From the book of Steve Neal quotes … I love the guy, and I’m just saying this in the spirit of jest to you — but he did say this to me:
Me: So do you think my FTP has gone up?
Steve: You gotta stop talking about FTP, man. Nobody is talking about FTP anymore. It’s embarrassing.
Did anyone say there wasn’t?
You didn’t answer my question. But I don’t really care 
I was just answering someone else’s question as honestly as I could. I was not describing a panacea.
I would also unscientifically submit that dead-lifts are probably leading cause of injuries among weightlifting-curious cyclists. So much so that I know of 2 well known coaching services that have removed them from their weight programs because they led to injuries … and injuries = time off the bike.
And the whole point of my observation was time on the bike = getting faster.
Thanks for the Steve quotes! He says many times in those podcasts that this kind of training isn’t a giant FTP booster but allows you to ride much longer at a high percentage of your FTP.
My FTP went up about 15% during my tempo build. Not huge for a build coming from base a little detrained but I felt stronger than ever that spring.
This sounds like a solid plan
Thanks for the comments, btw. I’m pleased to have revived this thread. This style of training is something I’ve been curious about for a while. I’m curious to see how an autumn/winter period predominantly doing this kind of work will go. It’s perfect for TTs, and I’m quite happy doing long tempo/sweetspot efforts. 
Personally, I kind of think this is too long. I will use this strategy as a build starting in January to be strong in the spring. Doing blocked tempo workouts from September to March or whatever is a long time…
Last time I did a tempo build, I felt like I topped out after about 8 weeks.
(I’m not a coach though so feel free to ignore me.)
I’m glad you did! I learned about @batwood14 's one minute standing tempo intervals every 5th minute. I never heard Steve mention that anywhere. Sounds fun and will take the mental edge off those 20-30 minute intervals.
I have done those types of breaks in a range of ways. 10 seconds every 1 min, 20 sec / 2 min etc. as well as the 1m / 5m and they are great monotony killers.
Another I employ is set cadence block of say 5 min each with stuff like the TR ones at 5 rpm over or under my preferred cadence. I will stretch that to 10 rpm swing too for a wider range and so on. Then I’ll use low cadence in similar chunks with swaps each 5 min to keep it interesting.
Nice topic. I also read the posts on the fasttalklabs about Steve Neal’s approach so very interested in some reviews ;-).
But as I would look at my ‘data’. 78-83% HR cap would be 140-149bpm. That would be real Z3 zone. 230-240w I guess (FTP 270w). I am sure I can sustain that. But I guess that I can do this even 90min. So what should my goal be? doing it back to back? And manage fatigue? Or even go longer in duration? I am good at tempo/SST efforts for a long time. So mabe focus first on other things…
You aren’t supposed to try to get to the HR cap. You are supposed to back off IF you get there. I would just go with the middle of the tempo zone (80-85%) to start with. More power is not necessarily better with this training.
That sounds right.
It is worth emphasizing this point, because it speaks to the difference in approaches/philosophy. I think that gets overlooked. Most ppl that casually glance at this think it is SST. And in a way, it is. Just not based on power alone.
As I said above to sam.fuller1, it is not about “can I get through this tempo or whatever”, that is just basic SST. That is what I meant above by “different philosophically”. With that approach, HR could (and likely is) variable and is either redundant or discarded altogether (maybe collected and ignored).
So if you are “good” at that type of training, fine, just understand that it is a different thing.
Can you ride those long tempo intervals (again, within reason regarding drinking, standing, etc.), without ending the session with a HR 10-15 bpm higher? that you simply cannot decrease without moving into basic endurance intensity or significantly lowering the power? Did it go up and then it settled down? Did you go long enough that it started to go up, stay up, and you used that to “baseline” and overload for subsequent sessions? There are just lots of ways to play with it, and it is really only after a few sessions of seeing steady and lower HR that you would increase power.
