I think Andy Coggan would disagree on the impact of going above 70%…
I think more experts disagree with Coggan than agree with him… I also think much of the criticism out there towards TR is due to following Coggan’s training modalities too much. Regardless, that’s not the point. Like he says. “Many roads lead to Rome.”
I was speaking about my own experience. I’m not saying there’s no place for tempo or threshold intensities in training. However, for myself I have 1 day a week I want to dedicate to a long 3-6hr zone 2 ride, I don’t really want or need it to go above 70%. Even when I have an endurance ride between hard sessions I don’t want it to go above 70% because that intensity will affect how I feel the following day. I feel a big difference spending time at 68% vs 75%.
Wondering if anybody else feels the same.
Hey @Seena,
One thing that works pretty well when trying to work at LT1 is to pick a workout that’s close to what you’re looking for in structure and then adjust the intensity to get the power where it needs to be.
Let me know if this helps!
3 Likes
Coggan established the science behind power based training, and he isn’t a coach but coaches himself. Coaches don’t all agree on how to train.
Science agrees with him IMHO, go listen to the real experts on Inside Exercise or Empirical Cycling podcasts. For example I posted a paper here Weight training and FTP - #19 by WindWarrior that again agrees with what Coggan was saying.
My long rides usually have an IF in the 62-68% IF range. But hard group centuries are often in 72-85% IF range. And I did a double century at 67% IF. This type of riding is something Coggan doesn’t do a lot of (my understanding) - he races time-trials and I vaguely recall reading (on this forum) that he does a lot of shorter threshold or TAN tempo training.
(I added emphasis)
I think this is often confused or conflated with one of the following:
- …because the adaptations are different
- …produces too much lactate
- …because I don’t want to “ruin” the Zone 2 effect
…or a myriad of other variations on one of the above.
None of the things I listed out above are a thing, which is one of AC main talking points.
how I feel the following day
This, of course, is very much a thing. If you push him, AC would agree that it introduces more fatigue, the implication being that this is for you to manage as the athlete. The adaptations or other science-y sounding things are no different (maybe need to eat more on one ride vs the other, which is a hint as to what is happening differently acutely).
Why do I bring it up this way? Because I’ve noticed over the last few years that it is one of the primary ways we talk past each other or misunderstand.
Yes, I notice 68% vs 75%, if I ride long enough. One introduces more fatigue, and that may be what I want at that moment. Other than that, they are substantively no different.
Regarding finding a TR workout, I do what @eddie suggests all the time.
Just ride tempo on any climb and endurance otherwise. It’ll be less robotic and more fun. The training effect will probably be the same without any of the planning
good post.
Adding to that, my interpretation of Coggan posts is that he tends to intertwine the science/physiology with a personal point-of-view you might as well train hard as frequently as possible (because all roads lead to Rome). Which crosses over from science to his training philosophy of achieving high performance with the least amount work. Which some interpret as the science, however it is his training philosophy. Paraphrasing what you said, he will tell you that doing a lot of low-intensity will also drive adaptations.
It also happens to be how my high school cross-country coach described it: “go as hard as you can, as often as you can, as long as you can…it is the as you can part that ppl mess up”. It has been a minute since I was in high school, but that is as best a direct quote as I can remember. Professionally, he was not a scientist. He was a gym teacher and drivers education instructor.
Cracks me up. All this stuff I’ve dorked around with. Could’ve just listened to Coach Wright like I did back then.
thats basically what Coggan says too.
Here’s a fun experiment, ride at 75% heart rate reserve for 3 hours (either change the intensity of erg, or ride on feel). Then look at the average power % for the full ride, and each hour separately. Now you have some interesting targets for intervals. (maybe).
Now compare the fatigue from that ride to the fatigue from a ride at the same static % as the full ride above.
Obviously you could change the initial target from 75% to 70% if you didn’t want to push too hard. I’d be interested to see the results. 
I’ve probably listened to every podcast Coggan was on. A couple of things I recall:
On a Fascat podcast about sweet spot, he basically said that the most efficient way to get fast was doing 5 days a week of sweet spot. The idea comes from one of those early studies (probably Hickson, Coyle, or Hollozy). That would probably burn most out but people in the study were able to sustain it for quite a while and improved substantially.
In more than one podcast, he talks about changing up his training to win the Texas state road race. Les local racing, tan tempo rides.
His personal experience is as a somewhat gift rider - slow twitcher and high vo2max - not good enough to go pro but faster than most of us. His also did a 60 at 60 project where he tried to get his vo2max to 60 at age 60. I seem to recall that he didn’t quite make it but got very close. At 57, my vo2max is 46 per Garmin - I wish it were 60.
