Results 1 to 69 of 69

Thread: Is FTP dead?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    264

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,636
    Cliff notes?
    Instagram

    Mojo Wheels | DirtLabs Suspension | Honey Stinger

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Cliff notes?
    No, but maybe, but then probably no. If you enjoy strawman arguments and misrepresenting the opposing side, this is an interesting discussion.

    Basically, they are relitigating some of the issues brought up in a recent Slowtwitch forum discussion about Sufferfest's new 4DP protocol test and training program. The dudes from Sufferfest defended their point of view, while some other coaches defended other views. Definitely worth a listen if you are interested in this sort of stuff, but nothing ground shaking. I maybe wrong about this, but Sufferfest's "bin" approach to testing is nothing groundbreakingly new nor necessarily contradictory to an FTP/threshold approach.

    From my point of view, Sufferfest has a new product that they want to sell (hence the clickbait marketing) based on the Apex Coaching guy's personal experience (granted, really experienced guy) while FTP/threshold based approaches are still orthodoxy and have better peer-reviewed, published backing.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,636
    Thanks Iíll give it a listen later today
    Instagram

    Mojo Wheels | DirtLabs Suspension | Honey Stinger

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    264
    I think an interesting note is that Training Peaks was invited but never responded. Frank Overton of FasCat Coaching speaks (WKO user). Frank is awesome (I have emailed with him). I would have thought representation by Tim Cusick (product manager and co-developer of WKO4) would have been better. Tim has authored training articles and answered my emails also.

    There is an underlying backdrop to this on the Google Wattage (GW) forum, namely with Xert (mentioned @ 57min).

    Stephen Cheung https://www.amazon.com/Stephen-S-Cheung/e/B007FI7DG4 co-author of Cutting-Edge Cycling with Hunter Allen (Co-Founder TrainingPeaks WKO) in that Cheung is now the Chief Sports Scientist @ Xert.

    It's an eye opener for me that training levels based on Ftp are old school in that "The training levels are descriptive, not prescriptive." Coggan (he makes some comments at bottom of audio article). Products like Xert base workouts on recent performance via PM,,,rather than based on FTP derived zones (not sure what others do).

    Full disclosure: I am a paying subscriber to Xert. I like the tools that they have like the Real Time FTP app for Garmin (it's free by the way) https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/07/...n-devices.html and the ability to prescribe workouts based on time of year and my own personal riding history (I am Not saying others don't). They have a free trial and interesting things going on. Check out there facebook page

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    377
    Quote Originally Posted by twobigwheels View Post
    I think an interesting note is that Training Peaks was invited but never responded. Frank Overton of FasCat Coaching speaks (WKO user). Frank is awesome (I have emailed with him). I would have thought representation by Tim Cusick (product manager and co-developer of WKO4) would have been better. Tim has authored training articles and answered my emails also.

    There is an underlying backdrop to this on the Google Wattage (GW) forum, namely with Xert (mentioned @ 57min).

    Stephen Cheung https://www.amazon.com/Stephen-S-Cheung/e/B007FI7DG4 co-author of Cutting-Edge Cycling with Hunter Allen (Co-Founder TrainingPeaks WKO) in that Cheung is now the Chief Sports Scientist @ Xert.

    It's an eye opener for me that training levels based on Ftp are old school in that "The training levels are descriptive, not prescriptive." Coggan (he makes some comments at bottom of audio article). Products like Xert base workouts on recent performance via PM,,,rather than based on FTP derived zones (not sure what others do).

    Full disclosure: I am a paying subscriber to Xert. I like the tools that they have like the Real Time FTP app for Garmin (it's free by the way) https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/07/...n-devices.html and the ability to prescribe workouts based on time of year and my own personal riding history (I am Not saying others don't). They have a free trial and interesting things going on. Check out there facebook page
    Thanks for posting this! Personally, I love Sufferfest and can't recommend it enough. That being said, they *still* don't support my trainer (Kurt Kinetic Rock n Roll, Smart) and I am relegated to using my old videos and Kinetic App. 4DP makes a lot of sense, but like you describe above, I am constantly adjusting my FTP based on actual training performances instead of FTP tests. The moment a 0.90 IF effort starts to feel easier or I hit 0.92 when I was targeting 0.90, I know to bump up the FTP one or two watts. Additionally, the 4DP test looks considerably unpleasant. Testing for max sprint and max 1-minute efforts are hard enough. Adding in a max 5-minute AND max 20-minute on top of that is just cruel and I would also question the accuracy of the 20-minute effort given the 3 (very) hard efforts preceding it.

  7. #7
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,053
    Does it matter?

    People who are selling these training programs are selling a complexity that makes no difference to the vast majority of people and if they are working with a high performing elite athlete they are actually making them slower.

    Training is simple, not complex:
    -80-90% of training time is done a conversation pace.
    -10-20% is done as hard as you can go.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,581
    "Training is simple, not complex:
    -80-90% of training time is done a conversation pace.
    -10-20% is done as hard as you can go."
    - love that!!
    carry clippers! cut something off the trail every time you ride.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    264
    ^^^
    I guess that means I can go on a hard MTB ride every 2 weeks.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,079
    I've never really understood the obsession with FTP in the first place. And its overstated usefulness. As a performance benchmark it does not cover repeatibility and/or fatigue resistance. And more advanced athletes are close to max anyway.

    And this flaw carries over into PMC/CTL/ATL/TSS. Adding to all the other flaws of PMC, for example easy long rides generating the same "PMC load" as short intense workouts. Can't be right.

