Limited hours - a perfect case for sweet spot?

Training
44

Same, at least qualitatively.

Now quantitatively? That’s a good question, and one a given individual can only really answer for themselves.

One thing that I think is clear: you shouldn’t look at what elite athletes do, as not only are their genetics and lifestyles different, but they are incentivized to always do more, even if it isn’t actually helpful. It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to say, “yeah, my competition is training more than I am, but I’m confident that what I’m doing is enough.”

It’s your glycogen budget - spend it wisely.

45

Is it? Personal experience:

  • 2 first years of structured training followed TR SSBHV for base. It was almost entirely SS + some Z2 between, weekly total 10-12h (Z1+Z2 73%, Z3+Z4 23% Z5+ 4%). Usual beginner gains, plus indeed felt very strong and could keep up sub-threshold efforts very well. But during build phase could hold Z4 only 30-40min.

  • 3rd year switched to Trad Base HV (12-14h, Z1+Z2 76%, Z3+Z4 22%, Z5+ 2%), FTP still increased, although slower. Threshold TTE remained same.

  • and only last 1.5 years that switched to 14-20h low intensity approach (Z1+Z2 83%, Z3+Z4 15%, Z5+ 2%), I can now hold FTP for full hour, or 98% over hour.

Of course, it can be also explained that it takes for mediocre cyclist 4 years to reach 1h TTE at Z4 :man_shrugging:

46

You basically do almost the same SS (z3/z4) in each phase (in absolute terms) but substantially increase volume

47

Yes, this is how it appears on yearly stats at intervals.icu. But I actually noticed increased TTE after specific 3 month recovery period during which i was forced to remain mostly in Z1+Z2 and did only very seldom Z3+ (Z1+Z2 86%, Z3 8%, Z4 6%)

49

1+1+1=3. These are not independent but rather all connected. You took steps up a staircase and built one on another. Kinda reminds me of old school periodization and personally I think you did it right. The question is, if you stick with your same training pattern will your continue rate of improvement would it be better if you circled back to SSB and cycled through again? Or maybe a hybrid approach?

50

It was actually 2+1+1 :slight_smile:

Indeed, improvement rate is definitely slowing down – first year it was around 5-7% FTP increase per 6 week block, now around 1-2% 4 week block and if I skip 2-3 workouts during that period, AI FTP remains same.

And yes, I was thinking also getting back to SSBHV for indoor base period. While last winter 13-15h/w Z2+Z4+Z5 was doable and even enjoyed it, had too little energy for weight training. This would be quite interesting comparison: 1st vs 5th year improvement rate for similar SSBHV period. Obviously, I do not expect same improvement actually :slight_smile:

51

You only mention sweet spot and Z2, with a bit of threshold and 2 weeks of VO2. My advice would be two options:

  1. Go back to what you were doing, if that’s what worked.
  2. Do threshold and VO2 workouts, progressively increasing TiZ each week (with recovery every 3rd or 4th week, and ride Z2 all the other available time.

If you want to continue reading, you can, otherwise it’s my story below.

I haven’t read any of the responses, yet, so will give my 2c as if it was the first reply; all based on my experiences, and you missing out describing workouts other than Z2. You state: “***My thinking is that 8 hours per week of Z2 just isn’t enough to get any results. ***
and
So I guess my overall question is: with 8 hours per week, is sweet spot a better option for base?”

I have 11 hours per week as my maximum possible training time in a peak week just before tapering. It doesn’t mean that I’m training 11 hours every week. To get the progressive overload, I need to start lower, at say 5-6 hours and build from there. My off season (about 8 weeks) is 4-5 hours, mostly 2x 1 hour weekday rides, and a single 2-3 hour ride on a weekend. All easy (coffee) rides. It doesn’t matter, it’s still time on the bike and it’s still fun.

The 27 weeks I’m building to an A-event will have progression of threshold and VO2 work, and then the rest of the time it’s Z2. It will start at about 20-30 minutes TIZ and progress to 45-50 minutes (threshold), including increasing the intensity within the range. Time spent at VO2 progresses from 12-25 minutes. So that’s a max of 75 minutes in L4 or L5 power, and the rest of the time it’s mostly Z2 (heart rate). Some of the Z2 rides will include some very short, very high cadence (150-200 rpm) sprints in the saddle, i.e. nothing fatiguing, and it helps the neuromuscular pathways.

The first weeks of base training might look like sweetspot, as it’s the low range of threshold, 90-95%. I usually start here in the first 2-3 weeks, to get back into it, and then take it from there. So that’s my story, but how does that help you? I don’t need 15-20 hours to be competitive in my age category, all year round. I pick a few races and try to do as best I can in those events.

52

Mine: 55-65 minute TTE after 15 months very simple structured training. Completely mediocre cyclist around 2.8-3W/kg and averaged 7.3 hours per week the first year. Years later I learned there is a classic paper (Gollnick) that showed you can achieve high TTE without a lot of volume.

Here’s what I see with your example

  • 10-12 hours for 2 years
  • 12-14 hours for 1 year
  • 14-20 hours for 1.5 years

Like others have said, those volume increases should result in fitness increases. Provided you can recover. My first TR plan was SSB1 HV, about 9 months after I achieved long TTE. Doing SSB1 HV unfortunately resulted in a downward fitness trend, and IMHO that was because of the lack of intensity and unknowingly overspending my recovery budget from the 5 days/week of sweet spot (this was early 2018).

53

Do you not understand the meaning of the word “qualitatively”? You responded with a quantitative counterexample.

In any case, I was attempting to prevent people coming to the false conclusion that, e.g., “zone 2” training results in different physiological adaptations, because it doesn’t. As I have been pointing out for a couple of decades, although exercise training results in numerous cellular adaptations, at the end of the day they lead to a very limited range of phenotypic responses.

54

Yeah, it is possible, English is not my native language. My assumption into which category TTE falls, might be wrong :slight_smile:

So, this misunderstanding aside, you are saying that to improve TTE, 10-12h SS < 14-20 Z2?

EDIT: I actually worded question wrong. Better question would be: are SS & Z2 TSS comparable? I.e. when choosing workout for any given day, can I do either, as long as TSS are equal?

55

Two classic papers

  • PD Gollnick Effect of training on enzyme activity and fiber composition of human skeletal muscle.

  • Coyle/Coggan Determinants of endurance in well-trained cyclists

Off the top of my head, without pulling it up, in the Gollnick study they trained four 1-hour sessions a week for 5 months. At the end of the study the subjects were doing about an hour around 85% vo2max. Many started around 65% vo2max because they couldn’t handle doing it at 85%. Then they progressed difficulty as they adapted to the training. This was back in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Ok that’s off memory so don’t quote me or take the numbers as what was achieved.

The basic message is that you can train hard 4 times a week for 5 months, only 4 hours per week, and get a long TTE at a very high percentage of vo2max.

56

Hm, in that case my TTE improvement is even less than mediocre :thinking:
Maybe due TR endorsed ramp test that inflated FTP?

57

I wouldn’t say that. I would say you didn’t specifically work on it. While I did. Speculating beyond that is probably not helpful.

58

Not necessarily…for a lot of people, there goal is the improve one’s fitness, not necessarily maximize it.

59

“in the context of various constraints, e.g., time)?”

…one of which, of course, being one’s motivation (goals).

60

I think you are just playing word games now, Doc…but carry on.

Power13 62

:+1:t2::+1:t2: