The references in the article above are pretty good. If an article is behind a paywall, you may be able to find a free PDF by googling the title in quotes. That often works for me.

And, as you guessed, the “right way” to measure mitochondria in muscle is up for debate.

So this "80% easy with 2 sessions per week with chunks of intensity work" seems closely aligned with the general principle of Seilor's Polarized program. He renames what the 5-zone plans call Z1 and 2 into Z1, and (as far as I can tell) anything above Z3 is re-named as Z2 by Seilor. I see no point in arguing with his terms, or with anybody else's preferred language.

I'm slowly working back from getting my butt, glutes, quads, calfs, and lungs clobbered by COVID. Most of my aerobically significant work (indoor pedaling in Level 1, walking in metroparks up to 5 miles near the threshold of conversation, and a few small attempts at outdoor pedaling when the weather gods were speaking in my favor. Plus 1.5 to 4.5 hours of yoga per week, including standing poses, balance, Sun Salutes, balancing, leg isometrics and pretzel stretches, finally inversions to relax for meditation and the end. This is all lead by an Iyengar-certified professional instructor. So there's certainly improvements in strength, flexibility and balance. It seems to me that all of what I'm trying to do follows the bipolar (Seilor) pattern, rather than some partitioning of the 5-zone patterns. Even before COVID I have had a lot of trouble managing with 5 zones to watch out for.

I feel that “Specificity of Training” is the over arching principle. The last few years, most of my riding (not training) has been solo zone 2 and now I can’t even hang at the back when I run into the other 60 plus guys I regularly rode with before. I’m fit. I can ride and climb all day in zone 2 for 100 miles and 10,000 feet. But for 2024, I want to stay within sight of the other fellows as they try to tear each other’s legs off and that means regular intervals in zones 3, 4, and 5.

Interesting article but long...not a criticism. With respect to mitochondria biogenesis, it seems murky. What I know is that 4 billion years ago, mitochondria merged with simple life to set the stage for humans today. Mitochondria is a separate life form with its own DNA. And we get our mitochondria from our mother via her egg. Thank your mom for your mitochondria. Does mitochondria density change over time due to training stimulus - biogenesis? Not clear. I am not sure that it matters to us since we know that we need more time on the bike if we want to ride longer. Also, cells need to "ask" the mitochondria to make ATP. The communication may be corrupted due to aging...one theory. Does exercise improve communication/fix corrupted communication between cells and mitochondria?

I have been very interested in the role that blood plays in aerobic power. Increase hematocrit and there is more oxygen capability of the blood. What happens to mitochondria when faced with MORE oxygen than is needed? Does that cause biogenesis and or increase in respiration or enzyme activity?

And when it comes to hematocrit the kidneys are the boss. They determine blood volume and signal the bone marrow to make more red blood cells and thicken the blood. More oxygen capability of the blood supply that occurs naturally (no drugs) improves aerobic performance and recovery. Long distance riding destroys red blood cells which have to be replaced during recovery. Intensity, on the other hand, creates a hypoxic condition that causes the kidneys request the bone marrow to make more red blood cells. Of course, intensity will also destroy red blood cells.

So the training question is what is the correct prescription for 1. mitochondria biogenesis / increases in enzymes and 2. increases in blood hematocrit and 3. individual genetics. Very complicated.

However, one can measure blood in the lab and get feedback on blood markers as well as kidney filtration and other markers to see if diet and training are improving blood. Mitochondria performance is too tough to measure and not practical.

Let me see if I got some of this. Mitochondria function beneficially by delivering ATP to cells upon a demand of some sort. It's not clear how sensitively this control function is regulated, nor if the dynamics of the response, say in fast actions, are always adequate or optimal. It's not clear how to measure mitochondrial action of this sort is measured effectively. We do have significant evidence that mitochondrial action at least has measurable and beneficial effects, so it is important to consider it in athletic nutrition and its influence on effective training program. We also seem to have a belief that "long, steady distance" (perhaps the same as conventional Zones 1 or 2 riding or Seilor's Zone 1) are training zones which promote mitochondrial action or the potential for mitochondrial action when demanded.