    Biological systems are simply too complex to be modelled mathematically at this level.

    I totally agree with training does not have to be complex. I must admit I'm not a big supporter of this 80:20 solution for everyone/everytime sentiment that's floating around at the moment (though I believe it's already waning a bit). The key ingredient for successful training is "progression". And probably variation (though I do not have strong evidence for this), but progression. I find it more important to tailor a progression pathway to the specifics of an athlete than to impose the one truth onto everyone. There is no one size fits all.

    A final word on XERT. I'm a paying subscriber. Not because I'm overly convinced but because I am/was curious. Many of the supposedly "revolutionary" features are not even implemented in the production version. It's actually pretty difficult to figure out what XERT does. Documentation is very poor, a lot of information is buried in all those facebook postings. And then it is often not clear if this is already part of the production version or not. There seems to be an ardent following of people believing that they are now at the forefront of the training revolution. When you ask questions it's a little bit bewildering how little those users actually know about what XERT does.

    At the moment I do not really any added value from using XERT. But I'm sure this is just because I don't understand it, it's the revolution, isn't it?

  11. #11
    Rides all the bikes!
    Reputation: Sidewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,986
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    Does it matter?

    People who are selling these training programs are selling a complexity that makes no difference to the vast majority of people and if they are working with a high performing elite athlete they are actually making them slower.

    Training is simple, not complex:
    -80-90% of training time is done a conversation pace.
    -10-20% is done as hard as you can go.
    I've been doing that by accident for a few years now. I don't know if it is right, but my performance is fine. I've never done anything else so I don't know if I could be faster or slower!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    377
    Quote Originally Posted by quax View Post
    I've never really understood the obsession with FTP in the first place. And its overstated usefulness. As a performance benchmark it does not cover repeatibility and/or fatigue resistance. And more advanced athletes are close to max anyway.

    And this flaw carries over into PMC/CTL/ATL/TSS. Adding to all the other flaws of PMC, for example easy long rides generating the same "PMC load" as short intense workouts. Can't be right.

    Biological systems are simply too complex to be modelled mathematically at this level.

    I totally agree with training does not have to be complex. I must admit I'm not a big supporter of this 80:20 solution for everyone/everytime sentiment that's floating around at the moment (though I believe it's already waning a bit). The key ingredient for successful training is "progression". And probably variation (though I do not have strong evidence for this), but progression. I find it more important to tailor a progression pathway to the specifics of an athlete than to impose the one truth onto everyone. There is no one size fits all.

    A final word on XERT. I'm a paying subscriber. Not because I'm overly convinced but because I am/was curious. Many of the supposedly "revolutionary" features are not even implemented in the production version. It's actually pretty difficult to figure out what XERT does. Documentation is very poor, a lot of information is buried in all those facebook postings. And then it is often not clear if this is already part of the production version or not. There seems to be an ardent following of people believing that they are now at the forefront of the training revolution. When you ask questions it's a little bit bewildering how little those users actually know about what XERT does.

    At the moment I do not really any added value from using XERT. But I'm sure this is just because I don't understand it, it's the revolution, isn't it?
    1. What do you think would be good performance benchmarks for repeatability and fatigue resistance?
    2. I agree 100% that progression is the bottom line, but what metric other than FTP would be as useful for measuring that and cover a broader range of overall fitness/performance level?

  13. #13
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,136
    Quote Originally Posted by steelhmr View Post
    1. What do you think would be good performance benchmarks for repeatability and fatigue resistance?
    2. I agree 100% that progression is the bottom line, but what metric other than FTP would be as useful for measuring that and cover a broader range of overall fitness/performance level?
    I've kind of stopped tracking FTP as well.

    I use a couple of key workouts instead. Pro roadie friend turned me on to over/unders. Pretty hard to do them to time on the trail, but they actually mimic riding on the dirt pretty well.

    I do 40/20s and 30/30s. 360/300w and 400/250w. If I'm in great shape, I can do 10min straight of either, at home (7400ft). If I'm visiting in-laws (100mi away and 2400ft lower) I can do 12-15 reps, or do 10 slightly harder.






    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  14. #14
    LDC is ded,deth by trollz
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,894
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    Does it matter?

    People who are selling these training programs are selling a complexity that makes no difference to the vast majority of people and if they are working with a high performing elite athlete they are actually making them slower.

    Training is simple, not complex:
    -80-90% of training time is done a conversation pace.
    -10-20% is done as hard as you can go.
    Thank you.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    Ill be out riding, youll still be trolling mtbr. Mtbr, where people who dont ride come to pretend they do.

  15. #15
    LDC is ded,deth by trollz
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I've kind of stopped tracking FTP as well.

    I use a couple of key workouts instead. Pro roadie friend turned me on to over/unders. Pretty hard to do them to time on the trail, but they actually mimic riding on the dirt pretty well.

    I do 40/20s and 30/30s. 360/300w and 400/250w. If I'm in great shape, I can do 10min straight of either, at home (7400ft). If I'm visiting in-laws (100mi away and 2400ft lower) I can do 12-15 reps, or do 10 slightly harder.






