I was a fat loser until I turned 30. So I’m not sure how much of a foundation I had. Kind of annoys me how little I took care of my body growing up. Sort of wish I did some kind of exercise because like you said, it probably would have set me up better now. But, as Mads loves to say, you can’t cry over spilled milk.
No, but it’s pretty well established that different people respond differently to various styles of training. So it was just a cool tool to see if there was any correlation between different blocks or years and what it did for me. Especially with years of different approaches. The old TR plans with lots of sweetspot, newer TR plans, block periodization, high volume, polarized.
I’d reached this conclusion myself after trying lots of Z2. I was doing 12-16 hrs/week with lots of Z2, but I am fitter/faster and less fatigued doing 11-13 hrs/week and higher proportion of Z3. No differences to my top end workouts.
I fell for the DJ propaganda too. All the long Z2 rides on the weekend just made me fatigued without making me faster. I am back to 8-10 hrs/wk and faster than ever. Adding 3-5 hours on top of that in Z2 was ineffective for me, especially from a quality of life perspective. I am getting great results with the AI plans and for me the biggest gains I noticed was in my power floor.
Note Faster for me is performing in Zwift races and shorter gravel events (100mi is the max I will do).
The old TR plans did burn you out a bit, but at least they made you faster.
As the same couch said riding in zone 2 has a mathematical problem. He said that Matt Pedersen is doing threshold intervals at 450 watts. He pointed that with such FTP riding in z2 only will need massive amount of calories like 10 000 per day, fueling become problem too. That is unspoken reason for elites to train mostly in z1. He said Z1 for Matt pettersen is 250W- 5hrs in it would be almost 5 000 calories, he argues that even in “fat oxidating mode” thats a lot and Matt is really unusual rider in elites. This seems really interesting.
You guys can go find the Steve Neal tempo training topics if you are interested. You can find others:
I did a tempo build (built out to 4x20 minutes over a 2-3 months starting in January) and achieved my best results in recent years by June.
I really think there is something to a high volume of sub threshold intervals. One could find numerous other examples. The famous “double threshold” is not really threshold. It’s a lactate controlled set of intervals that ends up being more tempo / sweet spot to use cycling lingo. Marius Bakken would be another source to look up.
I think what tempo training does is give one a high training load - CTL in cycling analytics. You could get there any number of ways (high volume z2, threshold intervals). Tempo intervals though seem to be easier to recover from.
Yes, the fueling aspect is real for the elites more so than normal people, but it is also the reason most people are probably not doing well on extra zone 2 work. It has a significant metabolic cost while riding in zone 1 is substantially lower. If you think of zone 2 as part of your intensity budget it may fit in the overall picture much better.
I’m also using zone1 and 2 as the physiological response, not the power zones. You might be able to ride 60-65, maybe even 70% of FTP in zone 1. Using the same definition brennus posted above.
Maybe, but at least lately at Reddit it was consistency, intensity and then volume.
But it could be contextual (as it usually is).
However I personally agree. Especially for average Joe athletes. I may remember him also adding frequency in there. Far better to do 90min 6 days a week rather then two 5 hour rides a week.
also much easier to insert intensity and be able to recover from it.
As much as I think the Cog is right on with all this pronouncements, he’s also a sweetspot all the time kind of guy. Maybe that is a function of his personal physiology?
I seem to recall him saying something akin to that optimal training is the greatest training load you can recover from.
I have a hard time seeing how you can define that as objectively consistent. Sure.. maybe you check one box (consistently doing 1 hour) but then leaving so many others unfulfilled for how most people would define consistent.
Let us say it is exactly the same each week and you do it consistently. The structure does not matter, as long as you do it consistency as the first foundation according to the above posts.
I don’t think any coach ever would call 1 hour a week checking the consistency box. Heck, I don’t even think the AHA or WHO would call that the bare minimum for exercise. Just sounds like you’re trying to argue for the sake of arguing.
Also sort of related, the Roadman podcast with Mads’ coach touched on this. He said Mads requires extreme consistency. To the point that if he misses a single day of training it derails his training.
Zone 3 (Tempo) never left, it only appeared this way due to cycling and longevity influencers, and 80/20 marketing. Zone 3 was still prescribed by coaches at different times of the year. Even Seiler recognized cyclists often trained with a pyramidal training intensity distribution.
I think also most of us simply understand progressive overload as standard and aren’t explicitly listing it. I’ve done frequent short workouts after a long break, but those eventually need to increase in overall duration. To keep progressing.
100% disagree. I think TR even has the data to prove that. I know Jonathan has brought it up multiple times on the podcast that consistency is the biggest factor for people getting stronger. I think you’re using “consistency” incorrectly. Whether on purpose to try to make a point, or in earnest. Either way, your example isn’t consistency.
