Adding Z2 - do it before or after intervals?

Training
44

Andy Coggan argues that it isn’t an off/switch and that hitting some harder efforts aren’t going to ruin the aerobic benefits of Z2 work. He discusses on this Podcast.

Inigo San Milan offers a counter opinion and has been one of the people cited about once you do hard efforts it takes a while to turn off those energy systems.

Personally, if intervals are the objective, it intuitively makes sense to do them early when you can go hardest, especially if it is above threshold work like VO2 max. Then settle in and ride endurance after. As I mentioned above, if the objective is to train fatigue resistance then late makes sense but after extended time doing Z2 (ie 2000kj or more), I won’t hit the same numbers I would hit if I did them early and many other riders won’t either. This is one area where elite pros separate themselves from average joes.

45

I don’t think even pros can do this either.

I know it is two different sports but in running terms that would essentially mean running 20 miles then trying a VO2 workout. I have known pros/Olympians that would throw down threshold work in the middle of a long run but not VO2. That just sounds brutal.

46

One argues supported by evidence, another offers a counter opinion that is unsupported.

Significant difference, in case it matters.

4 Likes
47

Warning: old dude quoting himself.

I said the above, but I also recognize that different ppl respond to different types of intensity (and duration of that intensity) differently. I think my comment could be interpreted as “just do whatever you want, whenever you want”, but I don’t think that is the case. My experience has been to run a cycle of training, watch what happens (with WKO, tracking with a spreadsheet/simple log, or even just in your head), and adjust accordingly. Tempo and endurance are different. Do as much and for as long as you can.

We have some recent commentary (podcasts, etc) from notable physiologists. “All roads…”, etc. And it seems that across the board this is the case. Paula Ratcliffe’s training will look quite different than some skier that Seiler might talk about. And then there is that speed skater guy. So ok. Fine.

But all roads DO NOT lead to Tokyo for me individually. IOW, I do not respond the same to all forms of high intensity interval work. Some of it introduces more fatigue than others. Some just isn’t as effective for me. That is what I think a good coach can help you with (or just your own self-awareness, approach). (FWIW, I also don’t think that’s what the quote means, so I’m not trying to contradict it)

This is getting a bit away from the OP question/statements, but I have not personally seen a difference as to when I slam a particular set of intervals on a ride. If I do it at the end and I’m tired, that’s not the same as doing them at the end and not being tired (I think we have conflated those two things up-thread). It’s the “doing them tired” (or not) that is important.

Once again (and more to the original question), none of what I wrote above has anything to do with rate of fat oxidation during exercise.

Yeah, maybe. But I think it’s more like one just hasn’t updated his model / interpretation. Hasn’t brought in new information. Same end result though. IOW, he’s not a bro-scientist, but the ideas are dated, at best.

48

Worst part is that, confronted with evidence that he is wrong, he does not change his stance and starts throwing out ad hominem BS about training people outside academia. Like science cares.

1 Like
49

Not sure I’m following, can you state in clear language? Because if you are standing behind ISM there are some posts, somewhere, where ISM’s colleague George Brooks has published science that refutes the ISM claim I believe you are discussing without being clear. And this science was presented to ISM on Twitter with no response from ISM. :man_shrugging:

1 Like
50

The opposite. I’m referring to exactly that. ISM’s stance is flawed and he refuses to acknowledge the science, let alone change his stance.
I get it, it would destroy “his” method, but he’s supposed to be a scientist.

4 Likes
51

Yep

Perhaps somewhat in his defense, we are living in a world now where these things are often carried out in public. When I was in grad school, researchers had little pissing matches like this all the time. Little camps and cliques, often mostly related to who they did their post-doc under. At the end of the day, more often than not the ideas won, but it is a slow process, fraught with big egos.

So it’s always worked this way (I guess :man_shrugging:), now it just has this reality show like quality, which is distasteful. At least twitter, where a lot of so-called discourse is carried out, has a more appropriately descriptive name now.

52

“It’s a challenging dilemma” to be sure.

(I’m still waiting for someone to get the allusion.)

