capable of (with a margin of error because - humans). Vo2max is a physiological state, not tied to any other measures ie: you can only really know vo2max by measuring vo2max. This involves being a lab, hooked up a monitor to record gas exchange, HR, power, sometimes core temperature etc.

Maximal Aerobic Power is often used synonymously with vo2max, especially with the standard methods used to determine vo2max (ramp tests etc).. However there are definitions for both, similar does not mean the same, especially when it comes to training. Maximal Aerobic Power is the maximal amount of power that can be produced aerobically. For training purposes this could potentially be expressed as a percentage of Vo2max (depending on testing protocol). More on this below.

Now, there are some issues with vo2max, in terms of the standard measurements, and implications for training. Let's have a look at that:-

This study is deep look at the limitations of vo2max measurements - https://journals.physiology.org/doi/ful ... 01063.2016

This one also looks at the limitations of measurement tests and that in some cases, higher vo2max is recorded *after* the peak power is reached and starts to decline https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3733001/

This study used a different kind of vo2max test, key point :- “therefore, 14 subjects performed two incremental cycling tests: (1) a classical incremental test (CIT) to determine VO(2max), the power at VO(2max) (PVO(2max)) and at the lactate threshold (PLT) (2) a new incremental test (NIT) in which the power was decreased just after the subject reached VO(2max). During both protocols, heart rate, stroke volume, cardiac output, the arterio-venous difference and the oxygen blood saturation were recorded. The results showed that, with the NIT, subject could maintain a long VO(2max) plateau (6 ± 3 min),”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21997677/

Takeaway - once vo2max was reached, a lower power output continued to work Vo2max at a plateau for a good amount of time.

This looks at the differing ramp protocols. All reached vo2max, but differing peak values. https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-2705-9

Close values, but not always the same:-
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... .tb00027.x

The key difference here is vo2max is a simple measurement that is independent of power (or speed etc). It is possible to be putting out relatively lower power than peak power and still be at vo2max, as above.

These points of difference between MAP and Vo2max are relevant for the execution of training.


Lets now focus on Vo2max.

Looking at vo2max we can break it down essentially to two key parts which will determine the given value, basically demand and supply. .

Demand is peripheral - that is to say the working muscles (mostly in the legs for cyclists). Say with me now: the mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell. ;)

However we must always keep in mind that the rest of the body also needs oxygen. This is important later.

Supply is central, the cardiovascular system. Oxygen is delivered to the working muscles (and keeping the rest of the body alive). Now there are a number of things that can impact how well this system works. Stroke volume, heart rate, plasma volume, lung volume, gas exchange, red blood cell concentration etcetc. You may see Ficks Equation around which is used for the calculation of Vo2:

VO2 = HR x SV x a-vO2diff
HR - Heart Rate
SV - Stroke Volume
A-v02diff - difference of arterial and venous oxygen content.

Study looking at differing measures of Vo2 https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10. ... 0or%20both
Charts on here are interesting, and relate to the below. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18006574/



Impacts on training

Training MAP is not necessarily the same as training VO2max. It will definitely work at a high rate of work the “demand” side of vo2, and the supply. However, if we really want improve the supply side of things we need to change variables in the above equation to get more O2 delivered. This could be increasing HR, increasing stroke volume, increasing plasma volume, increasing red blood cell count (EPO anyone?). This is more evidence in more advanced athletes. Getting off the couch, almost anything will improve vo2max.

Now, in other sports, such as running and rowing, operating at ~95% of vo2max may work this aspect just fine. The reason being the increased muscle mass being utilised and the contraction of those muscles results in greater cardiac preload. The preload increases filling in the heart which triggers the Frank-Starling Effect. If you want to read more on this:- https://www.cvphysiology.com/Cardiac%20Function/CF003

For cycling this effect is far less, and this is where the cadence comes in.

