Then stop trolling. Get back to trying to improve WKO lite ;)

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

but dr coggan very much would agree with this study given his lydiyard reference lol
so i guess this six week study showes that for 6 weeks both can agree ;-)

...which showed no difference in the performance gains achieved (in terms of FTP) between the threshold or polarized programs*, due to the variability between subjects and the small sample size.

As I said, a fool's errand...

*What's that you say? Mark cited this study as supporting the superiority of the polarized approach? Alas, if you actually look at the data - instead of just reading what the authors have to say about their data - you find out that that isn't true, at least with respect to maximal steady state power:



ETA: Note the inappropriate scaling of the Y axis of that graph...if it started at zero as it should, the differences between groups would be shown as they really were, i.e., much smaller.

I should also point out that the polarized group DID achieve greater improvements in peak power output (i.e., power at end of incremental exercise test) and in time-to-fatigue at 95% of peak power output.

Of course, that's not surprising, given 1) the specificity principle, and 2) the fact that the threshold group had spent exactly 0% of their time training at above level 2 during the 10 wk prior to testing.

Man, I've been holding back with all my strength because I lack any formal education in this area, but there's an aspect that seems to be lurking just beneath the surface of this discussion: the role of muscle group recruitment training.

Is it possible that some of the inherent fuzziness in all of this is because studies of any type, by their very nature, seek to isolate variables. And one variable that seems to have the potential to contribute lots of noise to the signal is the degree to which one person has, by whatever means, trained their muscles to fire, and equally important, relax, at the *precise* right moment.

I unsuccessfully tried to find an article that described how high intensity training benefited lower intensity efficiency because it helped dial in the exquisitely fine orchestration required by the myriad muscle groups in play. A really over-simplified example: if your quads are contracting with huge force, but your hamstrings haven't yet learned to shut off completely, or at the right time, then it seems like your lab-rat numbers (lactate samples, etc) would predict one thing, but actual performance might not reach that expectation since your muscles are fighting against each other.

I really hope this isn't an irrelevant distraction, but it's been nagging at me as I've followed this thread.

Its a study that is highly relevant to what was being debated. I made no substantive claims regarding its results. You’re both burning straw men. Despite its relevance it doesn’t support your opinions regarding SST/L4 which is why I referenced it.

Unless you can find a study that is relevant and supports your opinion then I’m utterly done with this.

Mark

Relevant? Yes. Particularly informative? No. Such is the limitation of science when attempting to answer the question at hand.


You keeping saying that, yet here you are again...

Did you think about this an OP:

A new study supporting what I have been saying for almost 20 y
then with the study.

I don't understand what you are attempting to say.

The OP was:

A new study supporting what I have been saying for almost 20 y, and refuting previous false claims by the likes of Mark Liversedge and Nathan Townsend:

Opening without attacking Mark and Nathan would have provided a better chance to focus and discuss the issue. Instead a lot of good informative discussion was lost in personal attacks.

Mark and Nathan are the only reasons why there is anything to discuss in the first place. The study in question isn't original enough to be worth discussing otherwise.

What's the point of science unless it can be weaponized into personal attacks?

This question spurred me on to look at one of the main claims of sweet spot training that you can go train again the next day. Seeing I am in a sweet spot block I have done the same session three days in a row now.

Based on resting heart rate, Garmin vivoactive 3 stress score, Garmin 520 recovery time and training preparedness score I have been ready to go hard again and based on power have actually gone better each subsequent day. Round 4 will be tomorrow. Interesting seeing I am combining training with losing body fat.

For the time crunched I can fit these sessions well into 90min. Go into a threshold block next so will see if I can back these efforts up from day to day in the same way and then after that a VO2max block.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Doping aside, think about how much stress load protour cyclists endure in a week long stage race like Paris Nice. It's not shocking that the rest of us should have no issue doing 85-100% FTP for several days in a row for 45-90 minutes provided we are sufficiently trained in the first place. Or you can look at the FIS Tour de Ski which is more like the duration we are talking about (30-60 min stages) at much higher than sweet spot training.

I find these threads informative and don't know who the people are. I enjoy your contribution and respect your work. Find there is lots for me to learn, would rather not have to wade through pages of personal fights, though it is entertaining.

True.

That being said, I wouldn't consider myself well trained. 2017 was a crap year for training with illness, and lots of travel so I didn't ride much and put on a lot of weight.

