Endurance Cycling: 65% or 75% FTP? Does The Fatigue Matter? Long Ride vs. Short Ride? Yearly TSS?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лис 2024
- Should we ride easier and have less fatigue? Or ride at the higher end of the zone for more adaptations?
Or are the endurance adaptations the same everywhere within zone 2? What does that do for yearly TSS, and yearly Work (kj’s). Does that matter?
What can you put out week after week, or on back to back weekend rides?
Should endurance be different for a Long ride (4 hours) versus a shorter midweek ride (1.5-2h)
What about cadence manipulations with lower wattages?
The effect on yearly tss and overall work? This seems like a fine balance.
The interesting thing is that we start talking about 5% differences, that’s 20W for me. That’s a big jump! Maybe this has less of an effect for someone with a 250W FTP? But still, a 10% difference is 25W, that’s a lot!
Brendan@EVOQ.BIKE Patrick@EVOQ.BIKE
Full blog: www.evoq.bike/blog
I bet I’ve heard 5-6 podcasts with top coaches, researchers, ex pros re: biggest mistakes people make and universally they discuss the mistake of trying to always ride at the top of any given zone. TSS is only a number and you can either chase TSS or you can focus on the adaptation. Do the least amount of work that results in the desired adaptation and then make fun of the people with huge CTL after you beat them.
totally agree; we aren't advocates in chasing TSS. That said, I don't think easier is always better. kilojoules matter; gotta do the work some days, even at endurance pace; and I definitely feel that some rides that some rides done at the higher end get very tough and improve muscular endurance. Tough thing to test, but I know a lot of athletes that do mix those into the routine. Great point tho!
Absolutely. When you target your average at top of zone you spend half the time one zone further up. And this gives different adaptions. My go is target somewhere mid zone and allow drift to reach the top towards the end. That means the shorter the ride the higher I start, the longer the ride the lower I start.
This dude's z2 is my threshold.
keep after it !!
this dude's z2 is my neuro-muscular power or high anaerobic capacity
Some good advice I got once was ..." If you are feling good, go for the top of the zone, if you are feeling bad, go for the lower end of the zone. Your legs will tell you.... Just keep the pressure on the pedals & keep it slightly uncomfortable throughout"........... Of course taking into account of whats your next workout.... listen to your body.
+1 ! Thanks for this comment Shane!
I can't fathom someone doing 4 hours at 300W. I don't know if I can do one minute.
Thank you for sharing this. 75% for 5 hours or more would be very difficult for me. Not a problem for 2-2.5 hours. At some point I would need to drop down to the 65% area.
it definitely is tough; if you're riding 5 hours, that's huge as is, even at 65%! nice work!
Why not ride to endurance heart rate instead? It’s proven that the metabolic penalty at 2 hours is a lot less than 5 hours in. 75 percent 2 hours is much less of a load than 75 percent at 5 hours in. Heart rate isn’t perfect but at least it gives insight to the internal strain on the metabolic systems as the rides get longer.
I would definitely bring HR into the equation these days! I lead with power, but keep an eye on what HR is doing; great point, thanks! Maybe time for an updated video ;-) good luck with your training
Hey Brendan, I recall when Craig was coaching me that his opinion was that I was getting the same adaptations at 60% as I was at 75%. He was wanting me to hold back so that I was “guaranteeing” that I was hitting my intervals on the hard days. So, the cost benefit wasn’t there to hit 75%. Although my natural inclination is that I always want to hit the high end of any workout so maybe not bad to reign it in. Is there a right answer? Sounds like it’s not clear .. but simple point is don’t sacrifice your hard workouts?
100%, don't sacrifice before a hard workout, not worth it; BUT if you can ride towards the higher end and hit both, I'd lean towards that. Only way to tell is to test it on yourself!
65 vs 75% Does it depend on the individuals ability to recover? Recovery is limiter which can be extremely difficult to nail down and predict, until you have built enough experience.
that's another great point! def don't want to overdo it JUST to hit 75%! more is always better, but i don't think less is always better either. great question!