    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Duke how did you decide the wattage? Im assuming off your ftp. If so what pct or variable do you use for the wattage. I like this drill, never have taken an ftp test, and dont use a power meter. I can understand the effort level though once i know how you determined the wattage.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    Ill be out riding, youll still be trolling mtbr. Mtbr, where people who dont ride come to pretend they do.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by steelhmr View Post
    1. What do you think would be good performance benchmarks for repeatability and fatigue resistance?
    2. I agree 100% that progression is the bottom line, but what metric other than FTP would be as useful for measuring that and cover a broader range of overall fitness/performance level?
    Similar to Le Duke, I pay attention to wattage in my workouts. After a couple of years riding with a powermeter I know myself quite well. Repeatbility depends on the target event and/or focus of a training block. When preparing for 4 hours XCM with 4 steady climbs of 30-45min each I find it more important to look at how wattage develops later in a ride than looking at 0.95x20min. Especially in those races it's who can hold on the longest, not so much who is the fastest in the first quarter. Hence a metric would be wattage on climbs after 2000 kJ of mechanical work. Personally, I look a lot at mechanical work to identify strain within a ride.

    Hence, measures/metricse depend on what one is training for. However, for powermeter beginners FTP and its related applications can have their purpose.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,495
    LMN and quax's comments are spot on.

    I've been training and racing with a PM since 2008, and there are three things that make a big difference in my racing: Endurance, body weight, and practice races.

    But it seems that since 2008 my FTP hasn't changed at all. Nada. But my ability to do Endurance work and Tempo work (average power of those intervals), has improved a lot. That's weird but it's the truth.

    I remember in 2010 doing 4X15 tempo intervals at 180W and that being hard. This past summer I did 3 hours averaging 190W (5' upper Z2, 5'tempo alternating for 3 hours), but my FTP hasn't changed. When I do 4X15 tempo intervals I can do them 30-40W higher than 2010, but my FTP hasn't improved 40W.

    Improved aerobic ability from lots of zone 2?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    819
    OP, I hope not, cause I just got my first power meter and did my first FTP test!


    As long as you are measuring with the same calibrated device and your numbers are for your benchmarking and improvement, I'd guess that a number of figures work and would work if you tested them in a controlled study. If gains stall, are you maintaining and improving elsewhere

    I don't think any one power metric is extremely reliable when the duration and method of power deliveries starts to vary too far from the tested metric, but we have to level set training and tie it to something. Mountain bike racing and FTP, is kind of like using all of your 1RMs in Weightlifting to predict success in crossfit games.

    Yet most workout protocols are also tide to your 1RM in lifting

  19. #19
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,136
    Quote Originally Posted by FJSnoozer View Post
    OP, I hope not, cause I just got my first power meter and did my first FTP test!


    As long as you are measuring with the same calibrated device and your numbers are for your benchmarking and improvement, I'd guess that a number of figures work and would work if you tested them in a controlled study. If gains stall, are you maintaining and improving elsewhere

    I don't think any one power metric is extremely reliable when the duration and method of power deliveries starts to vary too far from the tested metric, but we have to level set training and tie it to something. Mountain bike racing and FTP, is kind of like using all of your 1RMs in Weightlifting to predict success in crossfit games.

    Yet most workout protocols are also tide to your 1RM in lifting
    Well, a power meter has plenty of other applications besides simple, long duration, steady state interval recording.

    As I and others have suggested, there are plenty of other ways to use power data to cook up workouts that might have more application and specificity to MTB racing.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    274
    FTP is not dead, but probably more important for interval work is knowing your MAP (maximal aerobic power). You will base intervals off MAP if you have a PM.

    Don't over complicate it, do the below and you will be going about as well as you can go. Of course if you've got more time you would do more volume.

    2-3 two hour "tempo" rides per week at 75-85% max HR (note HR not power).
    1 interval session per week doing 8-10min strength endurance efforts pre season, shorter but more intense intervals during race season. Can be done on road or ergo.
    Rest just rolling around, group rides on road or having fun on the MTB.
    Gym twice per week, 40-45min max.
    The over/under efforts are really good for MTB due to the nature of climbing efforts off road- ie having to spike to clear an obstacle or steep switchback.

    I've been trained by national team coaches, and guys who went onto become world tour team coaches over the years and this formula works the best. Not a lot of fun but effective.
    Procaliber 9.9

    ASR-C- retired
    ARC Carbon- retired
    SB-95C- play bike- retired

  21. #21
    LDC is ded,deth by trollz
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,894
    Quote Originally Posted by m3bas View Post
    FTP is not dead, but probably more important for interval work is knowing your MAP (maximal aerobic power). You will base intervals off MAP if you have a PM.

    Don't over complicate it, do the below and you will be going about as well as you can go. Of course if you've got more time you would do more volume.

    2-3 two hour "tempo" rides per week at 75-85% max HR (note HR not power).
    1 interval session per week doing 8-10min strength endurance efforts pre season, shorter but more intense intervals during race season. Can be done on road or ergo.
    Rest just rolling around, group rides on road or having fun on the MTB.
    Gym twice per week, 40-45min max.
    The over/under efforts are really good for MTB due to the nature of climbing efforts off road- ie having to spike to clear an obstacle or steep switchback.

    I've been trained by national team coaches, and guys who went onto become world tour team coaches over the years and this formula works the best. Not a lot of fun but effective.
    How many hours of "just rolling around"? Im counting about 8 hrs of what you said prior to just rolling around. Would 10-12 hours of just rolling around be fine.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    Ill be out riding, youll still be trolling mtbr. Mtbr, where people who dont ride come to pretend they do.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    274
    Probably not a lot for those of us working full time and with kids, depends how well you recover from everything else
    Procaliber 9.9

    ASR-C- retired
    ARC Carbon- retired
    SB-95C- play bike- retired

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by m3bas View Post
    FTP is not dead, but probably more important for interval work is knowing your MAP (maximal aerobic power). You will base intervals off MAP if you have a PM.