These all show that there are generally inefficiencies for cyclists when performing efforts at a higher cadence than usual.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10483797/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15503124/
https://www.jssm.org/jssm-13-114.xml%3EFulltext
https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol2/iss3/39/


The last study is probably the most relevant:-

“These results demonstrate that pedaling cadence affects the VO2 response profile. The higher cadences speed the primary or fundamental response and hasten the emergence of the slow component. This may have implications for the sport of cycling and should be considered when evaluating cardio-respiratory and metabolic responses to cycle ergometer exercise.”

Normally, we don’t want inefficiencies. However sometimes this causes more work to be done, and in circumstances this is a good thing. Hence, if we use high cadence we not only potentially cause a better preload effect, the process costs more oxygen, hence taxing the central system more (and faster)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7127221/

Another factor is the “slow component” of vo2max work (just mentioned above). The slow component is basically delay in response in the delivery of oxygen when a given work rate commences. Some reading:-
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21160059/
https://europepmc.org/article/med/7741865
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21552161/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Da ... VO2max.pdf

One quick take away from all of this is that a high initial workload can help the speed of the slow component... as long as you don’t blow up completely and stop.

This study is an important one comparing the slow component between cycling and running. It helps to highlight that you cannot simply adopt training methodologies from one sport to another without CONTEXT.
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/ful ... .85.6.2118

In similar vein, perhaps due to some of the above, maybe a little bit of running goes a long way for cycling….
https://europepmc.org/article/med/2355824


Summary:

Can a virtual racing scenario, such as Zwift elicit suitable stimulus for adaptation to vo2max?
Yes, but….. it depends.
Pros
Can be highly motivating in a racing setting (higher pain tolerance)
May help with those who are reluctant to do “structured” training
Lack of negative environmental factors (rain, wind, etc)
Potentially better access to hydration and fuel for longer sessions and repeated bouts (highly important for high range efforts).

Cons
May not be optimal depending on the nature of the racing and virtual topography
Potential lack of repeatable and consistent efforts - again, due to the above
Negative effects of indoor training - namely heat stress
Inconsistencies of some smart trainers (if only source of power data).

Analysis of TPs race file:
In addition to my earlier quick take, with the above information, hopefully we can all see a circumstance that definitely work vo2max. High initial load, a decay in power but still at a sufficient level to drive a longer vo2max exposure. Had the high initial load resulted in complete exhaustion then the work done at vo2max would have been far too little. In this case it was kept pretty damn high.

I mentioned above the oxygen demands of the body. “Going anaerobic” is not always a negative, as long as you don’t stop, the oxygen demands of the continuing working muscle, the anaerobic glycolytic replenishment and all other demands means that the circumstances by which vo2max will be experienced is very possible.

The only other piece of the puzzle would have been the cadence for the effort. If sufficiently high, then this would have helped the cardiac preload.

I am sure i have skimmed over pieces and left out crucial bits...but hopefully this all makes sense.

TL;DR
It depends.


Note: This does not invalidate other short duration steady state efforts - they 100% still have their place.

Note: Your mileage may vary.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

AeroObsessive wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:15 am

In addition to my earlier quick take, with the above information, hopefully we can all see a circumstance that definitely work vo2max. High initial load, a decay in power but still at a sufficient level to drive a longer vo2max exposure. Had the high initial load resulted in complete exhaustion then the work done at vo2max would have been far too little. In this case it was kept pretty damn high.

I mentioned above the oxygen demands of the body. “Going anaerobic” is not always a negative, as long as you don’t stop, the oxygen demands of the continuing working muscle, the anaerobic glycolytic replenishment and all other demands means that the circumstances by which vo2max will be experienced is very possible.
I agree with everything else you posted (and I may have cited to several of the same studies), but regarding the above.

