This year, I’ve decided to test my own version of MV.
T, W & Th, I follow the TR MV plan indoors
Fri, I do 1hr Z1 on the trainer
Sat & Sun I loosely follow the TR plan outdoors while doing 3-4hr rides each day
I’ve been averaging 10-11hrs/wk with a little over 600 TSS
Followed this to a T for SSBIMV; currently in the rest/recovery/adaptation week and will be testing this coming Tues. - I’ve been feeling good, with a good balance of work/rest and expect good results on the forthcoming test.
The constant middle zone riders have some “negative” adaptations as in a lactate curve shifted left and less optimal fat utilization.
As with any kind of training stimulus, eventually your body gets used to it. Pro riders though don’t keep riding more and more and more. At some point there are no more gains to be made or it’s better to lift weights or do yoga than do another hour on the bike. Pros do seem to be better and better with the years and years of accumulated riding. I noticed this myself when I raced in my twenties. I got better year and year for 5 years with mostly the same training schedule.
I’ve been making solid gains on one 3 hour ride per week. Very occasionally does my 3 hour weekend ride turn into 4 or 5 hour ride- like only a few times per year.
I’m a believer in “time in zone”. You do what you can to collect the minutes in your various zones. If that is a 1 hour ride, then it’s better than no ride. If the day gets away from you, it’s better to jump on the trainer and put in that hour in zone 1 rather than blow it off. Skipping out on 50 of those rides is 50 hours per year of training. I think that is significant in its cumulative effect.
i think hours at easy pace is completely individual for an athlete thats not had experience spending 4 hours at 65-70% HR max without backpedaling, descending (etc.). Use your history as a guide.
This doesn’t look entirely polarized to me - but may be off. 4/6 sessions a week with intensity is above the 80/20 session principle, heard Seiler mention polarized actually looks more like 90/10 when time in zone is measured.
Which weeks are you refering to? I did a small bolck from Nov. 18th to Dec. 31st. Two intensity days a week and definitely closer to 90/10 in minutes. Outside of the weeks I just specified I was not doing polarized. I’m doing GBHV right now.
my bad - must’ve misread. was looking at current block 
I think that as much Zone 1 (in three zone model; so 1, 2 and maybe 3 (at least for some folks) in the 7-zone model) as you can fit into a week is beneficial. For some riders just starting out, those rides might be fairly short (1-2 hours) because of what they can handle, not just time available. For those better trained, we migth rather run into time constraints rather than physical ones.
And i think it’s still beneficial even if you can’t do the super long rides. And here is my reasoning.
First, remember that those pro riders who are doing 5+ hour rides are doing this in a dramatically different context. One, they have races that can be like 6 hours long, tours that go on for weeks. Their endurance needs are different. Two, they have such a long race season that they really do need to pack in that endurance base riding in a fairly short period of time. So for them they need to do those long rides, potentially not because short rides don’t get you adaptaion, but rather because they need to get as much of those adaptations in as possible in a short time. Ironically they are time-constrained in a way we are not. Three, they are so well trained that they need even more time to progressively overload. I doubt that any of us do.
second, recovery rides. Everyone swears by recovery rides as making you feel better but my understanding is that there’s actually no evidence that recovery rides do anything to accelerate recovery. But, how is that we can all feel like they make a difference? I think the answer is that they actually are making you stronger and more durable, just the tiniest bit, without tiring you out. So, this suggests by doing these we are in fact getting adaptations even though the rides are short.
FInally, in other sports (like rowing and xc skiing) participants add substantial volume through additional sessions and for their purposes, this is just as good as marathon rows or skis: http://highperformancerowing.net/journal/2011/9/7/training-the-energy-systems.html (scroll down to the part about the oxygen system)
So, tying it all together, if you’re not as well trained as a pro cyclist, if you have a longer ramp up (“base”) time than pro cyclists, and if your events are not nearly as long as a pro cyclists, then i don’t that we need to measure the expected effectiveness of our trainings based on the duration of theirs.
My feelings entirely. I think that adding one V02 max to this intensity per week is a great base phase. The best base for me at least.