    Don't over complicate it, do the below and you will be going about as well as you can go. Of course if you've got more time you would do more volume.
    I think thats a good point not to over complciate it. Thats why FTP is so good..its how big (whether its power, speed, distance etc) you can go in an hour. The other systems that Sufferfest etc use is just going off your 30 second 5, 10, 20 minute powers and rebranding it in zones...at least thats the what i caught outta've it.
    I think that one good point that they were making was not how FTP is nto valid but the testing protcals. The 8 minute test and the 20 minute test work off a different energy system than aerobic which is what FTP is based on. Therefore why use an anarobic energy system to test for an aerobic?
    I still use the 20 minute test for my FTP but i was in a computrainer class the other day and they use 8 minute protocal and mine was off my home tested 20 minute..
    I still like it and lets keep it simple people.
    MyRides - Santa Cruz Tallboy CC, Van Dessel Ramble tamble SS, Look 986 1x10,

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,079
    Andrew Coggan on Facebook last July :-)


  25. #25
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,136
    Quote Originally Posted by mackdhagen View Post
    I think thats a good point not to over complciate it. Thats why FTP is so good..its how big (whether its power, speed, distance etc) you can go in an hour. The other systems that Sufferfest etc use is just going off your 30 second 5, 10, 20 minute powers and rebranding it in zones...at least thats the what i caught outta've it.
    I think that one good point that they were making was not how FTP is nto valid but the testing protcals. The 8 minute test and the 20 minute test work off a different energy system than aerobic which is what FTP is based on. Therefore why use an anarobic energy system to test for an aerobic?
    I still use the 20 minute test for my FTP but i was in a computrainer class the other day and they use 8 minute protocal and mine was off my home tested 20 minute..
    I still like it and lets keep it simple people.
    Huh?

    This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the contributions of energy systems in cycling.

    Most current physiologists will agree that for a 4min maximum effort, >75% of energy comes from aerobic respiration. As the length of the effort increases, that only goes upwards. An 8min effort is going to be 80-85% aerobic. A 12min effort, 94% aerobic. 20min, even higher.

    Yes, there are minor contributions from the anaerobic pathway in any kind of exercise, but the vast majority of the energy for efforts between 8 and 60min is from the same system.
    Death from Below.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    596
    A lot of folks don't understand FTP at all or what it means or how it was conceived.

    FTP, maximum steady state, critical power are all names for the same thing roughly speaking. Which is the state where you can pedal "forever" without fatiguing at your max effort. That is a very real thing scientifically speaking. They are of utmost importance because they reveal aspects of the physiological mechanisms governing endurance, additionally they can be captured in data and analyzed efficiently to further optimize it.

    In a power-duration chart, assuming a perfect setup (workout), you would identify the CP or FTP as a semi-horizontal line in the curve. That is the threshold you are looking for. That is why FTP doesn't mean maximum power in an hour, the horizontal line segment in the power-duration curve could be anywhere in the chart, but most of the time falls between 30-60 minutes on the majority of people and its duration varies as well.

    FTP or CP is well above lactate threshold, thus the reason why LT is meaningless when trying to find the former metrics.

    What can be flawed is the testing protocols to obtain the threshold and with research and equipment it will keep improving to pinpoint it exactly, although in my opinion current methods are more than usable for prescribing workouts.

    FTP is not dead, maybe its metric, but in fact is the single most important factor to improve as a cyclist. Unless you are already at your limit, you should strive to improve it above all else.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,079
    not ftp related but since I've expressed my concerns wrt to 80:20 fits all above, just came across this. Exactly my point, race pace/characteristics dictate training intensity distribution. However, for shorter race formats like cyclocross/XCO 80:20 is probably a pretty good distribution. For XCM probably not.


  28. #28
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,053
    Just for interest sake, a 3-zone intensity break down of two different racers who both stood on the podium at an XC world cup this year.

    Zone 1: 70%
    Zone 2: 20%
    Zone 3: 10%
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,079
    Heart rate or power?
    Based on number of workouts or total training time?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    264
    Could you post how the 3 zones compare to the Coggan zones?
    I could not find a reference after some google searching.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    41
    No AC efforts?

  32. #32
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by quax View Post
    Heart rate or power?
    Based on number of workouts or total training time?
    Power, total training time.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    190
    Coming from the road and training years with power I'm going more and more with HR on the MTB for xc. I had watts on the XC this year, but the numbers were often expected. Low W' numbers and average watts was dependent of the trail. Even then, you get to know your body and get in tune with your zones. It's exactly like LMN stated; 80% talking pace and 10-20 race pace.

    I did that for road one year working on MAP and over 2-3 times a week(mostly twice) and the other hours were talking pace. Best year on the road bike. Fresh for every training. Nailing the important watts. There's probably a science and mix to it but the body adjusts well, we need to keep on surprising it.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    596
    You guys are gonna confuse a lot of people with your 80/20 method without carefully explaining it.

    LMN said 80% talking pace, 10-20 as hard as you can, then Wheelzc states 80% talking pace and 10-20% race pace.

    I assume that by as hard as you can LMN means efforts way above threshold which would make sense, as those are pretty hard to sustain. Wheelzc on the other hand suggest 10-20 race pace which means its a little bit below FTP, with that kind of efforts you are not gonna get anywhere, perhaps he meant something else.

    Even then, for a weekend warrior that wants to improve, lets assume he/she trains 6-8 hours a week. If we follow LMN's structure that would mean 6.8 hours of talking pace and 1.2 of very hard pace(intervals) which could be spaced in 3 sets/days for 20 minutes each, which sounds manageable, yet still hard for an intermediate athlete.

