"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Zone 2 Training, Building Aerobic Capacity

I ran into this article, and it basically says what everyone else says about base training and zone 2 training.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/default.asp?pg=fullstory&id=866

The gist of it is, without zone 2 or base training you severely limit your aerobic capacity. I've been trying to find some pubmed abstracts or something that has actually done a study to explain the physiology behind this effect.

Can anyone point me to some studies or explanations backed up by studies?

You may not know this, but you have opened a can of worms. I don't think anyone would argue that there's no need for a solid aerobic base. The point of contention on this an other forums seems to be centered around this statement in the article: "Pushing yourself towards the red zone negates aerobic gains during long easy rides."

I don't see how that could be pysiologically possible. I can see the concern for burnout, I can buy into the need to do some long rides, but I don't see how occasionally dipping into the red zone during a long ride could "negate aerobic gains." Obviously if you're going so hard that you can't ride for more than an hour you're not likely to build an aerobic base. But saying that you can't mix some intervals into a long ride at the risk of "negating the aerobic gains" seems like a hilariously indefensible statement from a scientific, physiological standpoint.

--Steve

What do those scientists know? Are they even smarter than the average person? Just because they couldn't get base training to work for their test subjects under carefully controlled conditions doesn't mean you won't succeed where they failed. You have to have faith that base training works, even if no evidence supports it. The pros obviously ride a lot and base involves putting in a lot of time on the bike so the pros must be doing a lot of base.

The wider your base, the higher your peak!

With my training plan the " aerobic base" peroid goes from mid Oct till end of Jan. I train every day of the week and if I start creeping into zone 3 or higher during these workouts would run the risk of burnout when the season gets here.

So IMHO the real reason to say zone 2 or less during this time of year is to avoid burnout and give your body a rest from last season while maintaining fitness.

... The point of contention on this an other forums seems to be centered around this statement in the article: "Pushing yourself towards the red zone negates aerobic gains during long easy rides." I don't see how that could be pysiologically possible. I can see the concern for burnout, I can buy into the need to do some long rides, but I don't see how occasionally dipping into the red zone during a long ride could "negate aerobic gains."...

This was exactly why I posted the question. No one seems to be able to explain to me why I shouldn't ride hard during my limited time on the bike. As long as I am not burning out, why not ride hard 8 hours a week?


What do those scientists know? ... The wider your base, the higher your peak!

[edit] Can't tell if you are being sarcastic... [edit]
Squint, I'm sorry but saying "who cares about the scientists" is just asinine. I understand that anecdotal evidence can go a long way, but comparing my 8 hours a week to a pros 30+ hours a week and saying "the pros do it, it will work for you" doesn't make sense to me. I agree that a poorly conducted study or one that draws conclusions incorrectly is as dangerous, but I would like to evaluate that for myself. Our understanding of how our physiology works is always increasing, trusting Friel regarding his "wider base, higher peak" stuff is a good rule of thumb but doubtfully applies to everyones lifestyle.

I answered my own question...

http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/base.htm

This was exactly why I posted the question. No one seems to be able to explain to me why I shouldn't ride hard during my limited time on the bike. As long as I am not burning out, why not ride hard 8 hours a week?


Sometimes in order to get faster you got to ride slower. You cant ride 100% effort every ride and expect improvement year after year.

Sometimes in order to get faster you got to ride slower. You cant ride 100% effort every ride and expect improvement year after year.

But why? Assuming I am recovering and staying motivated, why not?

But why? Assuming I am recovering and staying motivated, why not?

I used to inline speedskate on a very competitve team with several national champions. We would train three days a week at 100% personal effort with every workout. The first year of skating I improved leaps and bounds but hit a hard plateau for the next two. I would try and try to keep up with those fast skaters but failed... So I would try harder and even threw more training at the problem.

After three years I had a fall out with the coach and started my own team across town. None of the fast skaters came and I didnt have a coach screaming at me to push harder so my training intensity backed down to around 80% and lower. After 2 months of skating at this PE level I went back to skate one training session with my old team and found I was faster than anybody else on the floor except for one guy.

