Pro/Elite training

[bbarrera]

@eduardo23

Thanks for your reply, I did look but it is not explicitly written those are the Coggan zones or defined as per the Coggan %s

you didn’t read the article? Its right here:

Depending on the level of fitness of an individual, and up to 55-75% of VO2max intensity, ATP synthesis (energy) is generated from fat and carbohydrates

so yes, zone 2 in that article maps directly to Coggan zone 2.

[eduardo23]

Thank you for the clarification it is enlightening, so could we say it is actually slightly harder than Coggan Z2?

[eduardo23]

Thanks for pointing this out. I do not know what 55-75% of VO2max is when you translate to %s of FTP. Do you have a table for comparison?

[bbarrera]

its in the article. Not an exact mapping.

[tshortt]

For many, I would think yes (with some overlap). My take is that San Millan recognizes the variability in intensity at AeT/FatMax/LT1 thingie, something that is not accounted for as precisely using Coggan zones (sub-threshold).

In a recent interview, Dirk Friel presses him on this very point. By the end you realize it’s not the Zone 2 that you’re thinking of, like “droids in Star Wars”.

To @bbarrera point, the whole range is wide, but where 1.3 - 1.8 falls is fairly narrow.

N=1 for amateur, when I do consecutive days of this, I can build up some decent muscular fatigue that I quickly bounce back from.

[eduardo23]

I see, then is a good takeaway for me to actually ride slightly harder during endurance rides as long as you can recover and not compromise higher intensity work.

[tshortt]

Well, maybe, maybe not. We are on the Pro/Elite training thread, so I try to be careful with my takeaways and how they apply to me, average amateur.

But based on other interviews with him, it seems that’s what San Millan would have you do (mostly).

[sryke]

@bbarrera

Depending on the level of fitness of an individual, and up to 55-75% of VO2max intensity, ATP synthesis (energy) is generated from fat and carbohydrates

but this does not mean zone 2 (necessarily). Rough guess, FTP ~ 80% VO2max. 75% VO2max somewhere upper tempo. This is not zone 2. And I don’t think he means it as zone 2 in the context.

@tshortt has mentioned the critical points. Training in range close to fatmax. Lab testing is part of his system, he uses fatmax and lactate as cues. It is clearly not “I saw this elite norwegian xc skier walking up a hill” pace.

I find this a very interesting trainig model, clear guidance with just a few words. No bla bla, straight to the point. If you want to improve an area you have to stress it. Hence, at fatmax/AeT/LT1.

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

Lydiard’s “best aerobic pace”?

[Dostring]

My thoughts exactly after riding at this effort level for a couple of days (no lactate meter, just a guesstimate).

[JJon]

@eduardo23

I see, then is a good takeaway for me to actually ride slightly harder during endurance rides as long as you can recover and not compromise higher intensity work.

@tshortt

Well, maybe, maybe not. We are on the Pro/Elite training thread, so I try to be careful with my takeaways and how they apply to me, average amateur.

But based on other interviews with him, it seems that’s what San Millan would have you do (mostly).

Good points. I have never measured lactate or done lab tests, so in this case it would be very helpful… Maybe i will do little “harder” base rides this winter, maybe it’s the key… maybe

[sryke]

Let’s please continue the discussion on San Millan’s training model here:

Iñigo San Millán training model

I think it’s time to start a dedicated thread on this. This is an interesting topic, the Pro/Elite is not the proper place for this. Personally, I find this an interesting model. Perhaps someone else wants to copy in some relevant infos from the Pro/Elite thread.

[Ron85]

Sorry, bit late to the party.

I’m assuming the 20min and 1 hour powers are measured at similar altitudes. The context for the numbers was below the graph in the original article, where it says 20min MMP was observed in stage 2 of the Tour of 2008 Tour of California and 60min MMP was during an ITT at the 2013 Tour de Suisse. There’s 5 years between those races.

[Ron85]

@stevemz

FTP = MLSS which has a variable time to exhaustion when ridden at continuously between 30-70 minutes depending on rider phenotype.

Careful. An important discovery from studies was that depending on which definition of FTP was used, there were conflicting results. Some found no agreement between MLSS and FTP, while others found some agreement but wide limits of agreement in heterogeneous samples. One study went onto conclude FTP should not be used as a representation of MLSS. Discussed in Section D here : http://www.georgeron.com/2020/04/functional-threshold-power-FTP-myths-facts.html

[stevemz]

Section D used FTP20 (.95% of 20minute power), which is pretty well known to be a bad protocol at this point.

[Ron85]

You can email the authors and discuss that. The study is peer reviewed.