Also my sweet spot efforts include 30s surges periodically and to finish off an effort, so there is a little L5 thrown in there.

Will be interesting to see if I can do the same at threshold or VO2max. Some riders I coach have cracked on Sweet Spot work but they do tend to sprint the surges (a variation of the over/under intervals that some do).

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Two good blog articles on MLSS...

https://ox-dep.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/mlss-ftp-plus-vo2max-and-20-power.html


https://fascatcoaching.com/tips/maximal-lactate-steady-state/

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I think if there is a lot of L5 surging while doing the rest of the riding at 85-100% FTP then it's really a lot harder than 85-100% FTP because you're having to clear the lactate from those surge spikes while operating at high intensity. It would be like a track athlete doing Daniels cruise intervals and throwing in 100m acceleration at the 1000m mark and then trying to do the next 500m at the pace of the first 1000m. That's going to have a big penalty compared to just staying on pace and the recovery for tomorrow will be infinitely worse. So I would say if you really want to repeat day over day over day, then take the surges out for now. My 2 cents.

But I can repeat from day to day. It's getting boring so will do uphill tomorrow. But next week is a rest and test week where I expect my power target to go up substantially. Expect that if I was to do SST sessions like this based on new fitness levels I may come unstuck.

Main point is my SST is different to others and as we saw Mark started at SST as 85% of Threshold (and I don't use mFTP), moved to 87-92% and Andy corrected him, again, that his view of SST was a far wider range of power.

Take home is everyone has a different take on SST so how are you going to measure it's efficacy? Louis Passfield highlighted this in his 5 myths of cycle training. There is no one optimal zone. We are all different, have different goals and different situations. Main thing to me is consistency and progress. Clearly I am not doing too much as I can recover from day to day. Clearly I am doing enough as my power numbers in training are going up and am confident of good test results next week.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Thanks for the detailed post on "sweet spot", which likely covers most of what anyone needs to know about training (for cycling), as long as it is fully understood and appreciated ;-) Couple of comments:


As well as bi-weekly sessions on the hometrainer playing with intensities around FTP, last winter and this winter I have also been experimenting with once per week weekend rides right down the bottom of the range you give here, at the "Z2/Z3 border". A few notes:
1. My inspiration was Lydiard's "aerobic conditioning pace", but applying it to cycling, with the aim of promoting aerobic/endurance adaptations, or at least not having them degrade too much compared to summer-time form when I can ride more. (I live in Switzerland, and winter weather/lack of daylight typically mean that a ride of 2.3–3 h is much more viable than anything longer.)
2. Also taking "inspiration" from running, where there is no freewheeling or resting while moving, the goal on these training rides is to maintain the target as actual average power, not normalised power. Tied to this, there should be no let up or lollygagging; the aim is constant application of power. Turns out that at first this is not a particularly natural way to ride...
3. My target AP output is around 250 W, or just under 4 W/kg for me. Putting this together with point 2, at a certain point, e.g. once over the 2 hour mark and pushing towards 3 hours, holding this constant rhythm is *not so easy*. Indeed, by the end of a session, it can demand quite some concentration.
4. As a side note, living somewhere hilly and with numerous villages, there are also challenges with route planning; I am limited to only 2–3 basic parcours. Still, since it's for a once a week ride over a few month period, this is not so bad.
5. Is it effective? Based on my training data it's certainly not counterproductive, since FTP and effective endurance are maintained/improved. Both winters I have been able to go from this training into an intensive training camp (with elites doing much greater volume than me) with no great problem as long as I fueled sufficiently. Indeed, if I can last almost 3 h at this pace, a longer ride at more typical pacing basically pretty much feels easy in comparison.


Agreed to that. Even without a power meter I discovered this back in 2000, when I pretty much blew up my season trying to follow Friel's Training Bible. Following year I looked back through my training log and worked out that it took me exactly 6 wk of regular high intensity training to reach peak form.* OTOH, I can apparently carry on "sweet spot" training as you define it ad infinitum, albeit keeping in mind both of your caveats "More is ALWAYS more - until it's not" and "Sooner of later, you have to increase the power...

*The kind of finding that, unlike certain matters endlessly brought up in debate such as the CP model, was actually usefully actionable.

Thanks for this^^

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blog: https://swimbikerunrinserepeat.wordpress.com