I’ve been using TR for a few months and I’m really enjoying it. I’m in training for a ride through the Alps from Geneva to Nice in June next year with a couple of big Alpine climbs per day. I’m 49, FTP around 260 with 3.5ish w/kg. Trying to push my FTP up to 290+ territory before the trip.
I’m doing 3 hard intervals per week, and 1 or 2 endurance rides, one of which I try to make a group ride outdoors weather depending. I’m also doing some strength work.
One thing that’s been bothering me is that the intensity of the TR endurance rides seem way too high and take me well above LT1. The way I see it the intense intervals promote mitochondrial and vascular adaptations more rapidly than can be achieved at lower intensities but the endurance rides are needed to promote efficiency in utilising fat as a fuel source for long days in the saddle. To promote this adaptation, shouldn’t these workouts be at or below LT1?? For me these workouts are generally more tempo rides and I have to manually reduce the intensity to make sure they are not more glycolytic…. And to increase endurance progress scores would definitely push me into more tempo territory.
I may be overthinking this (perhaps I should dispense with a HR monitor altogether) but I want to make sure I am getting the most out of my training.
Any perspectives on this from more experienced TR users appreciated
Essentially the “endurance” rides you get set on TR plans by default don’t really achieve what you are asking for - for that you need long rides - not 1-1:30hr hours.
If you tell the system that you can train for longer on those days then you should end up with longer lower intensity workouts.
For me…. I select a low volume plan so that TR sets my hard intervals - then I ride as many easy hours as I can fit in around my life.
I’d consider dropping to 2 quality interval days per week and 2 quality endurance rides. And then the group ride is there for fun (no worry about structure/compliance). With 3 interval days, you might be carrying a lot of fatigue into those endurance days. It also depends on your training history. If you haven’t focused a lot of endurance in the past, it’s something to be built on just like anything else. And it shouldn’t be super hard, but it’s still deliberate work and isn’t easy as the duration is extended.
I’m curious as to how you’re measuring your LT1. Do you use lactate measurements, or are you using power/heart rate?
Your comment about a HR monitor makes me think that maybe you’re using HR..
If that’s the case, I’d first ensure that you’ve got your HR zones calibrated accurately. Depending on who you ask, there are a few ways to do that, but I like to recommend LTHR tests. Your zones will change over time as well, depending on several things such as age, fitness, temperature, fatigue, etc., so it’s important to stay up to date with these..
Generally speaking, yes, your endurance rides should keep you at or below your LT1, but it’s okay to go just over from time to time. That “magic” training zone lies somewhere between mid Z2 and low Z3 for most people. If your HR is calibrated properly, you can rule out outside factors, and you’re still getting way into Z3 during endurance rides, I could take a closer look, but based on your most recent workouts, I’d say that your power zones should be pretty accurate.
I did notice that you were on holiday for almost three weeks and then ill for over a week afterward before jumping back into training just over a week ago, and that could have something to do with your HR being slightly off.
Let me know your thoughts here. I’m sure we can figure out what’s going on with a little digging.
So before I started using TR and was using zwift I borrowed a lactate meter and did a ramp test and tested myself. I didn’t have enough strips to do a full lactate ramp test but I did find that at 150 watts with a heart rate of 128-132 lactate was 1.6 mmol/l but at 160 (HR 132-136) it was 5.5 mmol/l. So I have made the assumption that I don’t really want to drift over mid 130s in terms of heart rate. The caveat is that testing conditions were poor (on my own in my shed!) and my fitness has probably changed. Looking back at the data, at 170 watts lactate dropped back down to 2.3, so I have big questions about the accuracy of my self testing! If I go by the talk test LT1 would be more like 140.
I think your right that proper testing might be worthwhile. And yes my holiday and illness has perhaps pushed my HR up a bit. Garmin is saying RHR has increased from 45 to 47-8.
So where would you go then? Reduce the intensity to low 130s during endurance workout until I get some accurate data?
Moving forward, I’d personally trust TR in terms of issuing your accurate endurance workouts, BUT if you have time to get a LTHR test in to get updated and accurate HR zones, that could help your peace of mind as well.
Personally, I wouldn’t use any of that lactate data for training purposes right now.. If you want to use lactate instead of HR or power, you’ll have to make sure that you’re accurate and consistent with your testing. Something else to consider is that TR doesn’t use lactate data, so it could be difficult to try to transfer what you’re seeing in your own testing to what TR’s data says based on your training and recent performances.