Sorry to be late to this, I’ve just found it and really like Brendan’s material. This is such a great discussion - it is one of the issues that’s vexed me most this year since I switched to a more Polarised approach (loads of Z2) in Nov 2021. I started with 65-70% of Max HR doing a combo of both then thought I could do 75% as my breathing was still find and I could pass the ‘talk test’ that Inigo San Milan mentions is more relevant than % of Max HR (or HR reserve, Seiler) or % FTP. My % Max HR now broadly aligns with my % FTP (which is 350). But I find 75% more than 1.5 hours fatiguing for the next day’s training. So the two main variables to consider are duration and intensity (say % FTP which is what I think you were discussing). I think duration trumps intensity in Z2 up to pretty large durations (possibly 5 hours or more). As I like others are time limited, I maximise my duration (ranges from 1.25 to 2.5 hours weekdays, longer on a weekend) and then calibrate my intensity to manage my cumulative fatigue - so I am feeling fresh enough for smashing a weekly VO2 session (I’m not racing at the moment). That means on days I can do 1.25 hours Z2 I go to 75% and one days I can do 2.5 hours I’ll lower the intensity. Today I did ‘aerobic intervals’ for 2.5 hours which was 5 mins 75%, 5 mins 65%, so averaging 70%. (Maffetone suggests this when folk following the MAF (approx 73% max HR for me) approach find their MAF watts is high enough for it to be fatiguing). That really benefits from a mental perspective too as it chunks the time and helps you get through the session. That’s my current view but also wanting to learn how best to optimise training and make the most effective use of the time I have to train.
nice, that's a good idea on the Aerobic intervals, def passes the time on a long ride if the brain is not feeling excited to be out there and needs some distraction! best of luck with the training!
My longer rides on the trainer are between 3-4 hours and what works for me is to build it up with blocks of 55-65% and 65-75% (it's more fun to). Usually I spend less time in 65-75%. I routinely alter my intensity based on training load and how I feel each week.For example I have a two hour endurance ride tomorrow, and since I feel very fresh, I will probably go 65-75%. Thanks for your podcast, it's one of the reasons I got back to PT.
awesome, keep up the great riding!
Guys, this content is great!
I'm sorry I missed the open forum but it was just too late in European time.
thanks Bogdan, we'll have another with a more friendly euro time!
Just a thought - aerobic decoupling in zone 2 seems to most notably occur at a certain percentage of FTP, perhaps somewhere between 70-75%. Would it make more sense to train that aspect in particular on long endurance rides, so leaning towards 70-75% rather than 65%? Aerobic decoupling seems to reflect a number of trainable things (ie. consistent cardiac output, LT1, hydration management, resistance to fatigue). Like mentioned here, not to say 65% wouldn't have any benefits of course! Interesting discussion, been really enjoying and learning a lot from your videos.
there's a time to ride at 70-75, and times to ride below! they all have a good reason, and you bring up a great reason to hit that higher end. good luck!
Have you read or listened much to Dr Inigo San Millan, this is kinda his thing. I can't remember it exactly but I think lactate levels play a role in the optimal spot to train at.
Oh yeah! He has some good stuff esp with the velo news guys
Can we not look at the decoupling as a marker? Most of us have a a limit to the amount of time available for endurance/overall training. For example, if we are completing a two hour endurance ride at 65% (of FTP) with minimal decoupling, does that indicate adaptation has been achieved at that intensity and it is time to increase to say 70%? Interested in your thoughts.
hi Geoff, we could, but one issue that stems from this is the high variability in HR. One day we're "adapted", but the it gets a little warmer, or we have poor sleep, or more caffeine, and now it's drifting. I think RPE is a better gauge. If 65% feels like we could ride it for 4-5 hours, and we aren't gritting our teeth to hit the number, then maybe we move up to 70%.
Also depends on FTP; we're seeing that as riders FTPs and also hours increase, they often say that hitting 75% for 4-5h is really challenging, and tends to not feel like endurance after a while. So for those cases, RPE helps again.
For shorter ones like 2h, you might even go up towards 75%, and check your decoupling as you mentioned, while keeping those other factors from HR variability in mind.
Hope that helps!
@@EVOQBIKE Thanks Brendan!
@@geoffnash2609 thanks for the great Q Geoff!
Hello Brendan, question about HR and Watts: we ride our base miles at Z2 mostly(lets say 170w) with Z3 on hills(200-210w). If i am at z2 heart rate and on short hill pedaling standing from lets say mid-z2 HR at 300watt - does it hurt the Endurance ride? At that short climb the HR rose from mid-z2 to mid-z3...did the body count it as an Aerobic because there was enough oxygen in the blood for 30sec surge or it ruins the endurance ride? Thanks.
I'd try to keep it to z2-3...300w would be over threshold, so producing some lactate. It's not the end of the world, but if you can avoid it, it's a good idea to. Sometimes with climb though, it just can't be avoided!
@@EVOQBIKE thanks, actually it seems logical, since: the blood has a lot of oxygen before the hill, but it doesn't help in this case because for 300watt x 30sec the mitachondrias still need to produce from oxygen and there is not enough, so lactate is produced to fill the gaps of power for that short time :)) Thanks, learned from your channel so much!
If you aren't bothered about maximising fat burning and adaptation then don't worry but those short threshold efforts are more glycolitic and it takes a while to switch back to fat burning.
@@richardmiddleton7770 thanks, i'll keep z2-z3 on Endurance base rides
I guess my question would be what the point of pushing the endurance rides would be? Just like a lot of American races are about short climbs.. or shorter efforts, how often are we needing to ride upper z2 in the pack or off the front? I get improving the overall engine but will it be as substantial as the work done at the upper end that you may sacrifice but accumulating more fatigue?