The rest gave my body a chance to build instead of tearing down with every workout.

With my training plan the " aerobic base" peroid goes from mid Oct till end of Jan. I train every day of the week and if I start creeping into zone 3 or higher during these workouts would run the risk of burnout when the season gets here.

So IMHO the real reason to say zone 2 or less during this time of year is to avoid burnout and give your body a rest from last season while maintaining fitness.

You are spending 3.5 months doing Z12 stuff? That's cause for burnout in my book.

When I start training again, I'll go easy for a week to adjust the muscles, then start up the tempo until I feel fit enough to start throwing down hard.

The whole procees of building up to hard efforts (attacks, etc), takes no more than a month. After a month of that it's race time. So that's two months total to prepare.

Not saying you are wrong in your approach, just that who needs that much time to build such a simple base.

You are spending 3.5 months doing Z12 stuff? That's cause for burnout in my book.

When I start training again, I'll go easy for a week to adjust the muscles, then start up the tempo until I feel fit enough to start throwing down hard.

The whole procees of building up to hard efforts (attacks, etc), takes no more than a month. After a month of that it's race time. So that's two months total to prepare.

Not saying you are wrong in your approach, just that who needs that much time to build such a simple base.

I do zone 2 intervals, climbing, tempo, and core workouts. Would rather ride zone 2 and keep some fitness than not ride at all and lose what ive gained.

This is also the time of year your work on technique... something you cant really do well while hammering mid season.

I do creep into zone 3 every few workouts also..... Just that I dont stay there too long this time of year.

I do creep into zone 3 every few workouts also..... Just that I dont stay there too long this time of year.


What zones do you use?

What zones do you use?

High 2 to 3. Im keeping my HR below 161 (LTHR is around 185).

High 2 to 3. Im keeping my HR below 161 (LTHR is around 185).

No, I meant who's zones do you use?
Because everyone uses different levels and number of zones. Friel, Coggan, USACycling, Ferrari, Baker, etc

I personally don't use any zones, just sensations of easy, moderate and hard, but it seems Coggan's power based stuff is most popular now with all the power meter guys (L1-7).

here is a basic explanation for why to ride low intensity. as long as you are in the aerobic realm, you skew your body to believe it is resting when it is not. That is to say, if you're doing 150 watts of work at 120 BPM HR, your body will adapt quickly and you will be able to do the same workload at less, say 110 or 105BPM. In this way, you essentially raise the ceiling of where aerobic becomes anaerobic. Why is this important? Lactate threshold is VERY important.

here is a basic explanation for why to ride low intensity. as long as you are in the aerobic realm, you skew your body to believe it is resting when it is not. That is to say, if you're doing 150 watts of work at 120 BPM HR, your body will adapt quickly and you will be able to do the same workload at less, say 110 or 105BPM. In this way, you essentially raise the ceiling of where aerobic becomes anaerobic. Why is this important? Lactate threshold is VERY important.

After watching this type of discussion on several boards/posts, at least here is a reason. And it makes sense (not that I'm a Dr. or anything). But it doesn't answer the question completely (or maybe I'm dense--a distinct possibility).

But if a person's body adapts to 150w at 120bpm, won't it do the same at 200w at 140bpm? or 300w at 160bpm? What makes the lower intensity stuff magical? And because these workloads are higher, won't the adjustment be even higher than lower intensity stuff? (And of course, a person has to do recovery rides for this adjustment to occur.)

why is no1 talking about this article? http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/base.htm.

We on Bf need to make up our minds across the board. What is best at building base? I talking the most idealistic scenario possible for a rider having the most motivation.

So take a look at the above link and think about it really hard.

What is best at building base?



Ahahahahahahahaha

But if a person's body adapts to 150w at 120bpm, won't it do the same at 200w at 140bpm? or 300w at 160bpm? What makes the lower intensity stuff magical? And because these workloads are higher, won't the adjustment be even higher than lower intensity stuff? (And of course, a person has to do recovery rides for this adjustment to occur.)

IF you have the time to work at the LOWER intensities FOR a LONGER period, the fatigue will generally be smaller and recovery is less painful. LOWER = LONGER.

