“For many age groupers, doing extremely easy training would probably not be the best investment of the time.”
What is meant by “age groupers”? I’m thinking it means amateurs, which would be almost all of us. Is this correct?
This is why this stuff seems complicated when it’s not and will never end. What is an age grouper? What is “easy”? X% of what? Is FTP a training number or hour power? Is Polarized by session or by minutes? Zone 2 in who’s model? And on and on. It keeps a lot of people in business.
12 Likes
For all intents and purposes: everyone.
More scientifically: 99.9% of the forum. I think occasionally a domestic pro will post something here 
3 Likes
I’m also never sure if we are talking avg power or NP when expressing as a percentage of AeT, FTP or VT1/VT2? What’s the consensus?
1 Like
Consensus is the enemy.
Follow a plan, and you’ll be okay. Doesn’t matter if people agree or not.
6 Likes
I’m not 50 but I’ve read Friels fast after 50, it’s pretty simple and click bait videos always make it confusing.
Do some aerobic capacity intervals (Vo2max), lactate threshold intervals and aerobic threshold (endurance). Progress time in zone yadayadayada each week. I’ve seen my best performance doing 2 hard workouts a week and the rest endurance. I’m able to increase tte and map, K.I.S.S. Training.
6 Likes
I’m honestly just curious - I don’t follow any plan lol. I just enjoy reading/understanding the theory and concepts and the practical side of training.
2 Likes
Totally agree. And Olav basically said, the traditional model of some hard days with easier days in between is a tried and true model for time-crunched athletes. He said he’d probably recommend more sweetspot too if someone was doing 6-8hrs per week. The key is tuning in to your body and understanding what you can recover from. Go as hard as possible while being able to recover for the next workout. But they needed clicks
8 Likes
and us lot out of trouble and on the forums.
1 Like
I think Bu and “the Norwegian train” are overrated, particularly in terms of knowledge and expertise.
They figured out what works (most of the times) for two very talented athletes. That’s it.
1 Like
Maybe yes, maybe no. Norway is also dominant in XC skiing with very similar methodology, and they have also been successful in running.
For country its size, they’re pretty strong
Umm…I’m going to have to call you out on that.
Iden and Blu, their palmeres, unprecedented success. There was a lot of hype, it was called the Norwegian hype train by some including me…then they won everything.
So, no I don’t think you can say overrated. Their training approach is known to be more objective and measured for a long time, that’s not the only element of their success but to mark them down for their understanding of training science has to be a no no.
Yours is an opinion and you’re entitled to it but, I’m entitled to point out its flaws.
1 Like
Welp, if two is enough for you, then good. To me it is not enough to generalize.
Impressive outcomes, yes.
Oh, Norway has been contributing amazing amounts of knowledge to everything sports and training in particular for years. That’s for sure. Btw, Z2 training is a great example of that.
You’re not telling me anything new. I’d argue they didn’t even contribute z2, what they contributed is train a ton, and if doing that then there’s going to be z2, and tons of z1 as well.
These discussions are so redundant.
By the way, I was poked and prodded and trained via lactate in early university in the early 00s.
Quite literally, none of this is new. The only new thing about any of it is people want to discuss on the internet like they’ve found “the thing”. Guess what? You didn’t - just train more. And if you train more, lots is going to be z1 and z2. But zero coaches are going to magically prescribe x # of z2 hours like it’s the magic bullet.
10 Likes
Wow lactate at 1.0, that is really low. I wonder if training like that would work for a “normal” person if they put in the hours?
Joe
I think the point is, and I’ll say it again, consistently put in 20+ hours/week loading weeks, and you’ll build such strong metabolic fitness (and cardio fitness) that 1.0 is probably close to the right number for an elite athlete. But everyone is different, and that is an unstated assumption. The context was very high volume elite (olympic) triathletes.
This article is kinda topical, probably deserves its own thread. I’m surprised how little work >FTP was done in training.
“And yet, it’s fascinating to dive into the details and learn how the best riders approach the longest and hardest races in the world. And in the case of Landa’s successful tilt at the 2015 Giro, it looked something like this: a long, steady build-up with a focus on base miles; a gradual increase in intensity as the season began; and a bunch of hard racing to tune the engine, before finally tapering towards the Giro. Easy, right?”
1 Like
This thread is not about what’s new.
1 Like