The thinking is more like “am I getting through this session without a lot of drift in [lactate | HR | breath count]?”. The HR cap is designed to tell you that you have drifted too far, in the absence of those other metrics. It is also just the tip of the iceberg.
I cannot tell you exactly why Steve did it this way. I have my own reasoning: fatigue management, but he never said that to me or on the site. You have a finite number of hours in the week and you need to do the single most important thing in all of endurance sports: more work.
My interpretation was that the HR cap allowed the fitness to come to the athlete and it also takes into account varying levels of fitness in the Cycling Gym. If someone is unfit with a low TTE, maybe their HR spins out of control as they get farther into a long interval. So they back off and can still finish the workout without wrecking themself.
Personally, I never even came close to the cap. I’d get to my last 20 minute interval still be 10 beats below the cap. It always kind of left me wondering what to do. My guess now that I know more is that my FTP is a high percentage of my 57 year old VO2max (85%)
I asked Steve and his answer was nowhere near definitive. He did say though to probably not raise power.
If one really wanted to dial these in, they could figure out the lactate balance point testing or use a Moxy. But is precision necessary? I say, go middle of the road tempo zone and call it a day. Use the HR cap. You’ll be there. Maybe start at the lower end of the range of tempo, try it out and see how the HR responds.
I agree with all of this. Well said.
Remember, HR in this case is just a proxy for what is called by Steve the “lactate balance point” … and the purpose of staying below that balance point (as I understand it) is you are trying to accumulate the maximum amount of work that your body can tolerate without getting over fatigued. When you get above that balance point, the accumulation of fatigue increases exponentially, and requires more recovery*
If only using HR to gauge your work rates, I would stay below 80% HRmax … and give yourself rooms to drift up into 83%, and then dial the power back if you want to go longer. If you’re constantly right in the edge, you’re likely working too hard.
*My understanding of things, I’m not a physiologist.
I actually did lactate testing with Steve … and then he prescribed intervals 5-7 watts below my LBP power … which should illustrate the everyone’s point that lower is better.
One question, however, that I don’t know the answer to is … if you are working below a HR that lines up with your LBP, would lactate production rise in accordance with HR? Or does that stay steady?
Asked another way … if my LBP is 250W which correlates to, for instance, 80% HRmax … if I ride at 245W long enough, my HR will eventually rise. But does that mean my lactate production will similarly increase with my BPM?
My understanding is that it is the lactate-levels that cause increased metabolic cost (ie the need for more recovery). I know HR is a way to approximate the LBP, just not sure if the metabolic cost rises with HR, or just with lactate. 
Good question!! I would think it could maybe be lower? because lactate is related to fueling also? So if you keep riding lactate will drop? unless you re-fuel…
What is the difference between LBP vs LT1, and how would you test it? I have a lacate meter so maybe I can do such a test? And to spice up this topic. Is this approach not a little in the same ball-park as ISM Z2 riding @LT1? Because for many riders LT1 is low Z3?
This is not that the case, for either lower intensity, longer duration exercise or for shorter duration, higher intensity exercise. Measurement of circulating lactate concentrations merely provides a relatively non-invasive indicator of the overall rate of carbohydrate utilization.
Minor quibble with wording here because someone will likely pipe up… (looks like already happened).
I agree with questions you have RE: LBP, etc. 
Looking at lactate levels in this way is trying see if/when there is an increased metabolic cost (indirectly), not that the lactate CAUSES the cost. Using it as a marker, along with the others. Coaches who approach it this way are trying to get insight into strain.
Lactate balance point is the result of a test designed to determine maximal lactate steady state with less effort. After first jacking up lactate levels via, e.g., a Wingate test, you do the usual incremental exercise test - lactate concentrations will initially decrease with increasing exercise intensity, then increase again. The nadir is the “balance point”, i.e., the intensity at lactate appearance and disappearance are equal.
Contrary to the initial hypothesis, lactate balance point and maximal lactate steady state testing have been shown to result in slightly different values, but both are clearly higher than so-called “LT1”, no matter how the latter is determined.