Simple summary of all base training discussions:

If you've got 1 to 1.5 hrs. of riding time on weekdays/workdays, and/or are on an indoor trainer, ride with higher intensity. If you've got time to do 3 hr. rides everyday, go and do them. On weekends, or whatever day(s) you don't have other life obligations, put in a 3 hr.-ish ride at terrain based intensity and have fun doing it. When you get closer to race season, you get more specific in your workouts, then when race season begins, you race, recover, race, recover, etc.

Simple summary of all base training discussions:

If you've got 1 to 1.5 hrs. of riding time on weekdays/workdays, and/or are on an indoor trainer, ride with higher intensity. If you've got time to do 3 hr. rides everyday, go and do them. On weekends, or whatever day(s) you don't have other life obligations, put in a 3 hr.-ish ride at terrain based intensity and have fun doing it. When you get closer to race season, you get more specific in your workouts, then when race season begins, you race, recover, race, recover, etc.

:roflmao: Ahhhhh freds. Gotta lov em. Life is so simple to them. How cute.

--Steve

Hey Steve impressive bolts! Titanium?

After watching this type of discussion on several boards/posts, at least here is a reason. And it makes sense (not that I'm a Dr. or anything). But it doesn't answer the question completely (or maybe I'm dense--a distinct possibility).

But if a person's body adapts to 150w at 120bpm, won't it do the same at 200w at 140bpm? or 300w at 160bpm? What makes the lower intensity stuff magical? And because these workloads are higher, won't the adjustment be even higher than lower intensity stuff? (And of course, a person has to do recovery rides for this adjustment to occur.)

To be honest there is no right or wrong answer. Studies and tests have been done over the past 40 years that show riding easier during the pre-season winter months helps more than just hammering non stop year round. Regardless of why it helps (this is the real debate) its proven.

All I can say is try riding with hard workloads this winter and come up with your own answers.

I have no "base" by the common definition, but I have a high aerobic capacity, training 75 miles/week.

All I can say is try riding with hard workloads this winter and come up with your own answers.

By 'hard' you mean 'train with intensity consistently throughout the year'?

If so then yes I will. So will the AIS boys. So will every winner of every race in every country next season. Only pack fodder will piss fart around riding Z1,L1,P1,D1,G1,R1 (or whatever else ya bloody well wanna call it) for 2-3 months.

By 'hard' you mean 'train with intensity consistently throughout the year'?

If so then yes I will. So will the AIS boys. So will every winner of every race in every country next season. Only pack fodder will piss fart around riding Z1,L1,P1,D1,G1,R1 (or whatever else ya bloody well wanna call it) for 2-3 months.


Cause everybody knows the best way to train is by going hard as you can for as long as you can for every ride right?

Don't you race weenies ever just RIDE YOUR FRIGGIN BIKES FOR FUN?????

Cause everybody knows the best way to train is by going hard as you can for as long as you can for every ride right?

These guys do and they're not doing too badly. http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/rushall7.html Of course there are many different ways of "going hard" and many ways to determine "as you can for as long as you can," but as a guiding priciple, I think you pretty much nailed it. The overload principle has beed pretty much accepted.

Don't you race weenies ever just RIDE YOUR FRIGGIN BIKES FOR FUN?????

no. duuuuhhh.

no. duuuuhhh.

Right. What was I thinking?

Don't you race weenies ever just RIDE YOUR FRIGGIN BIKES FOR FUN?????

The Tuesday Nighter, intervals, and hill repeats are fun!

Spinning along for 80 miles is no fun to me at all.

After watching this type of discussion on several boards/posts, at least here is a reason. And it makes sense (not that I'm a Dr. or anything). But it doesn't answer the question completely (or maybe I'm dense--a distinct possibility).

But if a person's body adapts to 150w at 120bpm, won't it do the same at 200w at 140bpm? or 300w at 160bpm? What makes the lower intensity stuff magical? And because these workloads are higher, won't the adjustment be even higher than lower intensity stuff? (And of course, a person has to do recovery rides for this adjustment to occur.)

To address the statement above, the reason lower intensity is magical is because your body senses that the stress "could be" no stress. In other words it is so slight that there is no need for the body to worry about anaerobic systems etc. Basically, it considers it part of base metabolism. Once one starts transitioning into an aerobic anaerobic mix, the body says 'it is time to pay attention to this' because it is doing real exercise. You can no longer trick it into incorporating the work into what it believes might be rest. This is not occurring at what cyclists consider lactate threshold, but does occur just above a "fatmax" HR/Power. The way to determine this is to go into a lab and have your fatmax determined by measuring respiratory input/output, but it is safe to say that for most people it is between 70 and 76% of the MHR.

The higher intensity stuff is good, but the stress/benefit ratio is best in the lower zones (that is not to say that higher stress is not good, and with limited time, it is often necessary).

Endurance is a function of Aerobic capacity for the most point. You want to train the efficiency of the HEART/LUNGS/BLOODSTREAM. This is not to say that higher intensities do not do this - they just don't do it as well. (Think of baking a cake...you leave the oven on 350 for a while. Turning it up to 550 does not make it go faster).

Most racers over think this stuff.

Like all sports... as long as you continue to raise the bar, and are recovering well, you’ll get stronger. If you're not feeling it - take some days off.

It's not complicated, but there's a lot of money in making it that way.

Just ride your damn bike!

It's not complicated, but there's a lot of money in making it that way.

Right. The secret to winning races is "just ride your damn bike". If that makes you happy, great.

I found that I lost a lot of fitness riding at medium intensity during the winter. My power at any pace did not increase.

I think there is a middle ground here and that is tempo work. With only tempo work, I am able to maintain within 5 pounds of my race weight, it's hard to overtrain with, and it gives much greater gains than riding in L2-L3.

The SST post has this interesting table that shows the adaptations that occur at each zone:

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/training_tips/_images/SweetSpot%20adaptations.jpg

There is another thing to consider and that is muscle fiber types. Muscle fibers are activated in a fixed order depending on the amount of force required. At low forces only slow twitch muscle fibers are activated. As the required force increases the slow twitch fibers do essentially the same thing – they do not fire more strongly etc – instead fast twitch fibers take over the additional workload. If you look only at the slow twitch fibers when comparing one hour at moderate intensity to one hour at near threshold intensity you would find they are doing the same thing. The only difference is the amount of work done by the less aerobic fast twitch fibers.

So why not do high intensity training during the off season? No reason as long as it is not making your longest rides shorter than about 125% of your event duration. It is very hard to get slow twitch fibers to hypertrophy because you can’t increase the force placed on them (the FT take over) so the only way to “load” them is to increase the number of repetitions. The number of repetitions is directly related to the number of hours you spend riding. You can’t replace that effect with riding harder for a shorter period of time, you just end up training a different metabolic system. In may even be counter productive to the slow twitch repair processes as more of your bodies “recovery budget” is going to repairing the fast twitch fibers.

I am not against doing some high intensity training during the off season; I am just a supporter of multipace training, not one pace training. Work all metabolic systems!

I might accept that a long (huge TSS) SST workout trains all systems. However, I will not accept that a 45min workout consisting of 1 min intervals will.

Lastly, if you are in a higher cat your road races are getting pretty long… might as well get used to riding for more than an hour. Your ass, arms and back will thank you later.

It is very hard to get slow twitch fibers to hypertrophy because you can’t increase the force placed on them (the FT take over) so the only way to “load” them is to increase the number of repetitions.

Why are you trying to make slow twitch fibers hypertrophy?

The SST post has this interesting table that shows the adaptations that occur at each zone:

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/training_tips/_images/SweetSpot%20adaptations.jpg

While that chart is informative but I believe the “X” marks are more based on a unit of volume. So VO2 max work may be 3 times more effective than zone 2 at increasing ST hypertrophy but the volume is minimal.

8min x 3 IU/min = 24 “imaginary training units”
5hours x 60min/h x 1 IU/min = 300 “imaginary training units”

Sure Z2 is less time-effective but it is far more net-effective.