Of course there is no exact line between aerobic/anaerobic metabolism, and your body actually begins anaerobic metabolism before you reach 100% Vo2Max (partly why I harp on doing intervals at 95% Vo2Max). But once you cross 100% Vo2Max, you are more or less doing purely anaerobic work, which precludes any Vo2Max exposure (aka limited aerobic metabolism beyond 100% Vo2Max). And when you come back from anaerobic intensities, you have accumulated "debt", which your body has to recover from, which hinders your ability to reset into aerobic metabolism, since so many resources are going into the reversal of the accumulated debt. The degree of this resetting/debt of course depends on the degree and duration of the anaerobic effort.

I guess the key distinction between your take and mine is: I separate the anaerobic period from the analysis altogether, and find an average power for the remaining portion of the segment at or around 85-88% of Vo2Max (hence my earlier approximation using the term "Napkin Math"). I went into more detail of this "Napkin Math" in my post above, which I hope shows you I wasn't pulling random numbers out of a hat. I think in theory, he should have been able to complete the 5-6 minute segment at around 460-480W when operating at or near MAP. Yes, the high wattage of the anaerobic portion gives us an average of 460W, which as I refer to in my prior post does give the superficial impression that he was on track for a high quality Vo2Max effort. But when we exclude the anaerobic portion, when as I believe he was not subject to any "Vo2Max exposure", we are at 410-420W. So the average 460W he attained, is not the same thing as the 460-480W he could have attained from a consistent, aerobic effort.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

patchsurfer
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:27 pm

by patchsurfer

Apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere in this thread - I don't recall it.

With reference to the 45 min / 60 min / 90 min general gates for different physiological adaptations...

How do these play with doing multiple workouts a day? I'm currently rehabbing myself after a back spasm, which for me involves 2 or 3 z2 rides of 25-35 min a day, interspersed with stretching and self-torture with a lacrosse ball. Got me thinking - it's actually a really easy way to add volume to my work week - so if I have a daily volume of 90 min over three workouts, am I just double-dosing those adaptations from the short duration workout, or if / how does the proximity of one workout to another influence the nature of the adaptations the body makes?

Lina
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:09 pm

by Lina

Oh wow, I'm certainly late to an interesting conversation.

I actually have experience with training under a coach that has multiple Olympic medals in endurance sports as a coach. XC skiing to be more exact. Tons of knowledge about research and science. The single worst coach as a coach I've ever had, and by a pretty massive margin. But this was them coaching another sport and not XC skiing. Someone that has wealth of experience coaching another sport can be blind to see the differences in sports and just applies the same methods they've always done, and I'd argue this is very likely to happen. Having credentials on one sport means nothing in other sports. Other than being able to say what generally works, but application of that knowledge into other sports can be difficult. And most here actually agree in the core concepts.

Claiming absolutes like you can't get good enough training effect out of Zwift races or group rides, even when presented with proof stating otherwise, or that it's impossible or hard to do longer than couple minute long intervals outdoors safely and efficiently just proves to everyone you don't know what you're talking about. Of course this all depends. Not all Zwift races are good training. Not all group rides work for training. And there certainly are places where a trainer is just a lot simpler than trying to find an open enough place for longer outdoor stuff.

Also being vehemently against hard group rides or races as training also shows how little cycling specific knowledge someone has. Group skills are extremely important, be it fondos, races, or just random group rides you're aiming for. For someone that's looking to train cycling and aims to race, I'd much rather have them doing their hard rides in a group, or at least quite a bit of them if not all. At least until their group skills are excellent. Yes the physiological training effect may not be as good as doing specifically crafted ideal intervals. But the pack riding skills are worth a lot more than those marginal gains achievable through carefully crafted intervals. In running pack skills don't really matter at all compared to cycling. So yes, in running it makes little to no sense doing your hard training in groups when you could get those marginal gains doing more efficient training. In skiing the importance of pack skills are in the middle, with them actually being quite important in sprints. And you can see in the world cup sprints which nations don't train their pack skills with how often they manage to fall or destroy their poles.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply