It’s the part on getting the benefit of zone 2 that has left me wondering.
In particular it seemed that if one starts doing intensity first and then adds z2 (as most do I presume), then due to lactate not being fully cleared (as I understood) the time in z2 might not be as effective as in the scenario of doing intervals at the end . 
He even mentioned not doing intervals in the middle as these would still blunt the endurance part of the workout.
I’ve always done Z2 with FTP stuff 3/4 into the session or in the last hour… like 4x 2.5 minute at and just over FTP.
Like this…
Are you talking about something different?
Ok, I see what you’re saying now.
That is the justification for that approach but it’s important to keep in mind A) total duration of session, and B) how quickly lactate clears (returns to near baseline)
Example 1: I do a Zone 2 (mostly) ride and at the end do some hard efforts. Fine . (@Bbt67 example above). Got the benefit of the low-intensity 
(timing of the intensity)
Example 2: I do a 4-5 hr ride with 2x15min threshold efforts in the middle somewhere. That’s a significant amount of Zone2. Lactate from those efforts will clear in minutes (coinciding w/ FaxOx going up as a percentage of total). Lactate does not “linger” at high levels. CHO consumption does not “linger” at high levels (as a percentage of total). You can get back to baseline (or just above) in a fairly short period of time. (duration of the ride)
Example 3: I do a 3 hr group ride. I’m up, I’m down. Lactate (and other physiological params) never really have a chance to stabilize. Or maybe they do but for brief periods of time. So you’re never really riding at low intensity, and the “intensity” (fartlek, really) is a lot? a little? you don’t know? etc. 
(not a bad type of ride from time to time, I like them…but not always ideal).
sryke posted a little graph a few weeks ago about how quickly FatOx returns to “baseline/normal/high/whatever” after doing a threshold effort (I think). I’ll try to track it down.
As an amateur, doing this “sprinkled/ad-hoc” intensity in an hour long session is what you are likely being advised against doing. When you’re only on the bike for 1-1.5hr, I think most would say you want to target a specific type of ride. This is the primary argument for structured training. Highly detailed structured training and low volume go hand in hand. IMO, that’s why amateurs spend so much time discussing it and then you listen to a high level coach and they might be a little puzzled about all the question about “workouts”, “sessions”, etc. Some will ask “what is low volume?” For the purposes of my comments, anything under 15hrs / week, which is most (but not all) ppl on this thread. Sometimes that’s the reason we talk past each other. One guy is on 8 hrs / week. Another guy is 20 hrs / week. Different training.
@jz91 What are your thoughts?
I do your example 2 as well… normally SST in the middle i.e 3x 10, 2x 20, 2x 15 etc dependant on the route I’m on in a 4 to 4.5hr ride… if I’m feeling strong I might just do random lenght intervals and just aim for TiZ of say 60 minutes aka a Fastcat approach.
Why do you do such kind of intervals at the end? I mean, what is the benefit of 4x2’ at treshold? Is there a purpose for such a ride?
Can be longer, that was just and example, could have just as easily been 3 x 8 minutes and 95% FTP.
Why?
Because with 2000 - 3000kJ in the legs it is hard and make you cry like a baby. 
(I’m joking)
It is to train fatigue resistance, do the hard work when already tired. It also replicate events when the action happens in the second half / last quarter. Making them specific to the efforts your event requires is probably a good idea.
Thread on Fatigue resistance (many different ways to do it but general get some good kJs in the leg and push some watts)
And then just to add (and not contradict this, because I think it’s valid). There is a school of thought that would say “it simply doesn’t matter”. Doing intensity “fresh” allows a coach or athlete to track what you are capable of (are you tired? can you complete the workout? how did it feel? do we need to up things or bring it down?). Or, is it simply that you only have an hour and you need to slam some intervals? 15 min warmup, workout, cool down. Done.
The adaptations that you seek can happen either way (my “strain” comment above). Doing intensity in an isolated way or at the beginning is not inherently better.
I don’t really have an opinion on it. I don’t know enough to say. Just wanted to present all the angles (that I know of).
Out of interest ;-). I also think doing some intervals after a Z2 workout could be a good thing, but 4x2min seems a little short? For a benefit? I guess…
Some of the adaptions will be the same. There is a difference imo, although it may or may not that big. Also some of it is in the head.