The number of repetitions is directly related to the number of hours you spend riding. .


or cadence.

While that chart is informative but I believe the “X” marks are more based on a unit of volume. So VO2 max work may be 3 times more effective than zone 2 at increasing ST hypertrophy but the volume is minimal.

8min x 3 IU/min = 24 “imaginary training units”
5hours x 60min/h x 1 IU/min = 300 “imaginary training units”

Sure Z2 is less time-effective but it is far more net-effective.

I think the "X"s are a way of visualizing the amount of stimulation induced while training in a particular zone for a given range of time for a given physiological attribute.

The current table that Coggan uses is here:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp

Cause everybody knows the best way to train is by going hard as you can for as long as you can for every ride right?

With caveats, you're about right.

Base training will not help you finish strong after the third hour in a hard climbing race. Or prepare you for a 4-5 day stage race. Only hammering for an hour a day can do this.

Charts should be accepted as Holy Scriptures in lieu of racing success (because they are never wrong), and we should come to the realization that everyone is physiologically and chronologically the same, and that all events are essentially the same.

And close your eyes (and ears and nostrils) to any racing success achieved by those who advocate base training. That was just a big accident. Like a soiled diaper, not worthy of study.

And finally, Andy Coggan knows everything there is to know about bike racing and training. I mean, he wrote a book, right? And didn't he work with Lance and Alberto and Levi and Cadel...

Out.

http://www.mattresspolice.com/images/sarcasm.jpg

Perhaps I've misunderstood something; however, why would a racer who races primarily events under 2.5 hours (70 to 90k) want to train entirely in zone 1/2/3? Further, the majority of races in my area (I can't speak to others experiences) are crits, which are under 1 hour.

In my own experience, riding in zone 1/2/low 3 improves your ability to ride in zone 1/2/low 3, which isn't complementry to races where I am primarily in zone 4/5/6. I can understand the importance of riding long (5+ hours) in zone 2/3 in order to improve endurance because it's simply not possible to ride for 5+ hours in zone 4/5. Rides shorter than 4 to 5 hours in zone 1/2/low 3 would be almost recovery with minimal adaption.

Isn't training about balance and listening to the needs of your body? (i.e., if you need rest or to improve endurance for a century, adjust your schedule to train in 1/2/3 to permit workouts over 5 hours. If rest/endurance over 5 hours isn't necessary, training is most effective in zone 4/5 with "some" time spent in 6/7). Ultimately, training should mimic racing with rest to allow adaption. So your training should reflect the demands of the races in which you want to compete.

http://www.mattresspolice.com/images/sarcasm.jpg

Correct.

Why are we arguing about this? All of the 'commonly' accepted stuff I've seen would advocate steady-state style base is best.

Hell, just anecdotal review of data of road races I have tells me that. My RRs are 75 miles long, so how do I prepare for a 3hr race? Um, ride as hard as I can stomach for 3 hours? Base shouldn't be easy, but at the same time I'm not working sprints outside of the cyclocross series.

Oh yeah, and locally at least - the fast guys in the 'cross races tend to be the fast guys in the road season. Go figure. If I suck it up this year riding as much as my work/school schedule allows, as hard as I can recover from and racing cross, I won't do it again next year. Somehow I doubt this will be the case...

Perhaps I've misunderstood something; however, why would a racer who races primarily events under 2.5 hours (70 to 90k) want to train entirely in zone 1/2/3? ... So your training should reflect the demands of the races in which you want to compete.

Well, that's what RacerX was saying.

The whole reason I asked the question is to discuss exactly this issue. Not all training techniques work with everyones schedule. The issue I was trying to answer was:

"If you have X hours in the week to train, what is you most effective schedule and why?"

What I would like to see is a formula that takes into account how many hours a week you have, what kind of races you are training for, age, etc, that could give you a ratio of base to interval training.

I'll come back and sell it when I have found it. $0.99 a pound.

Andy Coggan knows everything there is to know about bike racing and training.

Thanks for the compliment! :p


didn't he work with Lance and Alberto and Levi and Cadel...

That's actually closer to the truth than you seem to think...