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.
I have done 0.86IF for 4.5 hours during an event. Maybe there’s something in the regular long ride…
I’ve read this whole thread and now I’m just confused. What I’m reading seems to indicate that it MAY not be possible to do a 60-90 min “Endurance” ride at a high enough IF to induce adaptation without impacting interval work.
I mostly ride on the trainer because of weather here in the Midwest (almost always too hot or too cold). And I did James last night (the workout, not the person, although I suspect the person would have been infinitely more fun), but I was going crazy. Looking up and seeing an interval timer of 80 minutes counting down more slowly than waiting for Christmas just about broke me. Workout wasn’t hard but I couldn’t hardly stand the monotony.
So, if I up the IF, it sounds like I’ll be creeping out of my Z2 and more into Sweet Spot. And that conflicts with what Steven Seiler recommends for polarization. But does that recommendation even matter when you’re only on the bike for 6-8 hours a week?
2 Likes
I don’t know how you reached this conclusion, but it’s wrong.
2 Likes
I don’t believe that is true at all. Just look at the classic Hickson training program, for example (or the variation I used in the studies below):
2 Likes
I’ve done that many a time, w/o riding more than 2 h at a time otherwise. Even stole a couple of state RR championships training that way…
3 Likes
[quote=“RecoveryRide, post:162, topic:89127, full:true”].
Experientally, that disparity widens as you push either distance or intensity; to me, long rides create, primarily, more benefits for long rides, while harder work makes you better, mainly, at harder work. That may have a substantial psychological component, too.
[/quote]
Totally agree. I may get the same “benefit” comparing training stress from a 60 min tempo vs. a 3 hour ride at lower intensity… but the fatigue built in a long run or ride “feels” different.
I’ve done workouts so hard I could barely make it through the cool down. I was tired and sore. But after my weekly long run (2:00-2:45 hilly trails) I wasn’t dead but would come home and need a nap. For lack of a better description, it was a different fatigue.
2 Likes
so for that study → something between 90minutes at .8if to 45 minutes at 1.2if * 6d a week for 12 weeks. (I’m assuming a fixed 100 tss per session, which sort of fits the description). 600 tss per week with an ending ctl of 75.
Seems doable (obviously it IS doable haha), assuming one can support the initial tss, or have sufficient recovery at the end of the 12 weeks. The more I read the more I think the ramp rate and starting conditions (ctl) are the most important factors here. This is also predicated on an accurate and calibrated power benchmark.
I just did a 90 minute .77 and it doesn’t feel like I trained at all. 
But my normal z2 ride is 10% more tss, and 30 minutes longer so maybe that’s the reason. very interesting.
You know…I think I’ve solved cycling endurance training. Well I should say I think I understand, I didn’t solve shit. haha. Now I just have to test the assumptions and achieve the mediocre results I know I am capable of.
2 Likes
Well