I’d be willing to bet that your power zones are probably pretty accurate as they sit now, and things might feel better once you’re fully recovered.
I’d go ahead with your TR workouts and do a LTHR test when you can to have your HR data to watch alongside your workouts if you want the extra insurance.
Let me know if this helps and if you have any questions moving forward.
Interesting, so basically don’t worry about it and trust in the process?! Happy to do that but I think I will look into a proper LTHR test to see how it fits, I could then resurrect this thread and feed back!
For endurance rides I’m usually aiming to extend duration not intensify, typical IF is in the 0.6 range. For indoors my 2-hour bread and butter is Perkins-1.
That’s helpful thanks. 0.6 seems about right for me too so that’s a good rule of thumb, and that looks a good workout. TR has chosen Cumberland-3 for me this week. 0.7 IF, parts of that workout are over 190 watts, definitely tempo for me…
The common issue run into by users with TRs recommendations on endurance is that it is fenced by your time limitations - so it tends to slowly drift intensity up in the endurance range rather than extending time
Ideally you extend time but if that’s not possible it is easy to be tempted to increase intensity to upper endurance/lower tempo (far from unique to TR)
Don’t hesitate to stay lower in endurance even if you’re not increasing time
Endurance feeling too intense as you get closer to 75% of ftp is not uncommon in my experience and exposes some of the issues with setting zones based on a single point (FTP).
I dont see much of a point in increasing the intensity of sessions that are supposed to be easy, you are going to be able to achieve much more work done by adding a handful of minutes at lower (say 60%) intensity than by increasing the power to 75% while also not risking going too hard.
To illustrate this 1hr at 75% for someone with a 290w ftp is 780kj of work done, I can get the same amount of work done at 60% by just riding for an additional 15m. Of the two of those one is going to feel a lot easier and have a much lower risk of over doing things by riding too hard.
Sure, people have time constraints but in those cases I would still keep the sessions on the easy side and save the legs for a hard day where I can add a bit of extra work.
What you’re saying makes sense, and I’d say that keeping most of your easy rides easy is definitely the way to go, but one endurance ride each week with a focus toward the top of Z2 can be one of the most productive days on your schedule.
Riding at 75% of FTP isn’t easy for long durations, but the stimulus is really, really good.
It’s not just about simply burning through kjs each week, but how you’re doing it.
I have to say that I got James a few weeks back and didn’t respect it. Didn’t sleep well, didn’t fuel, etc. Heart rate got up to 180 and it got a “Hard” rating. I’ve done it a few times since without issue, but that one time was a definite eye opener.
Total agree with this, especially if its within the scope of your general fatigue management, I.e it doesn’t lead you to digging a hole for yourself.
Noodling around for 45-60 minutes at <0.60 IF isn’t going to do a lot for you once your you’ve build a decent aerobic base. However 2-3-4 hours plus is a different matter (around 0.60 - 0.65 IF)
Yes, that can be a nasty of a session if you have a poor ‘run in’ to it. The worst for me was when I forgot to turn the fans on. Half way through HR was really high, but for some reason I hadn’t noticed the pool of swear on the floor, then I realised I was over heating. Turned the fans on but it was a grim second half of the session.
It depends on the athlete though. For one person that 75% might be just fine and not add too much fatigue to impact future sessions while giving them a nice little extra dose of stimulus. For another athlete that might be well into tempo and start to add some additional fatigue that eventually impacts future sessions.
I think you are both right! As you mentioned, everyone is different. I know people who prefer lower volume at a higher intensity. I know others that do tons of volume but at a lower intensity. The cool (and frustrating thing?) is that both types of training work (for them). Knowing what works for you is so important!
As @eddie mentioned the 0.75 “endurance plus” workouts are so important. Especially for longer events (Alex Wild mentioned this on one of the podcasts recently). It does zap you so doing it all the time would be a grind but they definitely have their place!
But back to the OP… I also think riding by feel and certain intensities feel like is key. I am interested what “RPE” the OP has doing endurance rides (and how they are rating them in post ride survey).
IF of less that 0.6. RPE easy but my heart rate got up to 144 which to my mind must pushing above the aerobic threshold. Whilst I take on board what @eddie says about the importance of higher endurance, I wouldn’t want to push much more than this TBH when doing 3 hard sessions a week. The big advantage of these sessions from my understanding is to promote fat oxidation and not stress the system too much.
