Just about nailed it. Here’s every episode of the podcast in a meme:
7 Likes
347 In shambles
You’re right, I don’t listen to podcasts*, so I was just reacting to what it was claimed/implied that you said. Good to get clarification.
*Except the interview with my BS and MS thesis advisor, Dave Costill, on Inside Exercise. Please don’t anyone tell Glenn, though, or it might go to his head (that’s a joke, BTW… Glenn may be a Kiwi, but he could be an Aussie he’s so self-effacing).
2 Likes
Since the training levels are based on average power, level 3 covers both “tempo” and “fartlek” workouts, and that was the original name. Many cyclists seem unfamiliar with the latter term, though, so it is routinely overlooked.
Steady state efforts at “level 3” are the bread-and-butter of endurance exercise training studies. As such, there is more scientific evidence in support of their efficacy than any other type/intensity of training. As summarized by the PPP “sooner or later, though, you have to increase the power”, eventually you will have adapted to the stimulus applied, and you will have to increase the intensity and/or duration to achieve an overload. However, most people don’t have the time (or the patience) to continue pursuing the latter approach once the gains slow down, so move on to other things (often prematurely).
Personally, while almost every non-interval ergometer workout I have ever done would be classified as steady-state level 3, I have rarely, if ever, done such a session outdoors. Instead, my “go-to” has been fartlek sessions, doing 1 h 15 min progressively increasing to 2 h of pretending that I am in a solo break with the hound pack in full cry. Attacking all the small hills and out of the corners helped offset some of the trainer drone/diesel engine/triathlete syndrome produced by riding the ergometer 5 d/wk, while the overall effort provided the “depth of fitness” (stamina) needed to force breakaways during the 2nd hour of masters road races (I won 7 in a row across two seasons that way).
11 Likes
Does fartlek include above-threshold spikes? If so, why is it that the effect is similar to a constant tempo ride (which I assume, is all below threshold)? Wouldn’t for example muscle activiation be different?
Thanks for having the courage to speak up. It seems like other respected coaches just dropped Inscyd testing without saying why. They seem no willing to speak up or say that Inscyd is BS or at least just very expensive power profile software.
The VLamax stuff has left me with a burning question about Jan Olbrecht. He was this amazingly successful swimming coach and he used his black box version of the Vlamax lactate testing. Maybe he was just awesome despite the Vlamax stuff. (Not that I expect you to answer the question.)
Kudos. Your test changed my testing. I found the 20 minute test so difficult to pace. I’d constantly be blowing up at 12, 15, 17 minutes. I see your text as no more daunting as a good theshold workout that I can do every 6 or 8 weeks. With the prescribed pacing, it’s so easy. Thank you!
2 Likes
You got the whole ocean there. Gym bros will be proud of your protein loading 
1 Like
The muscular adaptations to endurance training are the same over a very broad range of intensities - even very high intensity, short duration intervals will yield the same result, at least if the rest periods are short enough. As you point out, though, the particular motor units in which such adaptations take place may vary somewhat depending upon whether the effort is constant or “stochastic” (quotes, because variations in power usually aren’t truly random). Indeed, this is precisely why I would do fartlek workouts outdoors as I described.
Regardless, if the average power of the “work” periods falls between 76 and 90% of FTP (IF typically = 0.85-95), then under my system it would be described as level 3, irrespective of the above.
8 Likes
This is exactly it. For half of my clients, they’d have to do a >6h tempo ride to get any benefit, and then they’re too fatgued to do anything else for a while, when we can get the same effect with SST/FTP and make the long rides easy, essentially splitting the difference. For the other half, they don’t have the time or energy to get to 4h of tempo because that’s what’s needded for overload. And a 2h tempo ride in between other harder days adds more fatigue but no more benefit than easy endurance riding, and I’d rather they save the energy for a harder ride. OTOH if someone needs it for their racing, specificity (x3).
A few reached out to me including some national team coaches/physiologists. It just didn’t work the way it’s purported to, and they did not get any results so they dropped it. Operating on any principle, my standard is you need to see real world improvements in performance, or IDGAF what it’s supposed to do under the hood, it clearly doesn’t count where it matters which is making people faster. If you see results you can try to add more things to enhance what you think is driving adaptations, and if it works that’s confirmatory you may be on the right track, but if not you’d better rethink what you thought was driving the improvements.
I think we line up on this much better than we thought. This is the intensity I’d want for a 2h tempo ride to know it’s worth doing for well trained people. In my coaching language I’d call it “fartlek sweetspot” or “XCO pace”. In the AMPK podcast we discussed a key driver of adaptation/improving performance at this level is getting near/to exhaustion, as that not only lines up with a lot of AMPK studies (associated with lower end-exercise glycogen stores) but also with actual real world performance gains. Submaximal efforts from 70-100% FTP mostly I reserve for early season or maintenance.
7 Likes
I would really love to hear an episode of you dedicated to debunk the model in detail.
1 Like
good time for a question I guess.
I know this is the answer but need some examples.
How long does it take to absorb proper tempo work as described? Because I sure cannot handle the stuff as described below:
Based on the above I should be able to do 2-3 tempo rides of 3-4 hours? On top of my say longs, 4-5 hours of Z2. Is this something highly trained people should handle week in week out?
