Thank you, got it!
You mentioning being a slow twitcher reminds of another aspect I am unsure about if it falls under KISS or rather needs to be considered beyond that:
Would you see any reason a fast twitcher, who for some reason does still want to improve in sustained efforts, like long climbs, all day riding etc., to train any different in terms of your above principles?
You probably do not have to train top end so much as it comes easier to you and it will be always there.
Good education in training when it comes to balancing the two things:
Hunter and I did a podcast with FastTalk* a few years ago, the title of which was something like, “Do we even need training zones?”. I think that they were hoping to stir up a bit of controversy.
If so, I think that they may have been somewhat disappointed, because my position was (and is) that the primary purpose of such (rather arbitrary) distinctions between exercise intensities is simply to aid in communication.
Example: When I go for a ride and decide to keep it easy, I know what that feels like. However, when a coach tells someone else to go for a ride and keep it easy, how do they best convey that idea to that individual? Having a cogent way of classifying training intensities aids in that process.
As you alluded, where things go off the tracks is when people take such “zones” too literally, mistakenly believing that you can very specifically target particular training adaptations by getting the exercise intensity “just right”. (Even worse is thinking that you can do so with particular workouts, e.g., the mistaken faith of coaches and athletes in “over unders” as a way of specifically enhancing lactate clearance.)
At this point an astute reader might be adding 2+2 and interpreting my original post and my comments above as endorsing the “Norwegian 3 zone” system. This would be incorrect, however, as
the three types of workouts I originally described don’t align with that approach (which crudely lumps everything above maximal metabolic steady state together… maybe fine if you’re a distance runner or triathlete, but even road cyclists have to frequently sprint, and then there are the trackies and BMXers to think about); and
IMO, having only 3 zones to cover everything below maximal metabolic steady state is too crude of an approach.
Combining 1 and 2, I decided that the optimal number of levels (not zones) is 7 - enough to be sufficiently precise, but not one more than necessary. (Then along came the fans of “sweetspot” training like Hunter and Frank Overton, clamoring for it to have a special place in the system, followed by Tim Cusick’s desire to further capitalize on the WKO4 P-D model, and things have gotten messy again. But IMO, 7 is still the perfect number.)
*Never again - I don’t like the way that they reuse clips to weave together subsequent episodes, making it seem as if you were interviewed about that new question and in the process indirectly putting words in your mouth supporting their slant. No professional journalist would ever do that, nor would their editor let them if they tried.
ETA: Of course, clearly a contributing factor to this trend was Polar’s successful commercialization of wireless HR monitors. Before that, there wasn’t much need for “zones” in “free range” sports such as cycling, as you couldn’t precisely control the training intensity anyway. It was challenging even in running, because although pace is a perfectly valid metric, not every course is marked, or sufficiently flat. Coaches could/would of course prescribe very precise workouts on the track, but unless you were Emil Zapotek (or a swimmer), such training was the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
Thanks for this! I had assumed these would fall under “sprint”.
So for someone with no formal training or education in this, what would examples of each type of workout be?
Probably it comes down to “train what you want to become better at”, lots of.
Neuromuscular training is stuff like starts (starting block work) in track, Flying 30’s, the explosiveness of throwing a shot put, Olympic lifting such as a clean & jerk, etc.
Go out to your local track. Run a lap as hard as you can. Whatever you think that means, go harder. Then do it again a week later. There is nothing in sports like running the 400.
Again, I think there are different definitions of “fast twitchers”. True fast twitchers like myself (>10 years of training for events 6-20 seconds in duration) need to do a ton of long slow distance to build endurance capacity. Beyond that…you can opt to train to your strengths or try to improve your weaknesses.
Yet, people still need guidance on what to do, when to do it, how hard to go. The heterogeneity of efforts under the “everything else” umbrella is such that renders your classification useless.
He added this use case for power levels above:
Not sure if that addresses your comment or not. It’s a long thread of an async conversation.
@The_Cog
Another aspect of simple or not is training history. Sometimes people talk about building increasing endurance year-by-year. But I am also aware of the sentiment that everything one did more than a couple of months ago doesn’t really matter (maybe apart form learning and knowing the own body better).
I feel you would be in the 2nd bucket, given that your own CTL metric resembles just that. But I’d be happy to be corrected if not.
I dont think this is true at all.
Peak fitness maybe, general fitness and ability to get back to peak fitness, I think it does matter / count.
@The_Cog I really appreciate your contribution to this forum.
This 10k foot view is always good to remember and makes clear that we don‘t target different „energy systems“ or whatsoever with Z2, SS, TH, VO2max as all is under the aerobic umbrella. And 3.) is what most of us are exclusively doing.
However it makes me think about my VO2max blocks (3 sessions per wk for 3 weeks). After a plateau for ~1.5yrs I achieved significant performance increases this year ~15W/5% in FTP and another ~10W/3% in a 2nd block (long test done with TTE).
The „dose“ in terms of hours and TSS was lower (5h) than my usual training (8-10h) why my CTL dropped during the block.
It is somehow counterintuitive that the usual metrics as TSS/CTL don‘t reflect the improvement.
Many people say you have to increase volume/dose to improve.
Therefore the VO2max block induced some changes in my body which are not reflected by this view.
If VO2max falls under this same umbrella, is such a block even a different „stimulus“?
How can the improvement be explained if the „dose“ is lower? Or is TSS/CTL not adequate to measure such a block?
Rest?
PPP: It’s called training stress score and not training adaptation score for a reason.
Less pithily: you wouldn’t expect a direct, linear relationship between CTL and performance even when intensity is held constant (one reason why it is a mistake to mislabel CTL as “fitness”). You therefore clearly shouldn’t expect one when intensity is altered.
Congratulations on the progress - seems like a perfect example of the overload principle in action. Or, as summed up in another PPP:
Sooner or later, you have to increase the power.
I’ve never felt so old…what does PPP stand for?
Pithy Power Proverb
I hate it so much
Thanks 
Sure, I don’t expect a linear relationship between CTL and fitness. Nevertheless, wise men say: “more is more”.
And in such a block only the high-intensity sessions are more but the overall “dose” looks less to me. So I still struggle to unterstand why that leads to greater adaptions than a block with SS/TH with nearly the double of TSS.
Both is in the 3.) area.
How is “overload” defined in this case ?
You’re not alone. I had to ask in a different thread. If you start looking, you will find The Cog using it in other forums.