I hit my best numbers doing a similar Steven Neal inspired tempo/SS plan of my own design. I did my intervals at around 85% and built out to 4x20 with some 30 minute intervals thrown in. And I did easy Z2 for all my other rides.
I could only handle 2 of these workouts per week otherwise the fatigue would be too much. Steve has his more advanced athletes doing even more workouts per week, more time in zone, and blocking these workout days back to back. At 57 yo, I just couldn’t do this. And I didn’t want to do this.
The workouts aren’t super difficult but they are mentally draining. I just get to the point where I don’t want to do 30 minute intervals or 3x30 or 4x30. It’s all on the trainer too so it takes 2 hours with warm up and cool down.
I suspect that the reason this works is training load. You can’t build the same CTL on 100% Z2. I think people get in trouble with the training when their FTP is not well calibrated (aka ramp test for some). This training generates a lot of fatigue. These workouts need recovery and regular rest weeks.
One can’t be the bike club yahoo, chasing down every attack on the group rides, going for KOMs on every ride, plus doing these long tempo/SS interval workouts. One will burn out in short order or at minimum be tired all the time. I think this is why sweet spot gets a bad rap.
I think this works makes for a great build phase but maybe one doesn’t want to try to do it all year round.
If you’re not improving as much as you can, how can you label something “effective”? Isn’t the goal of training to maximize one’s fitness (in the context of various constraints, e.g., time)?
not my goal, my first goal is health, second goal is performance. At my age I’m good with slow improvements to both. Haven’t had a weird heart rate incident in years, since I stopped going all out and focusing solely on power and performance.
I think the aim of training is to improve. The rate of improvement is secondary. Though obviously, most people would rather improve faster. But with that definition, you can have a “minimum effective dose” - just enough to get a bit better, even if sloooowly. Whether that’s optimal or desirable is debatable.
There have been questions on here from people who said they were happy with their level of fitness, they don’t want to lose any of it, but they’d rather do other things with their time too. That than also becomes a question of “how little can they do and not lose fitness”.
(There’ll be a whole add-on discussion about how to measure that, and what time frame is still feasible to judge, and, at some point, what effect aging during that time frame has)
Big part of the challenge here is what sort of Z2 you are doing. If you are at low end Z2 - ie dipping into Z1 - you will need a TON of hours to see any real improvement.
Z2 “train mostly easy” gurus like Alan Couzens have one view. Others like Inigo San Milan (Pog’s coach) see it differently - he has said Z2 training “is not a walk in the park”.
Depending on what software you use, you could see a 30w differential between low and high Z2.
My experience mirrors yours. My fitness deteriorates if I train 80/20 with 80% being easy Z2 when I have 8 hours or fewer a week to train.
“Everybody is doing Z2” has been around longer than the San Millan inspired Z2 trend. But the version I learned in 2016 (CTS Time Crunched Cyclist) didn’t involve only riding in z2.
I’m still curious where you got the idea to basically train all z2 PLUS 2-3 Zwift crits a month, for whatever timeframe defines your winter season.
As someone posted earlier, that sounds like a recipe for detraining and losing fitness.
My own results have been good, and instead of “Z2” I call it “endurance as a first principle” riding and training. Last year I averaged almost 8 hours/week, but it wasn’t consistent 8 hour weeks. Basic breakdown… about 4 hours/week of higher quality endurance work at what I’ll claim is low tempo. And always doing some form of intervals, 2 or 3 days a week.
On the flip side I’ve learned that doing “a lot” of sweet spot, like I did with TR, fails to move the needle on my fitness. Not going to bore you with conjecture on my physiology, the bottom line is that doing a lot of sweet spot got me stuck at 250 ftp and since then I’ve pushed it to the 265-280 range.
FWIW I do think it helps to understand your physiology, what makes you tick, and what moves your needle. So you either make that investment or go with your gut on what to do.
Yeah, there you go: “my” Z2 starts at around 55% of ftp talk about “your mileage may vary”. Alan Couzens suggests everyone should do a lactate test (DIY or in a lab) to a) correctly identify their individual zones and b) make sure we’re staying in them.
I think SS/Thresh is great for base, especially on low volume but still limiting to 2 sessions a week. So if I’m doing 6-8 hours, I am still doing several shortish Z2 days. I do keep a few weeks of only Z2 at the start but doing only Z2 on low volume is going to lead to plateau pretty quick for most. On the other hand, doing 3+ days of even SS is going to leave me a bit crispy after a few weeks. .
I was thinking more about this. Was this a Trainerroad plan? I didn’t think they did such long intervals.
I do think there may be a time for that pure zone 2 riding. After the season is done, you can probably do a lot of low stress zone 2 riding to relax and recover until you start building for the next season. I started my build in January and hit great numbers by May.
There’s a group called “More Sweet Spot” that has a ton of long interval workouts. No TR plan. I would build TiZ out to 90 min, take a rest week, VO2 block, rest week, repeat.
Yea I went back to look at the training. I did 17 Zwift crits between Nov-Feb. So around 4-5 a month (only 2 in Feb). I also did more SS and Threshold days than I remember, usually 1 a week. But they were shorter, never over 60 min TiZ. And the Z2 day were right around 70-75% FTP for almost all of the other days, but only 75-90min at most.
I also calculated my hours and it averaged out to around 5 1/2 per week. But it would be like 3, then 9, then 6, then 11, then 2. My work made training very inconsistent. And I do remember just always being exhausted after work.
Don’t know and this wasn’t my goal actually either, it is more like accidental side-effect
I am doing quite high volume of Z2, which helps greatly improving TTE. So whenever I occasionally follow some TR base phase plan, I very quickly progress through Z3 & SS PLs. Nevertheless, I still trust TR AI FTP – Z4 workouts are by HR & RPE still in correct ballpark. Basically, until TR does not take into account outdoor actual ride data, I’ll be limited to POL base plans.
EDIT: theory is good, but I feel it is lacking something for guys like me:
Z2/Z4/Z5 PLs are ok – whenever I reach high enough, it is indeed time to let AI FTP detection do it’s magic
but for Z3 & SS, i’ll go in couple weeks to end of scale and there aren’t hard enough workouts in TR library. And if I trigger AI FTP then, it will drop SS PL too little, so with single workout I’ll be off the scale again
It sounds like you’ll benefit most from a Low Volume Sweet Spot training plan rather than doing all your training in Z2.
What makes the best option for most cyclists? The answer is how much time you can commit to training.
Most of us don’t have that much time to devote to Z2 training. So, unless you have upwards of 20 hours per week to ride slowly, at low intensity, you can get the same benefits with Sweet Spot training in as little as 5 hours a week and add in a few extra Endurance rides as you see fit.
talk about “your mileage may vary”. Alan Couzens suggests everyone should do a lactate test (DIY or in a lab) to a) correctly identify their individual zones and b) make sure we’re staying in them.