Problem is this tires me out and is not sustainable. Especially if:
I started around 10 years ago and clocked 6200 hours so far. Some stint around 2000-2004 but only in summers and 300 hours or so max per year. Restarted again in my mid-thirties.
Am I simply a noob and has to be patient and keep riding? Or doing something wrong?
I improved continuously. FTP was stagnated around 2019 but my fatigue resistance and repeatability always went up. After bumping up the volume in 2021 ftp also started going up again.
But I feel like I am too fatigued if I press the overload principle by intensity. I am simply pushing the volume button and waiting for years to pass by and bring me the goods.
But we are not getting any younger. So if there is a way to go quicker I would take that.
Or am I simply too soft and do not know how other riders actually feel? It might very well be the case 
some data. I do not believe in relative load and focus on the actual work. So KJ and hours.
I am best at mid lengths, around 6-30 mins. Drops of heavily after 45 mins or so. I train for repeated long climbs and 4000-5000kj races. As a sideshow hill climbing, kom hunting etc.
I got tested in 2018, hit 5L/min. I was overheated and can go a bit more. Maybe 5.2 or so. 5 min power is 430w, hit it multiple times, probably can hit 450w if I trained for it (wko says I did 4 mins).
FTP is around 325-360 around the year. I do not train for one time long efforts and do not really test for ftp but do a lot of 30-50m max efforts.
Right now my ftp (345w) puts my Z3 around 265-305w. Maybe I can handle bottom of it for a while but not the top. SS work is once a week and takes out a lot.
training: 15 hr/week average
standard week:
2 long rides, 4-5 hours, 200-230w. I soak these up easily. Like a sponge.
3-4 rides of 2-3 hours. Now these are mostly 230-250w. 200w on easy weeks. I tried bumping these up but got too fatigued, could not hold.
On hard weeks
I hit 4000+ kj with SS or tempo work. Once. Twice is a rare occurrence.
Or multiple hard rides with maximal efforts of all durations (Zwift racing) . If KJ is <3000 I can soak these up too.
Just cannot pile on real work back to back. So when people say 2-3hr tempo rides 3-4 per week I am going, what tempo? How??
No obvious life or personal problems. Average dude with average life and nutrition. Have some health problems but keeping them under control.
Also a small dude 64-66kg. Might be a big factor for sponging the punishment.
Also @empiricalcycling, my house needs painting. Could you do that for free, too?
10 Likes
The short answer is that most of us shouldn’t compare ourselves to Kolie’s 25 hour per week athletes.
I know I couldn’t do that unless the definition of tempo is different. I did a tempo build the year before and hit my best numbers. Tempo build was 2x per week of 3x20minute intervals. Eventually I could do 4x20. It was still tiring.
1 Like
I’ve come to the same conclusion and I’m doing them outside and tossing in some accelerations at the end.
I first saw it on Strava from a rider that also runs. At first I was giggling too much to ask. Then embarrased to ask on a group ride. Eventually I remembered we have search engines to help in times like this. My biggest regret was to stop doing all the wonderful tempo group rides we have around here, in an attempt to big brain it by riding steady state intervals. In retrospect it was a little like hoping for divine intervention. 
Thank you @empiricalcycling and @The_Cog for posting on this forum, and putting up with my ridiculous and childish sense of humor. I’m going to need another 2 listens before asking a semi-intelligent question about the podcast.
2 Likes
Could you define “well trained” please?
1 Like
And I walked right into the same problem in my explanation and should have just said “it depends” as i fell into the trap of an what amounts to an over generalization that while it works for most wont work for all. touche’
The last episode of Watts Doc was the best ever. Not because of the content. That was high level as always.
Normal co-host Kyle was out playing with balloons and a guest co-host was standing in. He did not get the memo that Watts Doc is deep dives. Not TR deep dive. No more like “forza Enzo” deep dives.
Kyle never interrupts Kolie. Kolie is the one doing the lecture. This new co-host interrupts constantly to try and explain Kolies lecture to us mortals and on top of the interruption also reveals mid-way points that Kolie is building up to. You can hear the frustration from Kolie when he loses where he is in the script and almost screams “I was just about to get to that”. Kudos to Kolie for not editing out all the fun parts.
And the content. Deep as always for the Watts Doc
3 Likes
So with a classic granfondo in the Alps in mind with tons of elevation gain, a tempo/SST block should actually be moved close to the A race given its specificity if I understand correctly.
I circled back and listened to the time crunched podcast again. I’m pretty sure I didn’t remember it because it was a bit frustrating. Too much “it depends”, there are no secret intervals, “you can’t big brain that”, and not very many specifics, etc.
(This is not meant to be a criticism as I love the pod.)
Kolie tells us like it is and there are no secrets. Other coaches and services advertise massive noob gains from sweet spot or getting fast on a bajillion HIT intervals.
If any of you have not followed Kolie’s podcast, I’d say that the #1 thing for the time crunched is working on building out TTE. The winter I built out my TTE (sweet spot / tempo build), I had the best spring of my life.
3 Likes