I would assume that something like the 1x5h vs.5x1h example is only used as a device to discuss the relative merits of two completely different approaches to structuring endurance training. Can’t imagine people exactly choosing between 1x5h vs.5x1h.
But given that people have to make trade-off decisions all the times in terms of training effects vs. other commitments, bad weather etc.
Sure. But how much of that can you convert to extra riding time if it’s used as a ‘filler’ between other activities?
I’d love to hear more about the year you only did Z2. That would seem counter to the fitness needed for CX, which is what makes me curious to hear more. Thx.
Re read what I posted. I said that it’s unlikely anyone in real life has a choice like that to make. In other words the 5 x 1 hour vs. 1 x 5 hour is just a straw man , not something that happens in the real world.
Exactly… but since many of us don’t have the time for the 5 hour ride, it is good to know shorter more frequent sessions have a lot of merit towards gaining overall fitness. Some get hung up on the need for a long ride/run but overall weekly volume is the more important metric.
In the context of the thread, i would argue even shorter session like 30-45 also have merit since it is generality better to add volume gradually.
At start of last year I was doing 30 min z2 rides about 3x per week (at about 110-120w and 115ish bpm), and had been very inconsistent with that for a couple years. While home with covid, I watched I think ISM on Peter Attia’s podcast and he said something along the lines of 45 minutes is the minimum, so when I’d recovered (April) I bumped to 45 mins and started trying to get 4 or 5 of those in per week. In July I went to 60 mins doing usually 5 (sometimes 4) plus a 2 hour Saturday ride (usually more z4 than anything). At the end of last year I was doing 4 or 5 days of the z2 plus an outside ride and a suprathreshold ride inside. My z2 was consistently up to 170w and 120ish bpm. Oh, and I was setting PRs all over the place outside, beating my previous from 2017-18 when I had previously peaked (and since burned out on too many intensity rides per week).
This raises a critical point…not all short endurance rides are the same for all people.
For someone coming in untrained or recovering from injury / illness like @MikeMunson, 30-45 min rides serve the purpose of (re)building their aerobic base.
For the majority of TR users, a 60’ z2 ride won’t be much more than a recovery ride (see Pettit for example).
So the users fitness needs to be considered as well as the length of the workout.
Yup…I understood your point, I was just expounding on how the rider needs to have the right prescription for how a “short” Z2 ride can fit into a plan.
For some, it can be the basis for building an aerobic base while for others it is basically a recovery ride.
That was the original question I posed. But after listening to the podcast posted above some leaders in the field disagree with you. The current thinking is the cumulative physiological benefits of 3 x 1hr @ Z2 are similar to a 3hr Z2 ride.
Intensity changes because with endurance Z2 training your aerobic threshold (LT1, wich defines what physiologically is Z2) get higher and can get closer to your anaerobic threshold (LT2, wich is closer to your FTP) so two people with the same LT2 (or with the same FTP, you could say to simplify it) could have very different LT1, and for one person Z2 could be between 50-70% of FTP but for the other one Z2 between 60-80% FTP.
For example, doing a lab lactate evaluation my LT1 was around 142 bpm, so I aim just under that for endurance training, but at ~142 bpm I’m at ~82% of my current FTP, when I started this season at ~142 bpm it was at ~70% of my FTP. That’s why using heart rate or RPE to guide my Z2 training I can get the intensity higher than using %FTP.
I think that @Dylan was referring to that when he said that your Z2 intensity could go up without a FTP change.
On the broader topic, I also agree that overall Z2 volume is useful, I think that you get benefit from 60-90 min endurance workouts and if you want more you can add some extras to your Z2 workouts to be more productive, like cadence drills or some people add at the beginning some shorts intensite intervals (like tempo or threshold or sprints) to “accelerate the fatigue for the endurance part to be more productive” but I don’t know about that, may be someone can elaborate more on the science of that.
This is what am referring to. I think it is also that the ftp is actually changing as well. FTP is never s static number…we (endurance athletes) just test it periodically and generally under very similar circumstances.
This was my first year fully focussed on zone 2 training. I went a bit overboard on it due in no small part to a few injuries which made intervals very difficult to do for a large portion of the year.
I do not believe that it was the best possible training for cyclocross, but it was my first year racing cx and it was a fairly off the cuff decision. I did not ride a static zone 2 all year…I tested my ftp often and that changed my zone 2 power. I also rode my zone 2 workout purely by HR, hiding my power data on everything except long climbs outdoors) I found the progress slow but incredibly sustainable. I never felt that I hit a plateau until a few weeks into CX season where fatigue began setting in because I was racing and commuting by bike which was too much.
It was good enough to get me to a mid-pack performance in cat 4…nothing special but then again I do it for fun and to add seasonality to my training. Usually I’m more of a gravel guy…
This year I am doing polarized using the TR plans but modified.
Base is 5-6 days per week with 1 intensity (Threshold)
Build is 5-6 days per week with 2 intensity (Vo2 and Threshold)
specialty is 5 days per week with 3 intensity. I won’t switch to specialty until 4 weeks prior to season.
I’m in the camp of feeling like workouts such as Pettit are mind (and ass) numbing, but do them because I know when I’m in the 80th mile of a 100+mi ride, I’ll likely be feeling fatigue mentally and physically and be pedaling along at a zone 2 output so it’s good for me to build that engine. I frequently add a workout like Whitney +2 at the end of Pettit so I can train myself to go hard after being on the bike for a while.
There’s a bike path near me that starts at the base of a local mountain and is a straight shot to the beach. It’s 37 miles in one direction of nearly uninterrupted bike path with little-to-no elevation change, pedestrians, or cross traffic. I’ll often do an out and back on that bike path at a targeted average of my zone 2 and it takes about 4 hours to complete. What I find most beneficial to these long zone 2 outdoor rides is not just the aerobic improvements, but the physical endurance improvements of being able to do things like ride comfortably in the “sphinx” position for long stretches.
I would use the extra time on those bad weather 60-90 min Z2 days in which you normally would do 3-5 hours outdoors to add a little strength training and/or mobility work.
In fact, that’s kinda what I did today. Except with a 90 minute over under workout.
