Originally Posted by
Carbonfiberboy
Perhaps the basic answer is that anaerobic training is not pure anaerobic. There's always an aerobic component. You may not have enough time for "pure aerobic training" to produce the results you're looking for. You might want to read Carmichael's Time Crunched Cyclist.
That's part of what I'm trying to flush out. The Coggan chart seems to indicate there is a definite cutoff at the top two zones where there would be very little or no aerobic benefit. That point also seems to be an area where you run into many differing opinions. From my own anecdotal experience I'd have to say I'm not getting much aerobic benefit from staying at the anaerobic side of the zones and I can't judge anaerobic cycling benefits because it's something that tends to come naturally to me anyway with a minimum of work. The other question that I've never found a decent explanation for is the difference between, for example, 3 hours of steady work with no break, and 3 hours with several short breaks to eat and rest. In other words is there something magical about a slow and steady, no break ride that you can't get from covering the same distance in the same amount of time with breaks?
I don't consistently have the time required for one 4-5 hour ride, plus other rides the remainder of the week. Also as much as I like to ride, 4-5 hours reaches a point where I just don't care to sit on a bike that long, unless I'm actually going somewhere. For the next three months it's getting too hot to ride fast anyway, so I'm going to test out doing a slow and steady 2-3 hour ride once a week every week for a few months and see what happens. Which may only prove what I know already without answering either question, that working on the weakest link is low hanging fruit when looking for improvement.