Anyone can push out intervals after a 15 minute warmup but can they do those intervals after 3 - 4 hours.
Since I started typing and thinking about it more, fresh verses not, there is going to be a very difference recruitment of muscle fibres and glycogen depletion must have some affect, it surely must make a difference, although just because it seems to make sense doesnt make it true.
I do know before I was introduced to these type of fatigue resistance sessions, by Tom Bell in 2018ish, I couldn’t sprint over 800 watts after 4 hours. Now I can get within 50 watts of Pmax. Not great numbers but my max is around 1175w and after working on FR sessions after 5hrs I can still hit 1100w plus thats a big improvement on <800w
I am not saying this difference is all down to FR sessions, of course its not, maybe just doing regular 5 hour sessions with a a bit of tempo anywhere in the ride would achieve the same thing, but I’m convinced they help in a significant way. Even if just in my head, if my heads convinced so are my legs.
You are doing me out of 2 minutes there 
it was 4x 2.5 minutes (the notes are correct, the title misleading), 10 minutes in total. I seem to remember starting a 8x 1’ 105% FTP and building up, although sometime going back to short duration but more watts.
The 4x 2.5 were at 100, 101, 102, 103% but basically on the road each one just go a touch harder.
It was just an example, one of the only custom TR workouts I had to share. These days I just ride a 2 - 5 minute hill towards the end of a long ride until I am lossing the will to live (joking, but I find then hard, mentally more than anything), or concerned about cycling the 30 - 45 home even at Z2… lol
I tried it with a 10 minute hill once, I only did 1.5 repeats.
I’d say try some… not really sessions for inside though unless you love being on the trainer for 3 - 4 hours.
I mean, I tend to think it makes a difference, too, but I was treading lightly because I really can’t say for certain. I have Tom Bell’s workout library and I see those FR workouts in there Good stuff. I also really like his “a lot over, a lot under” lactate clearance workouts, although once again 
is it REALLY due to improved lactate clearance or is it just that they have been really effective for me. 
I like either answer.
My overall point was whether the justification is fatigue resistance building or simply that it doesn’t make as much of a difference as you think: doing intensity in the middle or end is most definitely not wrong. You can see a lot of benefits.
I’ve given up on trying to understand the adaptations. All I can say is “I’m sold” after doing two years of fewer intervals and more endurance.
I think I am almost there. This should probably be its own thread rather than hijacking this if it goes anywhere. I am convinced enough that I need to push my volume up a fair bit. I think I can get from 6 to 10 or 12. I know for sure I am not recovering from the intensity I am doing on a heavy week now so I will need to reduce intensity to allow for the added stress from the extra volume.
So, how does one dive into what a training plan should really look like?
Lots of the books out there look like the opinion of 1 coach, which may be great or trash but unless you have tried stuff as a coach on 500 folks how can you tell which it is? Should i still do the TTE/“more sweet spot” progression during a 10+ week base phase where I am pushing up volume? Should I still do some vo2max stuff in there to maintain prior adaptations? how often? biweekly? Is there value in threshold/over under work in this phase?
I am hoping that for me none of this matters right now. I have never done volume at this level so I suspect i will get results almost no matter what if i dont get hurt. When i ran for performance just pushing from 30 to 45 miles made me way way faster no matter what the volume looked like.
What I am looking for is suggested reading and directions to go in to build a high level, logical season level training plan so I can start learning what will work for me now. That way maybe i will know a damn thing in when eventually just doing MORE stops being enough. I know i could just hire a coach and (maybe) get the (an?) answer, but this is a hobby not a job. The fun is the planning and the workouts, the result is not the goal.
For that reason I’m a fan of FasCat intermediate plans and the Carmichael Training System, for example the CTS Gran Fondo intermediate as 8-week mid/late base. Have posted some example weeks in other threads. This does belong in a separate thread.
My coach told me once that doing hard stuff at the end shocks your body into adapting more, you are sending it different signals than intervals on fresh legs. A lot of his multi hour rides he prescribed were endurance ramps that finished with 45 minutes at sweet spot after 3 hours of progressive ramping. They killed me
I used to like doing Hunter Allen’s kitchen sink ride but the 5 hour version was way too much for me. I did a 3 hour version. I’m nearly 50 so not the spring chicken I once was. His advice was to ride z2 for 2 hours before starting and then the main workout took another 3 hours. Hard intervals and sprints spaced by z2 then a long sweet spot at the end.
