This is the Seiler comment I was fumbling for
I heard similar and thought that was the reason, it seems logical so its probably not true. 
1 Like
not too much.
3:07hr with only 7m coasting.
For me it is recoverability balance:
- <12h: 4x 2h SS ← least preferred, sleep is not good, slips easily to burnout in long term
- <16h: 3x 2h SS
- 16h+: 2x 2-3h SS (or any other higher intensity workouts combination) ← most preferred, best sleep, good appetite, etc
1 Like
I’m going to suggest that your FTP for that ride was possibly set rather low.
0.88IF for >3hours shouldn’t really be achievable; at the very least, it would certainly make you very much an outlier. From memory, I seem to recall Matt Bottrill saying there were very few guys who could hold 0.85 for the 100 mile TT (where those looking to place will be around 3hr 30).
Edit: to be very clear, there’s no snark intended. It’s obviously a tremendous effort, and well done, but I think you may have been a stronger rider that day than you (or the software) gave yourself credit for!
4 Likes
This makes sense, but kinda seems to recommend against lots of long Z2 work. Assuming the goal is to be faster on longer rides/races, doing efforts that mimic those events (e.g. quicker group rides, or just long rides that include some harder efforts late in the ride) seem like they’d address all the points made about both muscular adaptation and bike fit/nutrition/conditioning arms/neck/back.
I suppose one could argue that long Z2 rides get you some “long ride” adaptation (somewhat unclear on what that means; mito and capillary density?) but are easier to recover from.
Obviously we all need to find the intersection of the Venn diagram for “optimal training for me” and “training I can actually do sustainably given my schedule and inherent motivation.” I find it hard to get fired up for a 4-5h Z2 ride.
1 Like
I don’t disagree at all, and I think you may have interpreted my post in a more precise way than I intended.
I think if your goal events are long (I’m arbitrarily defining ‘long’ as over 4 hours) then you need to do some long rides. My own view is that riding for that long, at an effort level that fits into a sustainable overall training plan, will naturally regulate intensity for you most of the time. I’m no physiologist but I’m not sure I buy into the idea that you must stay in Z2 for a long ride to be effective, and that’s not what I meant to suggest.
I was more driving at the fact that I don’t believe you can properly prepare for long events (and certainly not very long ones - 6-8 hours or more) with 90m to 2hr rides, whatever the intensity of them or the weekly TSS.
3 Likes
I think I was right on the edge of a FTP bump.
Still, did this this Saturday
IF 0.86 for 2:26, and it wasn’t that hard, and I believe my FTP for now is quite close to reality according to intervals, wko5 and 30min test.
But, a big BUT. That’s exactly my strength. My sprint is terrible - not even 4 figures, 1 & 5 min, not a big deal, 20 and above things start to get better.
1 Like
Well, somebody has completed SS90/180 1x180 workout from “More Sweet Spot!” group workout library 
3 Likes
How many days in a row can you do that workout? That’s a lot of tss. 
1 Like
100% agree, though TBH I’m still not sure (after years and years of long training rides and doing long race events) whether long hard training rides actually provide a distinct physiological training stimulus, or just get you used to how it feels to keep going hard after 4+ hours on the bike.
1 Like
oh btw. no one probably cares, but here’s a tss graph Desmos | Graphing Calculator
z = tss x = duration in hours, and y = intensity factor. (you can scale z on the left).
Now you can see how long your 100tss ride would take at different intensity factors.
oh the stress of watching that (T) replying. goes and hides.
3 Likes
There are many factors that contribute to cardiac drift (what Friel has confused the world with)…decreased central venous filling pressure due to pooling of blood in cutaneous vessels, reduced plasma volume if you become markedly dehydrated,* hyperthermia (Q10 effect on SA node), rising catecholamine levels due to metabolic factors, even fatigue of the myocardium itself.
Anyway, given your further comments (including erratic sleep patterns, which screw with the hormonal regulation of hydration status), I’m going to revise my conjecture, and suggest that the reason a long ride or two reduces your HR and PE when you’re not fully fit is because you’re running around with a suboptimal plasma volume. If so, a couple of hard days in a row would have the same effect as that long ride, i.e., it is merely a training effect, and not related to the duration per se.
