Yes very good exemple of what I am saying just before 
When was the last time you actually tested/achieved HRmax? I was using a number from a ramp test for a while yet I could never reproduce it. Now I hit max a few times a year and feel pretty good about that number.
Then again… it’s all individual, soooo… yeah. Every athlete is different!
Just over 4 weeks ago on a 5 hour ride with a friend. 2 sprints at the end of a 6 min max effort. If that wasn’t my max hr I don’t actually want to find out what is,
2 Likes
My bike hr peak from a ramp is 174, running peak 178. Running one was from the last half mile of a 5k, it was uphill. I’ve typically did about 5 bpm different between cycling and running. 10 years ago it was 175 and 180 for cycling and running.
Also I’m using first inflection around 70%, so baseline + 0.5 mmol is about 72%-75% cycling/ running
2 Likes
Hi Phil, how do you define “high volume”?
For me it is 10 hours or more every week. It’s all relative to what you are used to. I find I don’t see much improvement below 6 hours a week, 8 I see bigger gains, and 10 or more hours the gains keep coming.
2 Likes
ok…and most of them are VT1 rides?
That’s all the VT1 volume during base over winter.
1 Like
What your base volume of VT1 rides?
none 
trying to change my training a bit, it’s all pretty basic intensity, TR intensity. Reading a lot about Seiler and this guy, I can’t remember his name Mr. ISM.
it’s more like not to what you are used to because you can be used to something completly off the chart. it depends on the size of your aerobic engine or better on your mitochondrial capacity how much kJ of work you can absorb with proper fueling & recovery which also brings the activness of your glycolytic capacity into the game.
and then it depends on frequency and the combination of duration & intensity with proper adepted fueling below VT1 or better below your metabolic fiber type switch to get no maybe unwanted side adaptions on your glycolytic system. This part often is determined by all other life demands.
if you can determine all of these factors you can define & plan how a “high volume” week should look like for eliciting certain adaptaions leading to your goals.
you can also listen very good to your body, fuel good, and go loooong & go eeeeeasy.
What exactly do you mean by this? As in fasted training or under-fueling?
it really depends what your aim is baut generelly forget nutrition manipulation and first do basics right like training & fueling well.
Switched to “ISM training model” in April after watching the Peter Attia Podcast. I try to do 9-10 hours per week.
N=1, but I have seen significant improvement after being on a plateau of ~240W for… probably around 18 months.
My training throughout that period had all been Trainerroad mid-volume sweet spot base and build. Very good compliance, usually swapping 1 ride per week for outdoors.
Adaptive training came at the wrong time for me - I was just about to give up on TR sweet spot plans but it kept me onboard another 6 months seeing whether I could overcome the plateau. It made no difference.
I am coming around to the view that sweet spot training isn’t optimal. Furthermore, AT doesn’t seem to have a coherent approach for tackling plateaus, it just keeps ramping up too quickly.
Polarized plans are a good step, but AT lacks (I think) the ability to estimate LT1 which would be most useful, for example by using decoupling or DFA Alpha 1.
Alternative hypothesis is just that my body needs different type of stimulation and I will soon plateau on Z2. i.e. block periodization.
I intend to keep going with the ISM model until I find out.
6 Likes
Interesting. So what’s the makeup of your typical 10 hour week look like? You still getting the longer outside ride in?
Fascinating @chris1234
As mentioned above, would love to hear details of your training at 9-10 hours / week. And is 240 your power at LT1? Did you take a lactate test to assess?
Thanks for sharing your experience so we can learn from you!
The TR gang was going to take this up in AACC podcast, but not sure they have tackled it yet. To be fair, plateau-busting in a well trained cyclist is one of the hardest things to accomplish.
@Jonathan - Did I miss the plateau discussion and different ways to approach the problem?
–Mark
same here, my plateau was ~250W and 2 years after switching to endurance first + a little intensity (I’ll call that “ISM like”) my ftp increased to 270+ and reduced stress markers (lower RHR and increased HRV). Entire power curve improved and easily dropped 20lbs. Averaged about 8 hours/week.
2 Likes
I try to do 5 sessions a week, 1-2 hours during week days and on Saturday and a longer (3 hour) outdoor ride on Sunday.
I aim for 3 intensity sessions per fortnight, which means Z4 or Z5 intervals (so not strictly polarised) trying to improve a little each time. Remainder (including long outdoor ride) is Z2. I am not particularly strict on when I schedule things, only that I will try to have a rest day before an intensity session.
If I mix sessions I do Z2 first, as recommended by ISM.
I am gauging my Z2 by a mixture of heart rate decoupling, DFA Alpha 1 and RPE.
For those that say Z2 indoors is boring, that’s true but I just listen to a podcast or watch something and zone out. It’s also much less stressful that facing down a sweet spot or above workout 3 times per week. I never lack motivation to get on the bike, especially knowing I am improving.
I did some 16 minute Z4 intervals last week as was amazed how “aerobic” they felt in comparison to only a few months ago. Having not budged for almost 2 years I was pretty pleased.
Edit: 240 was my FTP according to TR.
My LT1 is between 155-175. I haven’t been able to refine it more narrowly than this, but it hasn’t mattered so far.
2 Likes
If you follow ISM’s logic however you are never going to bust the plateau using TR’s sweet spot plans. Because most of your training is in the glycolytic system (which you can easily top out) vs the oxidative (which takes a lot of training to develop and you can keep improving).
Obviously other coaches would argue that sweet spot does both, but that’s not my experience from using two very different approaches so far. Again though, all N=1.
2 Likes