    Thinking about that training regime, it does seem pretty good for progression as long as you don't cheat on your workouts.

    I can see long term effectiveness as it is very manageable during a long period, which is what you mostly want to maintain consistency, yet keep improving.

    One more thing that is ambiguous the way you say it is "talking pace", I'm gonna assume you guys refer to it as a range between threshold, tempo and below efforts?

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    190
    Poor choice of words by me. I definitely meant over FTP. My intensity days were intervals at 85% MAP to 130% micro intervals (FTP is about 75ish% of MAP for me). Not much time spent at tempo or FTP... but I think there's a good progression you can build through offseason towards intensity. My talking pace means not falling into zone 3-4 of Coggan's zone. That would have hurt my over FTP days. Instead of counting hours and getting a % out of it I would do 2 intense (85% MAP and more) workouts per week and on the best week add a 3rd. In the end I could see in GoldenCheetah (you can see the 3 zone model) that I was near 80-20 ratio power wise. It ended up being pretty simple. Tempo and FTP probably has a place (thats where a good plan or coach helps), but I'd guess as it's less specific to XC racing (we seem to spend time in zone 1 or 5-6) that it's better further away from competition. TDLover, I agree for consistency ! It's the first box to tick. I hope I don't really make it more complicated than it is as I highly agreed with LMN on the simplicity factor.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    772
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    Just for interest sake, a 3-zone intensity break down of two different racers who both stood on the podium at an XC world cup this year.

    Zone 1: 70%
    Zone 2: 20%
    Zone 3: 10%
    So what are the power ranges for these 3 zones. Maybe 1 is below aerobic threshold, 2 is between aerobic and anaerobic threshold, and 3 is above anaerobic threshold? Or some other levels?
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by wheelzqc View Post
    Poor choice of words by me. I definitely meant over FTP. My intensity days were intervals at 85% MAP to 130% micro intervals (FTP is about 75ish% of MAP for me). Not much time spent at tempo or FTP... but I think there's a good progression you can build through offseason towards intensity. My talking pace means not falling into zone 3-4 of Coggan's zone. That would have hurt my over FTP days. Instead of counting hours and getting a % out of it I would do 2 intense (85% MAP and more) workouts per week and on the best week add a 3rd. In the end I could see in GoldenCheetah (you can see the 3 zone model) that I was near 80-20 ratio power wise. It ended up being pretty simple. Tempo and FTP probably has a place (thats where a good plan or coach helps), but I'd guess as it's less specific to XC racing (we seem to spend time in zone 1 or 5-6) that it's better further away from competition. TDLover, I agree for consistency ! It's the first box to tick. I hope I don't really make it more complicated than it is as I highly agreed with LMN on the simplicity factor.
    Where do you see the 3 zone model in GC?

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by HopHeadEVENTS View Post
    No AC efforts?
    I reserve those for mid summer race period but use them as a race replacement. Integrating AC efforts are tricky though, I do it something like this:

    M: off or easier yoga class
    T: Local Tues night road World Championship, or AC efforts (8-10 X 1-2'), or pre-race openers if racing Wednesday
    W: Easier zone 1/2 (sometimes with high cadence spin ups), or mid week MTB race
    T: 12 min total of threshold intervals if racing Sat, or a bigger workout if not racing, or Zone 2 commute if not feeling it
    F: Pre Race openers if racing Sat, or full sprint workout (8 X 20") if not racing; Zone 1/2 between the efforts
    S: Group ride MTB or road (only one group ride per weekend though), or Long "smell the flowers" ride up to 3-4 hours, or race
    S: Long road group ride with friends, or long "smell the flowers" ride up to 3-4 hours

    The key is to build CTL, and consistency and volume seems to do it for me. Practice races are important too since that's where the specificity and polarization really comes to fruition.

    Using this pattern I typically get 10-15 hours a week.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    So what are the power ranges for these 3 zones. Maybe 1 is below aerobic threshold, 2 is between aerobic and anaerobic threshold, and 3 is above anaerobic threshold? Or some other levels?
    Not LMN, but best comparison I could come up with to compare 3 Zone Model (polarized) to Coggan's Zones
    Joe Friel - Polarized Training Update

    I checked my monthly totals for 2017 on Golden Cheetah (I never paid any attention before) - note that zones are set by GC.

    According to GC " 3 program defined zones (I = 0 to 85% of CP, II = 85 to 100% of CP and III > 100% of CP).
    Jan 81/9/11
    Feb 84/12/5
    Mar 77/13/11
    Apr 76/14/9
    May 76/13/11
    Jun 80/9/11
    Jul 77/8/16
    Aug 74/10/16
    Sep 81/9/11
    Oct 81/9/11
    Nov 88/6/6

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by twobigwheels View Post
    According to GC " 3 program defined zones (I = 0 to 85% of CP, II = 85 to 100% of CP and III > 100% of CP).
    Jan 81/9/11
    Feb 84/12/5
    Mar 77/13/11
    Apr 76/14/9
    May 76/13/11
    Jun 80/9/11
    Jul 77/8/16
    Aug 74/10/16
    Sep 81/9/11
    Oct 81/9/11
    Nov 88/6/6
    Pareto strikes again!, or perhaps you are just a fan of him .