Current ftp is 300 and the difference between 200w and doing 225w feels pretty significant to me.
that's the question at hand! extra kj's, extra aerobic benefit from possibly more mitochondria production, why 60% vs 50%, almost same convo as 60 vs 70. wouldn't say upper z2 is race specific at all, more for the physiological aspects though
What we can eat during 3h z2 ride? Carbo?Fat?
both IMO since both are burned. take a look at our blogs that go much more in depth if you need more info! www.evoq.bike/blog organized by category at the top!
Hey Brendan I have a question, I'm a phenotype sprinter, heritage from my olympian mum but when I go cycling and do a ftp test, they always end up not correct as I can push lots of watts very high in lactate. When I then derive my Z2 from those tests, it always feels wrong. 65% feels exhausting and HR is not in the Z2 threshold. I always turn my FTP value 10% down so it feel right, but do you know any way to determine my ftp (and thus zones) better?
hey Nick! You are right in that you should ride the endurance so that HR and the feeling is "endurance", but one question would be, how are you getting your FTP #. With such anaerobic power, you need a longer test, 30m or more; are you doing that? Are you using any software also?
@@EVOQBIKE using the long test in Zwift
idk what that means. can u email me, brendan@evoq.bike; easier than YT comment boxes. thanks! u using any software, pls include that i email too! if yes, send a screenshot
Wouldn't the optimal percentage to elicit aerobic adaptations be right under VT1? seems like 65-75% might be too generalized.
honestly that's part of this conversation; it's REALLY hard to tell EXACTLY which is the MOST optimized...we're just trying to discuss all the different variables so athletes can ask the questions about their own training and see how it fits in; it definitely isn't just always x or always y. Great point!
Are talking average power here or Normalized?
average
@@EVOQBIKE Well, the thing with average power, if you live in a hilly area (some too steep to keep the power on) then if you try and chase average you will end up riding too hard, whereas NP seems more representative.
@@SteveT__001 of course! Still stay within the zone. Going z1 and z4 but averaging z2 is surely not z2
@@EVOQBIKE Yeh, that was my point ;)
If you ride 75% percent Z2 300ish Watt you have to fuel like mad, and if you don't do that you won't be able to do the same the following day. Eventually you would overtrain surely. Pro athletes with FTP of plus 430 Watt don't train at 75% the carb intake is just mad. They still rather go for 65% 90% percent of base rides. That's scientifically proven. Amateurs tend to go way to hard when they are asked to go easy and when asked to go hard, they can't performm due to fatigue.
i don't think fueling is the issue; you still have to fuel a lot at 260W. it's more the absoulte watts, that 300 is 300, it's a lot of stress for EVERY z2 ride. There's a place and time for them both! Scientifically proven, where? It's just what people talk about and know-most pro's ride easier because they are doing 25H weeks
@@EVOQBIKE I agree. For example Tom Dumoulin spent 90 percent of a training year at 190 watts avg. There is a paper or at least statistics that proof that. Doesn't really mather though. We all know riding slow will eventually make you fast and stronger since fast twitch fibres a recruited after a certain amount of time in the saddle.
Very interesting topic.
Seems so straight forward but once you try and pick it apart, it becomes quite complex.
Found the Keirin comment pretty interesting - > Which type of riders would benefit from staying on the lower end of this zone? Sprinters and more anaerobic focused riders?
Let’s say I’m a track guy or a sprinter, would I then opt for the lower end? Maybe to spare fast twitch fibers as much as possible.
i think you nailed it there...save the watts for the BIG efforts!
It should be based on HR not power. 70-75% of max HR or 180 minus your age works well.
using both is an even better approach IMO. AND not OR.
Seems pretty easy without watching the podcast. The longer the ride the lower the percentage. I.e. short 60-90min rides 75%, longer rides 3h+ go towards 65% or whatever numbers you choose to stick to. Of course you should do both anyways. I really wonder what all this overthinking shall be. Where did common sense get lost ? Depending on the duration of the ride I start at an intensity that will let me drift to z2/z3 border over the lengtht of the ride. If it is really hot or very high elevation I allow HR to drift into z3 range towards the end. Recently I made a 7hr ride with 5hrs ascending at 1500-2500m elevation with power in z2 and HR was stable in the z3 range due to lower oxygen availability. I could easily ride the power, but never ride that Z3 HR for so long at sea level. Just think rational and use the whole range of the zone as it fits the situation.
interesting: if it's so easy, why do you explain it ;-) snark gets snark back 🩵 we get this question asked a LOT, so we answered it. this channel has a lot of videos like this, where we talk about cycling training. you may not enjoy it; just a heads up