1 Like
53

Can someone point to what theory of ISM’s is being challenged here? I see no quotes or direct links in this topic, only people saying that ISM said such and such, Seiler’s tweet about intensity and lacate that had nothing to do with fat burning, a 45 minute GCN interview, and ArHu74’s various claims of other tweets that he hasn’t produced.

Just trying to follow the conversation… Thanks!

55

Can anyone provide a link to where he actually says this? A link to a 48min podcast is not helpful to me as I’m not going to sift through it to figure out what people are talking about. I’ve listened to all of ISM’s podcasts in the past and I don’t recall this as a major point.

Plus, when ISM goes on Peter Attia he is speaking to the general health crowd not the endurance athlete crowd. I have no problem with him recommending training at Z2 (talk test, 2mmol, whatever method) for the public.

1 Like
56

I don’t think he said it shuts off at LT1 but IIRC on GCN with Si he said something like a spirited effort early in a ride would take 30 minutes to undo the impact on a z2 ride. Or something like that. There have been various posts in multiple threads discussing/refuting that generalization.

In other words this is bad:

IMG_3052
IMG_3052791×1361 159 KB

And I should have waited until the end before getting frisky.

57

Indeed, this happened a few times to me on the trainer, when the pedals wouldn’t turn, because the resistance for no reason remained reaaaaly hard … :smile:

58

As shown in the ISM thread, it was always about “an intense effort will mess up the zone 2 adaption (whatever this adaption is) and fatox”. Not that fatox shut-offs at LT1.

BTW, just came across this, lactate clearance at different recovery intensitites after a 5min vo2max effort. These are moderately trained folks. The more trained the faster the clearance.

Even if there was an inhibitory effect it couldn’t last very long.

rjsp_a_481721_o_f0002g
rjsp_a_481721_o_f0002g1400×2220 286 KB

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2010.481721

4 Likes
59

…with the other important thing to understand is that you don’t have to oxidize fat to get better at oxidizing fat.

IOW, ISM’s hypothesis (belief system) is wrong in multiple ways.

5 Likes
60

I have no problem with him recommending it to anyone. It’s his incorrect understanding re. the impact of periodic forays above that intensity within the workout that annoys me.

If he just “stayed in his lane” as a coach for his justification, things would be fine.

1 Like
61

@AJS914
Not exactly what you asked but answers your question (I think). 7:31 mins into this video. Context: discussion between him and Attia about when to do some intensity mid-ride. Also addresses the OP original question. Prior to KM, The_Cog, etc. refuting this, most of us would have taken it as an accepted model (gospel), because it is ISM. Also have heard this guidance from several coaches (consults, etc) in recent years.

(about 30-45secs of video)

And then Attia goes on to make the point about “up and down” rides, which is one of the primary ideas The_Cog is refuting with “you do not have to oxidize fat to get better at…” (pretty sure you’re following the thread The_Cog started, better presentation of the concept over there). This dynamic within (for example) a group ride where you never really are at a particular sub-threshold intensity (all over the place) has been the source of much consternation. When trying to explain why it might not be optimal, coaches (and evidently some physiologists) filter through a lactate dynamics lens, a fax oxidation lens, a vague “too glycolytic” lens, or some combination of these.

My bias: ex phys is a shit show. That’s why I dropped out. :slight_smile:

What none of them have refuted is the fatigue management idea, simply because at this stage I don’t think it can be refuted. Going harder makes me more tired. And sometimes I don’t want that. Seems obvious (and a little dumb) when I type it out but I guess it isn’t that simple (after all, we have spent years talking about how pros do most rides “easy”. Duh, I don’t run 120 miles / week as a pro all at threshold. But I don’t dilly-dally around either. Just depends on what you mean by easy. And a wide spectrum of intensities are seen across many disciplines, as we have hopefully established by now).

Also, agree about audience of that Attia pod :+1: Would just like to see more ppl get off the couch.

4 Likes
62

Sport science certainly is, especially internationally. Exercise physiology, not so much, especially in developed countries.

7 Likes
63

Ok. Fair enough (not being sarcastic). :+1:

1 Like
64

No worries. It’s an arbitrary and obscure distinction on my part. It’s just easier than trying to explain in detail the actual “lay of the land” in the field.

2 Likes