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    94
    Guys - the 3 training zones that LMN is referring to are well-established specifically as ventilatory threshold 1 (VT1 = 2mM blood lactate) and ventilatory threshold 2 (VT2 = 4 mM blood lactate). They are defined specifically and in order to train those specific levels, I think you'd need to look at lab testing following protocols that they use for physiological studies. On slide 26, he correlates VT1 with 78% of HRpeak and VT2 with 86% of HRpeak - however, heart rate can be variable and the ventilatory threshold levels are established through blood lactate tests not HR measurements. If you want to use this approach and be really anal about it, I'd get a test and correlate power levels - if not, just use your HR and power data and see how that correlates with VT1&VT2.

    You can see more in a powerpoint which is here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ning-Needs.pdf


    If you like, there is a lecture online that goes through all this stuff, I can dig it up if people are curious, just lost the link.

    BUT - you'll notice, Seiler is studying mostly world-class athletes accumulating tremendous volume throughout the year and it is currently a subject of discussion among coaches, physiologists, etc, whether or not this approach is as effective for people who are training at the amateur level with typical amateur hours (I would say <10hrs per week for sure and probably <15hrs per week for cycling).

    Another thing - 80/20 has nothing to do with the economist Pareto.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    264
    ...

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by peter85 View Post
    Guys - the 3 training zones that LMN is referring to are well-established specifically as ventilatory threshold 1 (VT1 = 2mM blood lactate) and ventilatory threshold 2 (VT2 = 4 mM blood lactate). They are defined specifically and in order to train those specific levels, I think you'd need to look at lab testing following protocols that they use for physiological studies. On slide 26, he correlates VT1 with 78% of HRpeak and VT2 with 86% of HRpeak - however, heart rate can be variable and the ventilatory threshold levels are established through blood lactate tests not HR measurements. If you want to use this approach and be really anal about it, I'd get a test and correlate power levels - if not, just use your HR and power data and see how that correlates with VT1&VT2.

    You can see more in a powerpoint which is here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ning-Needs.pdf


    If you like, there is a lecture online that goes through all this stuff, I can dig it up if people are curious, just lost the link.

    BUT - you'll notice, Seiler is studying mostly world-class athletes accumulating tremendous volume throughout the year and it is currently a subject of discussion among coaches, physiologists, etc, whether or not this approach is as effective for people who are training at the amateur level with typical amateur hours (I would say <10hrs per week for sure and probably <15hrs per week for cycling).

    Another thing - 80/20 has nothing to do with the economist Pareto.
    Thanks!

    I seen the chart. Looks roughly like Z1 = Coggan Z1 - upper Z2 and Z3 = Coggan Z4+(?). Correct me if I am wrong, I am just trying to simplify it.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    32
    deleted not to derail.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    772
    Quote Originally Posted by twobigwheels View Post
    Not LMN, but best comparison I could come up with to compare 3 Zone Model (polarized) to Coggan's Zones
    Joe Friel - Polarized Training Update

    I checked my monthly totals for 2017 on Golden Cheetah (I never paid any attention before) - note that zones are set by GC.

    According to GC " 3 program defined zones (I = 0 to 85% of CP, II = 85 to 100% of CP and III > 100% of CP).
    Jan 81/9/11
    Feb 84/12/5
    Mar 77/13/11
    Apr 76/14/9
    May 76/13/11
    Jun 80/9/11
    Jul 77/8/16
    Aug 74/10/16
    Sep 81/9/11
    Oct 81/9/11
    Nov 88/6/6
    So what Friel says is the same thing that I mentioned. That's where I got it from. But is this what LMN is talking about?
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by twobigwheels View Post
    Thanks!

    I seen the chart. Looks roughly like Z1 = Coggan Z1 - upper Z2 and Z3 = Coggan Z4+(?). Correct me if I am wrong, I am just trying to simplify it.
    Seems about right to me...

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    819
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    Just for interest sake, a 3-zone intensity break down of two different racers who both stood on the podium at an XC world cup this year.

    Zone 1: 70%
    Zone 2: 20%
    Zone 3: 10%
    No offense meant towards you, but this sounds like the most boring strategy ever for a time crunched mountain biker.

    This has to be more applicable for those exceeding a 10 hr average and is probably just as poor of a ratio as they are claiming FTP to be. Do you think this would be applicable to someone averaging 6-7 hours per week?

  48. #48
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by FJSnoozer View Post
    No offense meant towards you, but this sounds like the most boring strategy ever for a time crunched mountain biker.

    This has to be more applicable for those exceeding a 10 hr average and is probably just as poor of a ratio as they are claiming FTP to be. Do you think this would be applicable to someone averaging 6-7 hours per week?
    I suspect that, if someone training 6-7hrs a week recorded all their training with a power meter you would see similar percentages, a bit more intensity but not a lot. I don't have any to look at but my guess is you would see:
    60% zone 1, 30% zone 2, and 10% zone 1.

    I average about 12hrs a week and my percentages are
    Zone 1: 65
    Zone 2: 28
    zone 3: 7

    Personally, I quite enjoy the training that I do.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  49. #49
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,136
    Quote Originally Posted by FJSnoozer View Post
    No offense meant towards you, but this sounds like the most boring strategy ever for a time crunched mountain biker.

    This has to be more applicable for those exceeding a 10 hr average and is probably just as poor of a ratio as they are claiming FTP to be. Do you think this would be applicable to someone averaging 6-7 hours per week?
    What would you do differently?

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    819
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    What would you do differently?

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    LMN answered my question and suspicions.