I have a 15% hill just next to the house. Try to hammer that at the end of a long ride. Usually well off fresh legs power but I hope it helps send the right signals.
Once you are a 12-15 hour per week athlete (or more), every ride is 2-4+ hours long. You end up getting a lot of Z2 on interval days. A 12-15 hour per week athlete probably does no more intervals than a 6-8 hour athlete. They’ll probably do a bit more sweet spot and tempo and then the bulk will be more Z1/2.
I often hear about more advanced athletes doing progressive rides/runs. Kolie Moore in his base podcast was talking about having athletes progressively ramping up the intensity. Like the first hour at 150 watts, the 2nd at 175 watts and the last at 200 watts. (Just numbers pulled out of the air for the sake of illustration.) Skiba talks about progressive workouts in his new book.
I follow the pro cyclist, Kristen Faulkner. I sometimes see her bust out a block of 30/30s at the end of a 3-4 hour endurance ride.
Yeap, I totally agree with you. Good stuff. I can’t say either, generally if it feels right and you are getting results it can’t be too wrong (well I hope.)
As I alluded to there are different ways, or might be in many in some cases, of achieving something.
It is easy to look at one thing ‘x’ and think this is a positive result and because of ‘x’, confirmation bias, when really it was a result of ‘y’
In reality in might have been ‘x’ and ‘half of y’ lol. 
Sidenote: I’ve only been posting so much because I am tapering for Manchester Marathon (Sunday), all this extra time from shorter training sessions it driving me nuts. Don’t worry I’ll disappear again soon. I did use some info gleaned from the ISM thread so this isn’t total irrelevant to the thread. 
Also itching to get some bike fitness back after this weekend and some ideas from ISM will be part of it.
Good luck with the race.
FWIW - What worked for me when building volume:
Went from 6 to 8 to 10 to 12 hours and just rode with a focus on accumulating time at LT1. I didn’t stress about how much LT1 and I didn’t stress about throwing in a bit higher power to climb a hill or sprint a roller. In the old days we called this style of training: “riding a bike”. What I did do, was consciously avoid “happy hard”. Wanted LT1 so kept it there. Mostly.
Instead of 6 x 2 hours to get to 12 hours, I tried to get some 3-4-5 hour rides in as well. Again, no stress on that, but on nice days with extra time I stretched it out.
That was an 8-10 week block (*)
As fitness came, and it did, started adding focused 60 min bouts at around 90% MLSS. 200-210w for me and couple times a week.
With fitness increasing nicely after 12-15 weeks, started pushing harder doing a TT effort once a week. That’s basically 25 min going very hard. Also added some VO2 sessions but to be honest, I think those added fatigue and dulled my legs and spirit more than contributing to any real fitness gains. Speculation not data.
Did the TT / VO2 thing for 6-8 weeks and the season went into fall and “just riding”.
Hope that helps. Just go get the rides in and you’ll see when fitness bumps up and I bet you’ll be happy and feeling good too. This isn’t a science description but it works. In the end, its hours and hours of riding at tempo (10-12-14-16 hours at LT1, Z2, whatever term one likes) that builds the base and with that base comes really good sensation and fitness.
(*) Am getting ready to recapitulate this type of training again starting in a couple weeks. Am not in good cycling shape as I couldnt muster the energy for rollers all winter and lifted weights instead. Am hoping to repeat the prior LT1 experiment with similar results. Ask end of June and we’ll see how it went!
-Darth
Fatigue resistence workouts with some harder stuff in the end: I train for 5-12h events. FR is key. However, I tried this late-ride-intensity thing but found it too taxing. Takes too long to recover from, especially in a high volume context. I’m not a firm HRV believer but this is something I see in the data: takes quite some while to recover from this. And I try to balance my workload in such a way that I’m sort of fresh for most sessions: for sessions with intensity but as well as for long endurance sessions. I rather approach FR with back-to-back days or 2-a-days or simply riding a lot. Overall training load is higher in a more sustainable way.
Yes, I think, I kind of agree.
You only need a little at the end, even less over 5 hours if any at all, and it is serious hard, as you say it becomes hard to recover from. So a ‘little less’ is ‘more’ with this kind of work. If it messes with the bigger plan probably best getting consistent long sessions in with a bit of tempo, that is just my thoughts and might be BS.