*Contrary to common lore, plasma volume is fairly well-defended against even moderate fluid loss, with most of water used to produce sweat coming from interstitial stores. The reason people think otherwise is that 1) most studies have only estimated plasma volume changes based on measurement of hematocrit at rest and then after prolonged exercise, thus ignoring/overlooking the rapid reduction in plasma volume that occurs at the onset of exercise, and 2) constant reference to the need to replace lost plasma volume by, e.g., Gatorade.
1 Like
Sure it is, and that’s true even if you ignore any “grade inflation” due to the normalized power algorithm.
Again, circling back to classic exercise physiology: provided carbohydrate intake is adequate, trained (but not elite…think cat. 3 on average) cyclists can sustain 75% of VO2max for (on average) 4 h. They can also sustain 85% of VO2max during an “hour of power” test. That’s an IF of 0.88 for 4 h, not 3, and that’s on average, with some being capable of going even harder and/or longer.
Points of reference:
(Check out the rate of carbohydrate supplementation!)
2 Likes
If the subjects of that study/those studies are sustaining 85% of VO2 max (as measured via oxygen consumption) for an hour, and 75% for 4 hours, then they’re sustaining 75/85 of their maximum hourly intensity for 4 hours = ~85% of their maximum one hour capability, which was about the figure I thought of as being about the typical maximum.
88% would fit with @AlexMartins being an outlier, which is what I suggested.
While I admittedly haven’t seen huge numbers of power files for 100mile TT riders, I’m certainly aware of riders who’ve podiumed in the UK nationals with an IF of ~0.86. Allowing the NP algorithm, that suggests they’re generally riding at about 85%.
1 Like
Yeah plasma volume expansion can happen fast and would cause a drop in RPE and an increase in VO2 and whatnot.
I’ve played around with this a lot over the past two years though, and anecdotally, doing the same TSS via shorter but higher intensity rides doesn’t have the same effect.
This is obviously just personal anecdote though. That so many other people have noticed something similar though is interesting and a bit more robust signal. I was reflecting on this more this afternoon and I wonder if cytoplasmic and nuclear calcium concentration (and resulting downstream signalling) could be the driver here, as it should be higher after a long easy effort than a shorter intense effort. I need to go back and read some papers from a long time ago to see if that actually makes sense though.
The decoupling thing I won’t touch as there’s really no real science in it that I’ve seen, so it just turns into everyone’s best guess.
I will say one of things I find most interesting about decoupling is that I can ride my bike for 2 hours with only 1% decoupling. Then row for 30min in the same room and experience 12% decoupling (a sport I just do every once and a while for fun), and then ride for another hour and experience only 1% decoupling. (This was just an experiment I did). Suggests to me that there is an activity specific component to it.
1 Like
that determinants one is really interesting. (I mean they all are, but that one was especially interesting to me).
I suspect this is learned efficiency. There was some conjecture about this on a tri podcast I listened to a while back. A fairly high level female runner (I want to say Paula Radcliffe, but I’m not 100% sure) released numerous years of testing data. Anyway, their race times continued to improve for several years after the lab test values flatlined. The postulated explanation was efficiency gains, i.e. better running economy.
I’d guess you are a less efficient rower than cyclist (as you do it less often) and/or that technique deteriorates more with fatigue (for the same reason).
I saw extremely rapid decreases in HR for a given running pace when I took up running as a (by recreational standards) fit cyclist. In the space of a couple of weeks, ~7m/km pace was 130-135bpm, rather than 145-150. Again, the presumed cause must be neuromuscular/mechanical efficiency.
2 Likes
Agree. Neuromuscular efficiency could definitely play a role. I still have a completely unobjective gut feeling that metabolic efficiency of your muscle cells plays a role too.
1 Like
0.75/0.85 = 0.88, not 0.85, and that’s 1) for 4 h, not 3, and 2) on average.
So, no (again), an IF of 0.88 for 3 h is not an impossibility, by a long shot.