Yeah, this has pretty much been my N=1 conclusion. Pushing upper Z2 increases fatigue which impacts the quality of my high intensity sessions, if it’s a time of year when I’m doing high intensity. So I tend to use upper Z2 when:
Early in base when all my riding is endurance and I’m not doing any SS or higher. In which case pushing some higher Z2 or low end tempo doesn’t hurt and starts touching on some of the muscular endurance that sets me up well for when I start incorporating tempo and then SS work
If I’m targeting a long endurance event where I’m expecting to spend a lot of time at high Z2 or tempo and so it’s event-specific training
If I find myself on a group ride where planned or not high Z2 is what’s needed to go with the group!
Nope, I’d never say harder is better. But there is no way that you get the same adaptations from low Z2 to high Z2. Whether you want the greater stress and maybe lower fat oxidation etc is for you and your coach to decide. To simply state one is better than the other is an over simplification whether we are saying go higher or go lower.
I think coaches/scientists like Dr. Attia & Dr. ISM advocates for Z2 rides at the upper end, or indeed low tempo in the power zones used by TR.
(Unless I totally misunderstood the Attia podcast when he had Dr. ISM on the show, and the subsequent youtube session)
I’ve tried running my Z2 sessions by HR, capping at 80% of HR max, and find the power to stabilize around 80% of FTP. Still feels easy. Still feels fresh after the sessions. (1.5hr duration)
A few thoughts on the “slow” vs. “steady” descriptor….the reason “slow” is a bad descriptor is because it is speed base. In training, speed is mostly irrelevant. “Steady” refers to your effort….you are applying steady and consistent effort for a longer period of time.
“Steady” can be fast, slow or anywhere in between. Going on a group ride, but hanging in the back to stay in z2? Likely gonna be a faster ride, not slow….but you can keep your effort steady / steadier. Going into a headwind? Gonna be slower, but should still be the same “steady” effort (reverse for a tailwind).
Obviously this is all a bit simplistic because you are trying to use the same acronym (LSD), but make it more meaningful. So liberties have to be taken……but again, the focus should be in your effort, not your speed. Let speed be the byproduct of your effort.
yep - I posted that as what TR suggests for a HV, NOT what I plan to do or did Last winter I did 10-12 hrs per week of z2 and z3 and gained +25w FTP and a strong aerobic base, without ever doing intensity.
If you also look at the Fascat plans for example - written by one of the originators of the sweetspot concept - you’ll find nothing like that amount of sweetspot either. Frank advocates some sweetspot work but mixes in good doses of tempo and endurance work, as well as long rides with a mix of z2/3/4 to aim for a high TSS session.
I think alot boils down to TR having data that says (most) people simply dont do z2 rides on the trainer indoors and indoors is the primary focus of TR plans - thats totally understandable as its about as dull as cycling can get unless you are using something like Zwift or enjoy watching films while riding etc. It doesn’t however mean that z2 is not vital to long term fitness growth and performance improvement.
I think that needs a context eg time. 1hr of high z2 may well lead to different stimulus & more fatigue than 1hr of low z2, BUT what about 3hrs of low z2 for example? Does this create the same stimulus and which would be easier to recover from if you plan a hard session the next day? I guess thats also where individual training history and physiology come in as well.
One of the myths Skiba addresses in his latest book - LSD should mean ‘steady’, exactly as you say.
Your reference to speed is such a good reminder. We have a local group ride that heads out most days and does the classic 20 miles out, 45 min coffee and cake stop, 15-20 miles home. The ‘leader’ always obsesses about the av speed and uses it as a proxy for fitness but ignores the 25mph tailwinds back or the fact its now spring and everyone is on summer bikes and wearing 3kg less kit etc etc. Then they comment on my ‘slow’ solo and non-stop 55 mile ride at 17.5mph etc
Yes, speed is the last and least useful metric I look at. Generally I think so much of it comes down to lactate levels. When I was doing the SS plans I’d find pretty full on lactate build up at the prescribed SS intensity (after doing the amp test to find FTP) and I keep hearing great top level coaches, Dr Ferrari etc talking about avoiding lactate build up when building aerobic fitness. This corresponds with what I find with myself. It’s all about gauging that point before you feel lactate. Sometimes that’s towards the top of Z2 and sometimes it’s at the top of tempo and also there’s a time component. Do mid Z2 for long enough and you’ll get a lactate buildup I’d assume. For me a pre prescribed plan of straight in, SS intensity will just spike those lactate levels, leading to quick burnout and an under developed aerobic engine. Kind of like getting a mini metro and putting your foot to the floor while the engine screams away rattling the windows out.