I need to map out a training plan for the year. I rarely satisfy plans fully, but I do more if i have one than if I don't.

I think the research suggests that mitochondria content (number of mitochondria in muscle) is increased by the volume of exercise, which mitochondria function (ability to take in oxygen) is affected by the intensity of exercise. Both are beneficial.

So long rides promote the growth of mitochondria, and hard rides promote the ability of that mitochondria to do their job supplying energy to the muscles.

My simple take is that as you increase training volume it becomes more beneficial to devote a larger percentage of your time to z2 training instead of thrashing yourself into the ground with volume and intensity.

But the mistake to avoid is spending a lot of precious time in z2 on a low volume plan. I have friends who do this kind of thing (eg an hour or two of z2 riding 3 or 4 times per week) and wonder why they are slow.

Yeah, some people call that the "zone 2 trap". It feels so pleasant that people want to do it all the time, so they get stuck in that slow plateau.

I think of zone 2 in a similar way, as a recovery ride pace. If I'm feeling fatigued from the prior day(s), but not so fatigued that I need a rest day, it's time for an easy zone 2 cruiser. But the notion that you must stay in zone 2 for the whole ride or you'll undo the zone 2 "benefit", or flip some metabolic switch, seems just plain goofy.

Pootling along at zone 2 for hours is boring. My favorite type of ride is plenty of zone 2 cruising, broken up by some harder efforts lasting 1 to 10 minutes. Mixing up the pace keeps things interesting, I'm getting a more well rounded workout, and I don't get so thashed that I can't go again the next day.

I don't have a zone 2 trap. I have a zone 0 trap - bone-idleness. Just restarting to ride (two at 15 minutes indoors, Z2) this week, these first few rides are very enjoyable. I'm hoping to get up to 30 minutes at this stress level "pretty soon!" Z2 is not so bad!

Well San Millan is under the bus.:eek: And what if you do not need an easy day. Who decides that? Your inner Terry? What does he know?:D You know I am busting your ass. But it does beg the question if ones inner self is a reliable guide.

For me, if I am working out with my coach and faster people, my inner self STFU. YMMV.

Are you saying that my inner Terry is not well calibrated? Maybe not perfect, but those subjective measures seem fairly reliable. I don't see the value of suffering away on a down day, and maybe it keeps me out of the "gonna make yourself sick" zone.

But I hear you. When riding in a group, my inner Terry doesn't get the attention he deserves.

according to the good doc, the one we are ignoring :), bouncing out of Z2 and producing lactate essentially ruins the effort for 25-30 min.

All he really preaches is - if your doing Z2, do Z2 so you get the best benefit from the workout.

According to another good doc (rymes with "froggin"), the good doc we are ignoring is spouting nonsense:

"This whole notion that it takes a prolonged period of time to reset metabolism (after high intensity) has no physiological basis whatsoever. In addition, who cares? Because you don't have to burn fat to get good at burning fat."

He also says that lactate does not in any way inhibit lipolysis (fat burning).

Yeah, that’s not something I’m going to worry about. When my running plan says start by running some miles at an easy pace, I do try to stay at a high zone 2 level. If I go faster, I just won’t be worth as much on the sprints or intervals at the end.

But on long days, if I work a little harder up a hill or something that’s just fine. And biking is now kinda the cross training thing so it’s mostly zone 2 but again I’m fine with pushing a bit more up a few hills.

Otto

I think that makes sense if you are on a 25 hour per week pro training plan where overall accumulated stress and fatigue becomes critical to your success. But for us mere mortals, “ruining” a z2 ride by adding in a few harder efforts probably just gives us slightly different beneficial adaptations. As long as we are not overtraining then it probably doesn’t matter.

IIRC didn’t the guy who interviewed San Milan experiment with a very strict z2 plan leading up to some amateur race and ended up under-performing?