    Honestly, I have to force myself to ride in perceived zone 1 unless I need a recovery. I enjoy riding hard an am learning to get faster by not going fast. Everything I have learned over the past 6 months regarding developing the various types of mitochondria, will tilt my riding efforts next year. I do find that model pretty reasonable especially when I ride with friends, and my wife and her fellow racers. This time of the year I am completely thrown for a loop. I am averaging 5 hours, and half of that time is spent actually racing.

    I would not prescribe my experience to anyone.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by FJSnoozer View Post
    LMN answered my question and suspicions.

    Honestly, I have to force myself to ride in perceived zone 1 unless I need a recovery. I enjoy riding hard an am learning to get faster by not going fast. Everything I have learned over the past 6 months regarding developing the various types of mitochondria, will tilt my riding efforts next year. I do find that model pretty reasonable especially when I ride with friends, and my wife and her fellow racers. This time of the year I am completely thrown for a loop. I am averaging 5 hours, and half of that time is spent actually racing.

    I would not prescribe my experience to anyone.
    Do you use power and record the data?

    I was surprised that my lowest Z1 months were early in the year - a quick guess would be that I was on trainer focusing on SST...My lowest Z1 month was Feb @58% and highest was Sept @ 72%,,,this was while focusing on Coggan Zones.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    819
    I use HR out doors and just got power indoors. In the past, I have pretty much hammered all the time, especially if I was deprived of riding days. As I mention, that is changing due to circumstances and applying actual training strategy.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  53. #53
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by FJSnoozer View Post
    No offense meant towards you, but this sounds like the most boring strategy ever for a time crunched mountain biker.

    This has to be more applicable for those exceeding a 10 hr average and is probably just as poor of a ratio as they are claiming FTP to be. Do you think this would be applicable to someone averaging 6-7 hours per week?
    I think most people who "train" 6-7 hours a weeks are pretty close to training optimally for that volume. What I mean by that is there is not a lot of change in structure that is going to make a difference in their race performance. Base miles become quickly ineffective and even the ceiling of intensity that can be done is reached pretty quickly.

    I think that if you are training 6-7hrs then "grip-it and rip it" is probably the best way to train. But if you really want to get quicker, up your volume.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    819
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    I think most people who "train" 6-7 hours a weeks are pretty close to training optimally for that volume. What I mean by that is there is not a lot of change in structure that is going to make a difference in their race performance. Base miles become quickly ineffective and even the ceiling of intensity that can be done is reached pretty quickly.

    I think that if you are training 6-7hrs then "grip-it and rip it" is probably the best way to train. But if you really want to get quicker, up your volume.
    That's what I like to hear.

    I'll be hitting 9-12 hours a week pretty soon, so actual structure will be a part of this. I don't have the capacity to hammer for 12 hours and realize the duration will slide that scale towards the prescribed ratios.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,079

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    772
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    I think most people who "train" 6-7 hours a weeks are pretty close to training optimally for that volume. What I mean by that is there is not a lot of change in structure that is going to make a difference in their race performance. Base miles become quickly ineffective and even the ceiling of intensity that can be done is reached pretty quickly.

    I think that if you are training 6-7hrs then "grip-it and rip it" is probably the best way to train. But if you really want to get quicker, up your volume.
    What about for more "mature" riders? At 57, I've been reading Joe Friel's "Fast After 50" and it seems the consensus is that older guys need to do more intensity and less volume to be able to recover better. Do you have any experience with older riders? I know if I train 12 hours/week with intensity and volume like I did 10 years ago I get worn down pretty fast. Just not real sure how much to cut either volume or intensity.
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  57. #57
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    What about for more "mature" riders? At 57, I've been reading Joe Friel's "Fast After 50" and it seems the consensus is that older guys need to do more intensity and less volume to be able to recover better. Do you have any experience with older riders? I know if I train 12 hours/week with intensity and volume like I did 10 years ago I get worn down pretty fast. Just not real sure how much to cut either volume or intensity.
    There this idea in training of zone displine. This means that (on a three zone system) on a zone 1 day you stay in zone 1. When I talk to athletes about this I talk about it as fatigue management. If you are riding too hard then you will not be able to achieve your volume target. My experience is most racers over 50, ride too fast all the time. Which leads to declining race results.

    I think a lot of the coaching books are based on what people want hear versus what is actually best practice. Training at a higher volumes is hard, you have to be disciplined, you need to find the time, and you need to push through the long rides. I think it is the most effective way to train, regardless of age.

    To be honest 12hrs a week isn't a high volume. I have a friend who has 3 kids, works full time, and she still manages to get 12-15hrs a week of training in. I coached two guys who post here this year. Both of them work full time, have kids and they both regularly did 12-16hrs.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    772
    ^^^That's good info, thanks. I don't have any time constraints really. I have 5 kids, but only two at home, two little twins. But we have plenty of help and I'm not working much anymore so have lots of free time. I have no problem with lower intensity (would Zone 1 be akin to 1 and 2 in Coggan or Friel terms?) if I think the higher volume is helping more than hurting. Message me if you'd be interested in telling me what would be a good dose and density schedule for someone my age (for a fee of course!).
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,581
    Having kids etc and doing more than even 6 hours per week, one would have to have a very supportive spouse - note that I do a little less than 6 per week avg
    carry clippers! cut something off the trail every time you ride.

  60. #60
    Rides all the bikes!
    Reputation: Sidewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,986
    Quote Originally Posted by jimPacNW View Post
    Having kids etc and doing more than even 6 hours per week, one would have to have a very supportive spouse - note that I do a little less than 6 per week avg
    I don't have the kids...technically. But do have 3 cats, a dog, and 2 horses at home that take up a lot of time, starting my day at 5am. In trade, my wife basically gives me free rein (pun intended) on my riding.