[velocoach]

I wanted to bring this part of the thread back up… It’s very rare to see training literature talk about this type of training progression. Rather, coaches and books (with the main exception being this triathlon book mentioned) talk about the classic 3 week overload with 1 week of recovery (on the bike still, typically 1/2 volume give or take). Friel mentions using a 2 week overload for the older athletes or those who have trouble recovering.

However, it seems pretty clear to me that pros aren’t taking this approach. From the pros that post to Strava at least, their volume appears to stay very consistent, and as has been mentioned in this thread, they don’t appear to take “recovery weeks” (by definition of 1 week lower volume after 3 weeks of building). Matt Dixon likes the approach to keep recovery inside your training weeks so you don’t need a week with reduced volume/intensity – stated above, keeping recovery as part of your weekly training rather than pushing your body harder during the 3 weeks.

I’d be interested to know if there is any more literature in cycling about how this is structured, or if anyone has any thoughts regarding recovery and progression/overload throughout training cycle. I’ve been working around this built in recovery method for most of 2020. I’d love to hear other’s thoughts and will share mine later

[anthonylane]

@velocoach

I was talking with James Piccoli, who started racing in his 20s and became a world tour rider this year at 28yo. He mentioned that for a while, he was doing too much intensity and the wrong type of training. It wasn’t until he found precisely what worked for him when things really started to work. Just how many people are out there doing the wrong thing and slowing down their development because they don’t know any better? A lot, I would argue.

Great point. How many of us who are uncoached or otherwise have wondered if we’re committing the same mistakes? I know I have. I would be curious to know what clicked for him and what he changed.

For us self-coached athletes and those who can only afford a TR subscription, what are we to do? Self-educate and experiment with this-or-that training methodology…or just follow whatever f’ing plan you’ve chosen? There are times where I feel as though I’m wasting my time experimenting with riding at very specific ranges trying to figure out when to time x-intensity, when to do FTP blocks, etc…but I also feel the same way when I’m following a TrainerRoad plan and I’m slung over my bars in December doing VO2 work when the start of the season is still 4 months away. Any plans for a SSBIII @Nate_Pearson

[anthonylane]

@velocoach

stay very consistent, and as has been mentioned in this thread, they don’t appear to take “recovery weeks”

I noticed this too. However, here’s WVA last 5 weeks, which include the Tour. This week he’s logged 12hr. I guess you could call this a rest week.

[velocoach]

As promised, here is what I was doing pre-2020, as what I would consider a pretty standard training block (some coaches recommend 2-3, but not always 3 intervals per week)… Pretty standard, I would say. Sometimes sneak in a little bit longer recovery on that day 4:

And here is what I have been doing after 2020. More of the Matt Dixon approach, keep recovery “built in” rather than scheduling an entire recovery week:

Some observations from me:

• When I get sick, it’s much easier to jump back into things. Before, I would have to schedule everything completely over again if I got sick. Getting sick during weeks 1-3 of a 3:1 work:recovery schedule always caused more stress trying to figure out where to go from there. Especially if I had A events coming up
• My legs feel good just about as often as they did last year. I feel more like I’m “slightly pushing” with my progression, compared to feeling on the edge last year right around week 3 (in line with what Dixon says)
• I am more consistent with my training and feel better when things come up. Before I had a really hard time missing a training day for other obligations because I didn’t want to mess things up before the training week. Then the training week would come and I would just eat and do whatever. This way I stay “on top of my game” throughout much more of the season. I don’t indulge or get lazy on my weeks off, and I don’t ever have to feel horrible coming back into training after a recovery week like many people might feel on that first workout back.

Some downsides:

• Scheduling progressive overload is a pain in the you know what. 3 weeks progressing overload and then taking a week off is extremely popular and for good reason, it’s easy to structure the overload and take a week off. It’s also easier to prepare for races and events
• You still probably should take a recovery week (just not as often). This might be an extra mid-season break for others, but after going through a full base and build plan with this “recovery built in” approach, I would take a couple days easy (2-4) before jumping into the build or race phase.
• If you are using a different approach that isn’t so laid out weekly like the screenshot I posted above, it can be difficult to manage your days (this goes in line with the #1 downside). For example, if you find out you need an additional 1-2 days of recovery after a 2 week block, and you add that in (which is important!), then your weeks could look like this, which is not very manageable for most of us with other things to do:
  
  

Like I mentioned, I’d be interested to see if anyone else has looked at this or tried anything similar (or if they know of any more literature). It’s worked well for me I would say, and I will be sticking with it for next season