Thank you for your replies, Drew. We did hardly any VT2 work. In previous seasons, we did more >VT1 work and less <VT1 work and as the summer rides grew longer and longer, I would seem to grow weaker and weaker. The few high intensity rides exhausted me so much that training volume decreased. Which is what one would expect. High intensity training is done as a lower volume.

But this year, our training volume stayed high right up to our taper weeks. We kept the volume so high that we couldn't do the VT2 work that I knew we were supposed to do. We'd go out to a favorite interval hill and try, but we just didn't have it. So I was worried that this was the wrong thing and that we should rest more and do more high end. But we held the course and it seemed to pay off. I think younger folks could have done more VT2 work, but at our age it just wasn't happening. We did do a little >Vt2 work on our Sunday group rides, but not much and not formal intervals.

In the Stoggl study to which you linked above, the HIIT study group was the only one to lose weight. I restart my training program every year in October. This year, I'm tempted to start off with HIIT for a couple of months while trying to lose more weight and then restart the polarized work in December.

Interestingly, no one thought the weight training did much good.

I hope so, because you two guys are among those whose posts I thoroughly enjoy reading.

Joe Friel's zones:
Using those zones, by definition you can sustain the bottom of zone 5 for an hour. That's not a freak of nature, that's spot on zone as defined: your average heart rate for a one hour maximum effort.

I've been thinking about this for a while. Actually, I've been thinking about this for years, but with few unassailable conclusions. So just thinking out loud . . .

Let's say that we have two limitations: VO2max and repeatable leg strength or RLS. I can't think of a way to quantify this RLS variable. We know that for a given submaximal power output, our HR will run higher at a higher cadence, meaning that the higher the cadence, the closer to our VO2max we will be. Therefore at high power levels, the higher our RLS, the lower our cadence can be, and thus the more power we can produce before hitting VO2max. Some are stronger in one of these variables, some stronger in another. And of course both these variables can be modified by training, but still, there's talent involved. We saw this easily in two famous druggies, Lance and Jan.

On a long climb, it's pretty easy to figure out how to balance these two variables, O2 use and RLS, momentarily by shifting up or down and watching speed or power while holding the same RPE. The question then becomes "can you keep this up for 1-2 hours without your legs packing it in?" and that's where this VO2max/RLS balance becomes noticeable. On long endurance rides, I notice that if I get bogged down, meaning that in my lowest gear I can't spin my favored cadence, my HR will drop and my power along with it. Thus if I had more RLS, my power would be higher in those situations. In another situation, climbing a short steep pitch, I might hit my RLS limit in a gear, but be able to shift down and put out more power at a higher cadence, thus an extended sprint if you will.

By this analysis, my VO2max must be higher this season as I can choose to put out the same power at a higher cadence without blowing up, thus saving my legs. My RLS must be up too, as we've been doing familiar climbs a cog or two higher at the same RPE or HR, but I think the VO2max is up more because the cadence is higher even in the bigger gear.

Does any of this make sense or seem familiar?

Not so much really. We both trained exactly the same. Though our power outputs are very different, we like the same pedaling style and cadence and our HRs are remarkably similar for the same RPE. Stoker has my HR as well as her own. One of her jobs is to approximately match the 2 HRs, though she'll go a bit one way or the other, depending on her RPE. HRs will vary at the same RPE according to hydration and nutrition. It would be better if we both had pedal-based PMs, but that's an easy $2000. If we were 20 years younger, we might spend it, but not now.

Thus as you say, it's not only my response to the training which I'm noticing and remarking on, it's also my wife's. OTOH, clinical trials tell us that people generally respond about the same to various training stimuli. We are both obviously stronger and have had similar responses.

There's a power-dependent cadence producing minimum muscle activation which increases with power. This seems to impact fatigue and time to exhaustion.

Right.

From Cadence, power, and muscle activation in cycle ergometry

Reduced inertial load as from climbing or a trainer may preclude getting there due to the muscles getting you through the dead spots at 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock. Hence the example in _Training and Racing with a Power Meter_ of the racer who got dropped every time he spent more than five minutes at his FTP but cadence below 70.

Lovely link, thanks. I'll study that.