Iñigo San Millán training model

no problem. its just easy imo, no way that fatox is high immediately after such a type of an effort

I didn’t say that it was?

I’ve found this quote from Alan Couzens quite useful:
Based on what I’ve seen to date, the ‘sweetspot’ intensity for improving aerobic capacity (assuming equal load) is right on AeT (first uptick), with an inverted U relationship falling off either side. Their isn’t a significant ‘cost’ to riding bottom steady vs easy & you’ll accumulate more load in a given time. I’d advise just trying to hover around this point, with some steady when you feel good and sticking to easy when you don’t.

1 Like

I think it makes sense particularly for those time crunched who only have 90-120mins per day available.

The quote however raises the usual question marks around tempo and its effectiveness if we are to believe the inverted U.

I would bet the spot Couzens is talking about here is close to, if not exactly a corollary to what is known as the Lactate Balance Point … (of Steve Neal fame).

I have no scientific evidence of this … just an observation.

Every day you stick to your lower end z2 power is another day that you will be able to pack even longer SS/Threshold intervals on other days

No, it’s clearly far easier than that. The lactate balance point/lactate minimum is very close to maximal lactate steady state.

In any case, I wouldn’t trust Couzens’ scientific acumen/observational skills as far as I could throw him.


no, its not. See above for Cog’s explanation.

The other thing that Couzens will say is that you need to make time to do a lot of volume. If I had to pick a number from seeing his posts, at least 15 hours/week.

Honestly I think everyone would be better off listening to Empirical Cycling and Inside Exercise podcasts.


Is this true for everyone? What is the/your working definition of MLSS?

How far can you throw him?

1 Like

There’s only one way to find out…

1 Like

Empirical Cycling and Couzens are in agreement about volume. Couzens is a bit more precise about intensity. His Z1 and no harder whereas EmpCyc just says ride a lot , enjoy it and when you feel tired - rest. That’s my interpretation of the low intensity side of their advice

I agree but if the longest ride is 90mins long there’s not really a big load to recover from IMO

1 Like

yes I’d agree they agree on volume, where they differ is Couzens comes off sounding like your job is to train fat burning thru diet and low intensity, while Moore will explain his view of the science and tell you eat and ride and that fat oxidation improvements are a result of the training. So Couzens comes off sounding backwards to my ears, and then Cog and McConnell (Inside Exercise) take exception to Couzens statements.

And they also differ on the need for lactate testing. Big difference in opinion.


until you work yourself up to 90min 1x ss or 4x20 Threshold

True enough, and the standard definition for MLSS (MLSS testing has its limitations - primarily the time required - but at least unlike with CP, there aren’t fifty-four million variations on the theme that lead to endless confusion).

IOW, no, the lactate balance point/lactate minimum isn’t close to the so-called “aerobic threshold” in anyone (nor is there any good scientific evidence that they can move independently of each other).


This is sort of ironic :rofl:

And here I’m with the Olympian champion :slight_smile:


Perhaps it’s something to do with their different type of event focus. Couzens on Ironman and Kolie on shorter higher intensity events?

I was talking about z2 sessions…so if you do a couple of 90min ss or threshold per week the rest of z2 rides can be at mid high range if these are just 90mins IMO and this is what I understood ism suggests

That’s the very point im trying to make. There isnt much more benefit to being at 65-70% vs 50%. You could progress those more productive intense sessions much more quickly if you’re allowing yourself to recover with easier rides in between

:man_shrugging: I think Couzens says things based on his data and is confused about the science. He says things that are wrong and on Twitter doesn’t want to debate his statements so he blocks people (the “anti-science” approach that apparently is the new way to “do science”).

Just listened to Empirical pod with new coach Meaghan Easler, she was coached by Moore and she isn’t doing shorter higher intensity events: Maeghan Easler