So following ISM logic in planning my next annual training plan, can I have best of both worlds and still include SS ? Reason is I feel muscle endurance training that one gets from SS, especially if you a climber, is so important. I did polarized training before (Z2 and only Z4/Z5 - no Z3) and I got burnt really badly when It came to long 20-30min climbs.
I train 5 days a week. My plan for the base phase (12 weeks) is to train the first 4 weeks doing 5x a week Z2. Then the next 8 weeks of base looking something like this with the 4 days Z2 as per ISM:
Mon Day off
Tues 2hrs Z2
Wed 2 x 20min SS
Thurs 2hrs Z2
Fri Recovery
Sat 90min Z2 then 2 x 20min SS
Sun 4 - 5 hours Z2
= 4 days Z2
Then for Build Phase something like this
Mon Day off
Tues 90min Z2 + 30min vo2max (e.g 5x5min)
Wed 2x20min
Thurs 2 hours Z2
Fri Recovery ride
Sat 90min Z2 + 30min Vo2max e.g (30/15’s)
Sun 4 hours Z2
= 4 days Z2
Would something like this work as per what ISM said in this video?
Thanks for the reply. I’ve done these too. However, they’re still “experimental”, not in Plan Builder, and still don’t really address the need to be able to state availability and intensity in PB.
What I’m after is making PB better and making TR the ultimate app for ALL cyclists. I can go create my own plan (or buy one from someone else), but I love TR and want it to be the ultimate solution.
Looks like a pretty solid plan to me. I would swap the Wed and Thurs workouts in build phase though, unless you are targeting two intensity days back to back.
Something like that. on Wednesday afternoons. I like to do some weight training and the day after on Thursday all I can muster is some easy Z2 and then Doms will hit me on Friday recovery day
I know ISM says not to go above threshold in the video, but does anyone know where that comes from? Is there a research study somewhere that can be posted? From other posts I’ve seen on this thread, it seems like you go back to burning fat after just a few mins of high intensity which makes me question where this idea is coming from.
I retired at 54 about six months ago and can/do train up to 30 hours a week,multi day,4-5 day long tours. Out of necessity the intensity is L1 below 160 watts.
Previous to this I trained 6-8 hours a week sometimes a lot of SST , all it did was made me a fast diesel.One winter I trained 40 mins twice a day at 75% of FTP , 5 days a week the morning ride was fasted
weekends was a low average power group ride, 4 hours with a high VI.
Using the twice a day regime come late Spring I Was in great form with best 1- 5 min powers and near best FTP.
IME , yes riding low does make you faster in the long run, and as part of a periodisation program it gives a massive foundation to build and absorb the VO2 max stuff in season.
I will also add that riding tonnes of hours at low L1 low L2 on climbs, intensity , you still need overload and progression in weekly hours. As you would probably expect ‘a rising tide lifts all ships’ and everything except my sprint has hit new PBs.
If you want fast results that last 6 weeks hit intensity hard. If you want long term form and a massive long peak fit as much L2 as you can absorb into your training for at least six months.
There is not going to be a single (as in, individual) research study for something like this. It’s more of a philosophical approach based on his interpretation of the existing literature. Reason I bring this up is this is the motivation behind Kolie Moore (and I guess Coggan, haven’t listened to the podcast yet), pointing out the isotope studies on lactate at various intensities (see his post above). Search for “ISM and Brooks” or some such.
You are getting to the heart of the debate. And it is very much still a debate. You will not find a conclusive paper or body of research that definitively establishes one idea over the other. ISM is expressing the conventional wisdom. KM and others are challenging that old assumption. Any discussion around “ride slow to ride fast, bro” will spark this back and forth. I love it, I learn a lot.
It will not be solved in this thread (although dozens of amateur internet physiologists like me will post ad nauseam about it, and then a bunch of others will post “why can’t we all just ride our bikes”).
Aaaah thanks for the clarification, @Pbase! My apologies for not ensuring I understand before answering the question.
As I mentioned, we do have plans to add the ability to customise the duration of Workouts in your Plan as you are going through Plan Builder. I don’t believe we have Plans to add the ability to customise the difficulty at the moment.
Instead, at some point in the future, we hope to create Masters Plans which will include more recovery. I will suggest your idea to the team, though, as something we could add while we build out Masters Plans.
In the meantime, and if you aren’t already doing so, Workout Alternates will be your best friend! Workout Alternates suggest Workouts with a similar profile as your original workout. You can learn more here: How to use Workout Alternates.
You can adjust the difficulty and duration of Workouts while keeping the same intent as the original Workout. I appreciate that you are looking for something that will automatically do this for you on a regular basis. However, this will be an effective workaround in the meantime.
I hope I’ve done a better job of answering your question this time!
you do now Funny thing is that in one of the videos ISM said he didn’t know how long it would take to go from activating a lot of muscle fibers (type 1 and 2) to returning to the bioenergetics of using predominantly slow twitch.
Funny thing is that in one of the videos ISM said he didn’t know how long it would take to go from activating a lot of muscle fibers (type 1 and 2) to returning to the bioenergetics of using predominantly slow twitch.