OK OK - I guess both experts have some valid points.

For me personally, possibly due to my low carb diet, I see decent gains just doing Z2. Recovery is a big part of it - I just don’t recover well from intervals or intense sessions, so my overall volume suffers.

San Milan’s work is more than just about cycling performance - it’s also about researching the effects on heath issues and disease. I’m biased towards his line of thinking because of this, and what he preaches works for me personally.

And I’m not out doing any crit or TT races - my goals are to improve my steady state power outputs with the ability to hit the higher zones when needed without blowing up. So large amounts of Z2 with a few blocks of intervals here and there to polish things up seems to work well - for me.

Coggan is an excellent cyclist and physiology geek that created a model - not a coach. San Millan is a coach, with athletes, and researcher who is trying to optimally build mitochondria with the focus on biogenesis. The measurement method seems to be lactate testing.

When our training group did San Millan z2 for one hour at the track fixed gear no brakes, it was very difficult. Tooling around z2 guided by ones inner self is another matter. There is no happy spot riding San Millan z2. It is not surprising to me that UCI pro tour racers did well racing following the long San Millan z2 workouts - it matches the distance / duration of racing they do. San Millan gutted the pro racers 6 hour group hammer and nail rides and replaced them with solo z2. Of course, they do high intensity intervals, train at altitude and race (part of the training program) leading up to one day classics and grand tours.

I think it is hard to follow / shadow a UCI pro tour riders training program and turn it into a personalized training plan. They are genetic freaks. Even if one scales a pro program back with the idea that most of their riding is z2, it may not work well for individual time constraints, goals, genetics and etc.

Everything I've heard on this suggests that you do both Zone 2 and High Intensity Interval Training. I think it is almost surely a mistake to say things like "the best and most effective way to develop and maintain healthy mitochondria" The first problem is you have to define what "healthy mitochondria" even means.

Mitochondria do so many different things. They supply energy during endurance exercise. They do the same for short high intensity exercise. Is "healthy" the ability to do either or both of these things? Or is that just performance?

I've been taking terrymorse 's challenges regarding actual research seriously and what I've turned up so far is that there are at least three major categories of mitochondrial enhancement. Mitochondria can combine into larger and more complex mitochondrial networks. Then can split into many smaller but more numerous mitochondria. And we can form new mitochondria (biogenesis). So, much like other systems in our bodies adapt differently depending on the various stresses, it seems that mitochondria do likewise. And the research I've seen so far is not easy or simple reading. So far none of the research seems to say that "zone 2" or endurance training is "the best". Likewise nothing says that high intensity training is "the best" either. BTW, typically every paper says something like, "There is much more to understand. We need to do more research." None of this is down pat yet.

In the meantime, we can have our opinions about what we think is happening - even if none of us actually knows. That said, it seams seem clear that just about all the data says that it's important to "build an endurance base" and to do "high intensity stuff". And I suppose that if you are all about optimizing performance, this is where you start journaling, recording biometrics and maybe getting some coaching. For the rest of us, understanding that there needs to me a mix is probably the important bit. Pushing hard all the time is unlikely to be the better strategy.

That "we need more research" section at the end of a paper is so common, I tend to think of it as a "please remember to fund our next proposal" statement.

NTTAWWT :)

Sure. But it's a good reminder to anyone reading the paper that they want to see whatever result the paper reports repeated a few times before getting filing it in the "almost surely true" folder.

'Zone two' is what cyclists call 'having a nice time' when we want to make it sound scientific | Cycling Weekly

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...58da607d02.jpg

edit: :roflmao2: :roflmao2: :roflmao2:. Scientific - .... :roflmao2: :roflmao2: :roflmao2:



;)

Yes, and the gold standard is biopsy before and after the training intervention. There are lots and lots of papers.

Im going to bump this thread with the quote above and my latest experience.

