Zone 2 training with Iñigo San Millán, part 2

For sure it is. Shedding long term fatigue is important, and you’re probably going to lose FTP when you do that. I take two weeks off the bike every year. Last year, I took four because I got hurt. FTP was 285 or so when I got injured. Came back the first week and sat at 255 for an hour.

I was back to 280 pretty quickly. I have seen most of my athletes take their breaks and then regain their fitness within a couple of months. Pushing higher is the part that takes the real effort.

1 Like

I am not a huge proponent of spending several months just noodling around in the little ring. I like a little bit of intensity when doing volume unless I’m really trying to push volume higher. That could be a short threshold session. That could be a Zwift race or something. But once the volume is where I want it, push into extensive SST/threshold/tempo. That’s my typical “base” approach.

Keep in mind that most of my athletes are in the 8-12hr/wk range. As I’ve mentioned, with more volume, intensity necessarily gets dialed back until you can handle the volume.

4 Likes

I’ve actually just taken 6 months off the bike. I’ve been running a little, lifting weights (not heavy), snowshoeing, cross country skiing, and lately indoor rowing to stay fit.

It will be interesting to see my numbers when I get back on the bike (very soon).

1 Like

Anecdotally, I tend to agree with @kurt.braeckel here. I’m not disputing that ISM might be saying some of his athletes have seen good results doing their endurance work right around LT1, but I’ve found as a practical matter, that wears me out for the intensity days (in something like an 80/20 model).

I’m going to put it to the test this year and see if I can success the intense workouts in the TR POL plan, while also hitting their relatively high endurance ride power targets.

1 Like

ISM said himself in one of the video that elite athletes are only doing “intervals” at LT1, because the intensity is way too high for them.

2 Likes

He may have said that (not sure), But he’s not prescribing it:

See here:

For example, Dec 1 ride. Not intervals. Well, one giant interval at LT1.

ISM Zone 2 is low tempo, It’s not all he prescribes. It’s not general endurance riding (like many of the examples in this thread of “look I did Zone 2”). Not sure how else to clear up the confusion over Z2.

Maybe, it’s difficult to know his numbers.
On December 19 he does 2x1h at ±350w, so that’s at least his ftp. His LT1 could be above 300w.
He has a few days with intervals of 1h between 300w and 350w

Isnt his ftp well over 400 watts… looks like his zone 2 intervals were the 1 hour long as he was doing in the second image from last week. His lt1 is estimated at around 330.

Which btw, that article discussing his power files from last winter also described top of zone 2 to be lt1.

2 Likes

Didn’t realise they were so ahead of their time.

1 Like

Article makes no reference to LT1

It used the term aerobic threshold, which is used interchangeably with lt1. It’s describing the same point where substrate utilization shifts towards increased carbohydrates, just measured differently.

1 Like

I think you guys are keying off of this line:

For a rider of his caliber - as we will see from his threshold training soon - 330w might not even be a tempo effort; it could just be the top end of McNulty’s Zone 2 aerobic threshold.

If so, I see now why some are saying 330w and I’m saying more like 290-295w (not a huge difference in absolute numbers but significant enough given we’re talking about low-to-mid intensity).

I disagree with the journalist. His AeT/LT1 is not 330w. Maybe he did FTP math on it (“multiply by .75”) based on what he speculated was his threshold. Same thing that happens here all the time.

I don’t agree with him. The highest number in ISM metabolic flexibility study is about that number, and that was a heavier rider. McNulty is a GC/climb-y guy.

330w seems like a good tempo effort for him (IOW, higher than LT1), hence doing it as an interval.

Haha! Great catch. Habit at this point.

Dunno, felt like I built a strong level of aerobic base fitness this past year. Averaged 8 hours/week last year, and ended the year with roughly 80% “low intensity” which I define as 143bpm = 82% HRmax / 89% LTHR.

But it really depends on you, right? That is one of Kurt’s messages. For example I definitely respond to volume, but due to life and recovery at sixty yrs old seem capped at around 11-12 hours per week. Can handle long stretches above 10 hours/week, but only if I focus on eating carb rich diet off the bike (6g/kg = about 550+ grams/day for me). Fueling off the bike makes a huge difference for me, I’ve tried increasing on the bike fueling but it doesn’t move the needle.

2 Likes

ISM suggests in this interview for mere mortals (not elite athletes) who are busy with life, doing Z2 ideally somewhere in the range of 3-4 days a week for 60-90 min, and if you have the time to do it more, go for it.

3 Likes

That recommendation though is for the average person seeking health benefits, not for the demographic here that is training for events or races.

1 Like

Yup, ISM uses himself as an example, someone who loves cycling (he mentioned he raced when he was younger), but is time limited during the week and gets out for longer rides on the weekends when he can and does it for exercise.

As for the demographic here, yes there certainly are lots of people training for events and races, but I’d say there’s also a number of us who never race and just like cycling and using structured training to stay in shape. So what I took from what ISM said was that only riding 4 hours still isn’t a waste though for non-competitive riders like me.

But, yeah if one is a competitive rider I don’t think it’s a leap to say all other things being equal, someone who rides 10+ hours a week will build a bigger engine than someone who only rides 4 hours. Sadly, not all of us can dedicate 10+ hours a week to riding. I know a really good week for me right now between work and family would be 6-7 hours, but that’s more the exception than the rule, usually it’s 4-5.

3 Likes

Depends what your background is and where you are coming from.

In Nov 21 I was doing 6 hours of Z2 a week and didn’t see my needle move much. Once I progresses to 8 hours a week of Z2 the needle started to move.

This week I have 9 hours of Z2 scheduled.

  1. I have 2.5 hours tomorrow
  2. I have 4.5 hours on Saturday
  3. I have 2 hours on Sunday

My needle has shifted approx 2.5 mph for same Z2 heart rate over same regular circuits. Another data point is that I’ve been able to maintain my speeds of 12-14 months ago at 20 bpm lower.

4 Likes

I’d agree with you on this. I’m pretty new with a poorly developed Aerobic system but i can say i get that same feeling. The rest of the session is not exactly hard, but my legs know I’m cycling.

1 Like

For me, the minimum effective dose of z2 is a ride that is longer than my current (consistently executed) z2 maintenance ride. For me, that is 2hrs so my minimum effective dose currently is 2.5hrs which I am working into my weekly schedule with my long ride 3hrs+. In time my minimum effective dose will be become 2.5hrs and so it continues…

Alas, like most I will eventually become limited by time and will have to manipulate the volume/ intensity equation a different way.

4 Likes