In the two episodes with Kolie Moore, it would have been interesting for them to debate the ‘train your endurance as hard as you can’ idea. KM often talks about his 20+ hour athletes riding at 50% FTP. I guess though when you have a 400 watt FTP, that is still a lot of metabolic churn at 200 watts.
This sounds like terrible advice and a quick way to burnout.
I think the science of performance improvement has come a long way since then and AC is still stuck in his old ways. I remember when I first started TR the plans were like that. 5 days of sweetspot for a couple months and I’d be done before racing even started.
This makes sense. I remember Alex Dowsett saying he does Z2 at around 220 watts. That surprised me because I know a lot of “experts” who would call that junk miles. lol
I’m also 57, and my VO2 max peaked at 56 as per Garmin. It’s currently reading 53. Edited to add I don’t smash sweet spot 5 days a week. I do a mix, but primary driver is putting volume and frequency in consistently…
I’m sure AC knows the science of performance improvement and is not stuck in his ways. He knows what science has proved and it hasn’t changed for decades. He’s not a coach though and told us that many times. A coach takes proven training strategies and strings them together in a season. TR was literally 5 days per week of sweetspot in the beginning?
TR base plans were basically just do sweet spot every ride for 5 weeks. What? Your burned out? That’s your fault. Couldn’t possibly be the plan no sir.
Back in 2016 and 2017 I really didn’t know what Coggan’s position was, however I spent 9 months with majority of workouts above 0.9 IF and averaged around 6-7 hours/week. At fifty five years old. Best performance I’ve achieved, only recently have I come close to that again and it was doing the complete opposite (majority of workouts under 0.75 IF).
In 2018 I didn’t burn out, but the lack of intensity killed my performance. And it was the first time I was training indoors, and that killed my motivation because I live where the majority of cyclists train outside the entire year. The lack of intensity meant I failed the majority of vo2 workouts, but TR has (I assume) largely fixed that with Adaptive Training.
It is basically red light, green light training, said a different way. If you can tease out what “as you can” actually means, it is stating the obvious in some ways. In endurance training, more is more…until it isn’t. Well, when isn’t it? (something, in effect, to ask almost every day).
Also, based on interviews from both individuals, the approach Jim Miller takes with Keegan. Remember, in this context, “as you can” doesn’t mean “that you are absolutely capable of if they held a gun to your head and therefore dig yourself into a hole or burnout” [which is what most ppl think it means, and why it is such a good way to express it]. It is a pithy way to describe a fatigue management strategy. Example: I have to race this weekend, therefore I cannot [do long ride, or hard intervals, or big climbing thing, etc] on Friday. Doesn’t mean you’re not capable of doing those things on Friday. It means you can’t and still be able to perform that weekend. Most common one: ok, I’m tired or my HR didn’t respond during first part of the ride, so I can’t do such and such interval session. Doesn’t mean you don’t ride or do something else. “Can’t” also doesn’t mean you failed. It means you’re paying attention. It means you “can’t” because you have factored in things that you need to factor in, and therefore you can’t and still be able to do other types of training in close proximity.
But coach, if I do what the plan suggests I’ll likely be tired for the thing coming up…coach says: “well, then you can’t do that, can you”. So what can you do? Zone 2? Easy with a few efforts? Full day off? Cross-training. As much as you can, as often as you can, as long as you can. It is just another way of saying you mess with the levers and then recover. Recover isn’t absolute. It’s not always (in fact, usually isn’t) a day off. Mostly it’s good sleep. Often it is basic endurance riding.
It seems obvious when written out. Yet, it is the single most difficult thing in all of endurance sports. And frustratingly, it is individual. It’s also the most common way even experienced athletes and their coaches mess up.
Other way around. Don’t get me wrong. Coggan rubs me the wrong way (even more so his sycophantic coach followers), but he is very much up on latest science. No one, in terms of science, has left him behind.
Another example of why basing endurance riding intensity off of FTP is not applicable to most riders, especially high level amateurs and pros. On my 10-12 hrs a week, .50 IF is just dilly-dallying around. For a pro, that could be very productive.
Now that @TheCog is gone, the train easy crowd is back at it.
We can trust Garmin numbers? If we can I guess I should feel good then. My Garmin number was 58 last week when I looked. Currently 63.
My point had nothing to do with the accuracy of Garmin numbers but thanks for sharing yours.