This was the end of three intense training blocks last spring .
A summer of free riding, Z2 fall/winter training prior was ho hum, I was shooting for a 280-300W FTP after the three blocks Failed miserably.
Note that I couldn't even finish the 3rd interval:
1 12 min @ 238W Av HR147 Max HR152
2 12 238 150 155
3 1 226 130 140 (fail, miserable fail)

After similar summer riding to the prior year, but a dedicated fall/winter of Z2. My first set of intervals in my first block of training.
1 10 281 147 151
2 10 286 146 152
3 10 290 148 156

Starting at 50+w higher than I finished the previous year, which was similar to the year previous to that.

Was able to really push the third interval, had more in the tank and finished the last min at close to 400w.

Lower RPE, lower dead feeling in my legs, better endurance at higher power, higher VO2 max - and only Z2 training for the prior 4 months.

The base is bigger - shall see if I can build a bigger peak on top.

Z2, at least for me, has some merit.

I've destroyed my aerobic base with tons of hard riding in zone 3 with tons of sprints. Since Thanksgiving (2023) I started seriously doing Z2 training, but I don't do it on the bike, I do it at the gym on a combination of machines. The Stairclimber, Treadmill (at max elevation) and an Arc Trainer (not an elliptical).

It's really helping me. But I still do a little hard efforts as a test, but never too hard that I need to take time off. I do cardio 4x a week and strength train for the remaining 3-days.


P.S. I don't attempt to stay in a certain HR zone, I simply do it by feel, in that I do the hardest exertion, but still can talk. I have yet to burn myself out, unlike my bike rides where sometimes I just passed out after a bike ride.



.

I don't think that you can destroy aerobic fitness by exercising hard. If anything, harder rides with sprints ought to improve aerobic fitness.

If you could destroy your aerobic base by riding hard then the likes of WVA and MVDP would be nowhere before they even got to the Spring Classics!

OK, maybe I worded it wrong, by saying I destroyed my aerobic base. However, I am feeling much better after the workout since doing nothing but Z2 and I do like seeing my HR stay about the same as my performance goes up. However, it must be noted these are activities I've done far fewer times than cycling, so I'm sure I'm building capillaries in parts I was previously lacking.

LSD.....Base Miles.....Zone 2.......

That works great until you ride with a group. Zone 2 soon turns into Zone 4. Or maybe their Zone 2 pace is my Zone 4......

Getting dropped yesterday gave me plenty of time to ponder, do I need to ride harder or easier?

Thanks for the reminder to "find and watch some Spring Classics"....

They're probably going quite hard. I don't know of anyone who climbs in zone 2, even on all day events. The best aerobic conditioning I've ever found is simply riding with a group that's faster than you. That's way better than doing intervals on your own. Getting dropped is very good. Keep riding with that group. I got dropped every ride for about a year, that's once a week, but I held on longer every ride. We rode once a week, all year, rain or shine. Eventually I wound up leading that group. I'd tell the newbies to "hang onto their wheel until the blood spurts from your eyeballs." A group ride will teach you everything you need to know about cadence, pacing, nutrition, and clothing. Cadence: always spin about the same cadence as the rider whose wheel you're on.

That said, that's just once a week. A 3-5 hour group ride is all the high end conditioning you'll need. The rest of the week, ride Z2. You probably won't be able to profitably do anything else, but do put in some miles. Strength training in the gym twice a week is a good idea, too. I usually did a ride the same day, but only an hour or less, before the gym. If you don't do the group ride every week, you will need to do some intervals to make up for it. This Z2 only thing is taken from pros and elites who can put in 15-20 hours/week, but they are also doing group rides or runs or skis of varying intensity.

When I started my year's training in October, I'd put in a lot of Z2 hours, working up to 2 hours on the rollers 5 days/week for about a month, which was very helpful. That was plenty of low end work, but that's a lot of riding, many people won't be able to even do that. By now, I'd usually be doing some sort of midweek intervals too, maybe low cadence Z3 hill climbs or long periods of max cadence work on the rollers. Only 4 months to July. I kept up doing this routine every year into my 70s.