I had wondered about this myself, basically because i get bored unless i’m doing what feels like an actual effort. My Z2 is between approx 165 and 230 which is a world of difference to pedal steady for 2 hours at.
I remember a Fast Labs podcast where they concluded that particular energy systems are what are being trained and these are trained by working within the zone. Higher levels in the same zone just cause extra tiredness without extra adaptation.
I’ve heard that said many times from many sources - Tim Cusick mentions it frequently in his WKO webinars on YT. However, some coaches see it as a useful place to train (some of the time) - its the basis of the huge discussion in the ISM thread here, and I’ve heard Brendan Housler talking about it as well. Remember the Fast Labs are strong advocates generally for a more polarized approach, although Steve Neal is part of that team and a big proponent of this high z2/low z3 work in a different overall style
I think it keeps coming back to context in all of this - the time of year, your overall volume, the other work you do, your physiology, your goals etc etc etc.
I like doing work at the top of z2 and am sure it has really helped me develop my aerobic engine, BUT I’m not doing it currently because I want to be as fresh as possible to hit each of my current vo2, o/u and threshold sessions in my current block. I have zero issues riding 2-3 hrs easy z2 for a couple of days and then hitting another hard session, but add in too much ‘high z2’ and I wont hit the numbers in those sessions. The next ‘specific’ phase of my training to get me ready for a week in the high mountains and some 2-300+km days, will involve lots of time each week motoring at high z2/low z3, but those hard sessions will be less frequent and less important to each week than they are right now.
Definitely this. For all the new features like AT, AI FTP and outdoor rides in the last few years I think the plans themselves are still very much rooted in indoor riding. And worth saying that a 2 hour TR endurance ride done indoors where you’re keeping constant pressure on the pedals is a lot more efficient in terms of training than an equivalent outdoor ride where you’re dealing with traffic, lights, gradients and gears, etc. I live in a fairly busy area and even on the flattest and quietest 2 hour loop I can do I typically only amass about 1:20 actually in Z2. So for me I’d guess a 2 hour indoor endurance ride may well be providing the same training benefit as a 2:30 or even 3 hour outdoor endurance ride.
Also worth pointing out that if you actually go into the Week Tips in the training plans they often suggest longer endurance alternatives, e.g. week 5 of SS Base HV recommends Town Hill (2:45) or Maclure (3:00) instead of a 2 hour SS ride. So TR do and always have recognised the value of long endurance rides. They just haven’t (yet) made the software push these more proactively, it’s still up to the user to go digging through those notes and then manually swap out workouts.
Think the outdoor ride analysis is going to be interesting on this front when it comes in. I’d really like to see a feature built into plan builder to allow you to choose to be given longer endurance rides in place of SS rides, in a similar way that you can choose which days to do which ride types, and set the default to outdoors or indoors on each day. And/or make it an option in the Calendar to easily swap from a 2 hour SS to a longer endurance ride on the day.
Wonder whether at some point the ride guidance for those types of rides when done outside could become more informal. E.g. instead of 15 minutes at 65%, 15 minutes at 70%, etc, you might just have a ride that says “accumulate 120 minutes between 65-75%” and just have a field tracking time in zone, might take some people like me 3 hours to do that “2 hour ride”.
I think 99% of people are going to be massively disappointed that their outdoor GROUP rides accumulate very little useful time in zones and will score low on PLs. Those that have developed disciplined outdoor ‘training’ rides will see the benefit in how its reflected in PLs and adaptions though.
Sorry, was a bit of a blanket statement! Holds true for me and I suspect quite a few others based on occasional strava snooping. If you’re able to ride uninterrupted for 2 hours then yes I guess there’s nothing in it (though struggling to see how anything can be more time efficient than the trainer unless you’ve got a trainer that takes longer to set up than getting your bike out) and I am jealous of you!
I need to focus a little, but last weekend, solo ride for 3:02, I only spent 9 mins coasting, which is 5%, and it was much more enjoyable than indoor riding (of which I am a big proponent). Agree about group rides - too much time in Z1.
I suspect you’re correct and that’s kind of been my thoughts on it. I don’t get to do a lot of group rides for practical reasons but did this last June
I guess I would characterize this as kind of a sweet spot ride, there are maybe 4 stretches of 5-15mins of sweet spot, but that wouldn’t register super high on the PL scale. one hour was 229w/260 NP (IF 0.9) but I think breaking it into intervals would show that it wasn’t that much work. I certainly get better quality sweet spot workouts on my own doing outside structured workouts pushed to the garmin