    I don't know what is more important; a supportive spouse, or the desire to spend so much time in the saddle.

  61. #61
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,053
    This is a long read and a heavy read. But absolutely worth it. The best review of high performance training I have run across.

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...017.01069/full
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    772
    OK I got an answer (in English, haha) on the zones from that. Z1, 2 and 3 are as I mentioned above. Z1 is <aerobic threshold, Z2 is between aerobic and anaerobic threshold, and Z3 is >anaerobic threshold. And that is some really good info in there, thanks.
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    190
    You could google and read (or watch videos) on Stephen Seiler for the 3-zones and 80-20.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    This is a long read and a heavy read. But absolutely worth it. The best review of high performance training I have run across.

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...017.01069/full
    Really good read. As a running coach, this has some great cross sport application and supports the current 80-20 trend pretty well

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevbikemad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by wheelzqc View Post
    You could google and read (or watch videos) on Stephen Seiler for the 3-zones and 80-20.
    Agreed. His presentations are full of great info and very thorough. https://youtu.be/Pf3tczZrUgs

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    736

    Is FTP dead?

    I know LMN has talked about this a little bit. My understanding is he said the goal of a LIT ride was to go long enough that you "overload". Iíve interpreted this to mean for me a 3-4 hour zone 2 effort in which I run out of those easy calories and have to drag myself the last half hour or so home and really focus to stay above zone 1 and still in zone 2.

    My question is: Is it worthwhile to add an hour of zone 2 on the trainer in the morning or is this duration too short to provide meaningful benefit? It would be a convenient and manageable way to boost one's weekly hours significantly.

  67. #67
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by litany View Post
    My question is: Is it worthwhile to add an hour of zone 2 on the trainer in the morning or is this duration too short to provide meaningful benefit? It would be a convenient and manageable way to boost one's weekly hours significantly.
    Cycling is unique in that we tend have quite few training sessions. If you read the article I posted you would see the skier averaged almost 550 training session per year.

    I think double days are really effective but I also think they are quite difficult for working people. I am always tired after to work, throw a morning workout in and the fatigue gets high enough that sometimes I can't force myself to get out.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,079
    almost 30 years ago my coach always used to say: you build vo2max on a workout basis, threshold on a one to several days basis and endurance on a weekly to monthly basis.

    What I want to say with this, for endurance total volume is critical. While you can't replicate a long ride with two shorter rides you still get some benefit from adding volume. Especially if your weekly training volume isn't that high. You can even be "smart" with these morning workouts and do some sort of "train low". But even not, the morning workout will encite your metabolism (especially the fat metabolism) for the remainder of the day. You also improve your neuromuscular connections. And more. So there is definitely a benefit.

    However, it should be noted that other sports use doubles or even triples for different reasons. As cyclists we do not have to be that careful with our motion apparatus. No pounding. Runners in contrast can't accumulate that much volume. This is the reason why top level distance runners have less mitochondria than top level cyclists. They are lacking the volume and especially the long workouts.

    So for runners a key training element is to work on the motion apparatus. And that's why the do doubles. While the second workout may not help with peripheral or cardiovasular adaptions, it helps the tendons and joints to become more efficient. Recoil energy and so is an important element.

    An interesting insight in how top level runners train just got offered by Eluid Kipchoge:

    http://www.sweatelite.co/eliud-kipch...ecord-attempt/

    By the way, this does not look polarized at all :-)

  69. #69
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by quax View Post
    almost 30 years ago my coach always used to say: you build vo2max on a workout basis, threshold on a one to several days basis and endurance on a weekly to monthly basis.

    What I want to say with this, for endurance total volume is critical. While you can't replicate a long ride with two shorter rides you still get some benefit from adding volume. Especially if your weekly training volume isn't that high. You can even be "smart" with these morning workouts and do some sort of "train low". But even not, the morning workout will encite your metabolism (especially the fat metabolism) for the remainder of the day. You also improve your neuromuscular connections. And more. So there is definitely a benefit.

    However, it should be noted that other sports use doubles or even triples for different reasons. As cyclists we do not have to be that careful with our motion apparatus. No pounding. Runners in contrast can't accumulate that much volume. This is the reason why top level distance runners have less mitochondria than top level cyclists. They are lacking the volume and especially the long workouts.

    So for runners a key training element is to work on the motion apparatus. And that's why the do doubles. While the second workout may not help with peripheral or cardiovasular adaptions, it helps the tendons and joints to become more efficient. Recoil energy and so is an important element.

    An interesting insight in how top level runners train just got offered by Eluid Kipchoge:

    Eliud Kipchoge - Full Training Log Leading Up To Marathon World Record Attempt - Sweat Elite

    By the way, this does not look polarized at all :-)
    Great post! I am going to steal your old coaches description of how to build v02,threshold and endurance. Nice simple clear explanation.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

Similar Threads

  1. The walking dead/fear the walking dead
    By darth biker in forum Off Camber (off topic)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-29-2016, 07:44 PM
  2. Bring out yer dead (is my old SID SL dead yet?)
    By sbstumpy in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-14-2012, 07:55 AM
  3. Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.
    By ew505 in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-27-2011, 08:57 AM
  4. FTP vs. Elevation
    By mooddude in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-11-2011, 08:24 AM
  5. FTP 300 W, 20 min 400 W (standing)
    By Battle Duck in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-22-2011, 07:09 PM

Members who have read this thread: 291

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.