80/20 IM Plan - Bike not improving

Triathlon Forum
1

Training for Placid in July. Just started the build phase this week. Cycling is by far my weakest discipline. Over the base phase, my FTP did not increase at all; however, I do feel like I can ride longer. To be fair, I did start the plan with a decent level of fitness. Looking at my TP graphs you can see my fitness did not improve at all. If you couldn’t guess, about 80% of the riding was in z2. Looking ahead at the build phase, it seems there is only one day a week with some z3 intervals–this just doesn’t seem like enough training stimulus to get faster. I understand specificity, but I want to be able to go longer faster.

Should I add another day of riding to the schedule each week with some z3/z4 intervals? For context, I weigh 143lbs and my new FTP was 176 (down from 205). I think this is because I did the most recent test in TT position, could have been a bad test too. I don’t understand why my FTP (and w/kg) is so low. I’m relatively fit (70.3 time was like 5:15). Is 5-7 hours on the bike /week just not enough?

https://imgur.com/a/FzkwpTg

2

Training for Placid in July. Just started the build phase this week. Cycling is by far my weakest discipline. Over the base phase, my FTP did not increase at all; however, I do feel like I can ride longer. To be fair, I did start the plan with a decent level of fitness. Looking at my TP graphs you can see my fitness did not improve at all. If you couldn’t guess, about 80% of the riding was in z2. Looking ahead at the build phase, it seems there is only one day a week with some z3 intervals–this just doesn’t seem like enough training stimulus to get faster. I understand specificity, but I want to be able to go longer faster.

Should I add another day of riding to the schedule each week with some z3/z4 intervals? For context, I weigh 143lbs and my new FTP was 176 (down from 205). I think this is because I did the most recent test in TT position, could have been a bad test too. I don’t understand why my FTP (and w/kg) is so low. I’m relatively fit (70.3 time was like 5:15). Is 5-7 hours on the bike /week just not enough?

https://imgur.com/a/FzkwpTg

I don’t see how 80/20 can work for cycling or swimming, running, perhaps but that would be high volume. All the decent cyclists and AGers I know do very little Z2 riding. Z2 would be a recovery ride really. For a 70.3, most of us would do a longer ride say 100km on the Saturday which would have Z2 in it, but include intervals. Say 5 x 15min at 80% FTP 3 recovery. With an easy warm up and cool down. If I going to really simplify it, for me training hard reaps rewards. I’ve never seen much of a connection with training easy. I did see some decent benefits with my run with 80/20, but that was 70-80km a week and even then the longer “easy” runs would drift into Z3 because you’re running with others. If you’re finishing the session fresh as a daisy then perhaps there hasn’t been much benefit?

3

How long was the base phase? 16 weeks?
How do you feel?

According to the photo your TSB is flat and has been for 16 weeks.

The only thing I question is it appears you are averaging 135-140ish TSS/day which is nearly 1000 a week and is ridiculously high. That is why I would like to know how you feel.

4

Base was about 16 weeks. Average weekly TSS across all three disciplines is probably around 600-700. Looks like around 50 /day for the bike roughly. I feel too good, I don’t feel like the training has been challenging enough. I’m hoping that build will feel harder, but considering adding volume or intensity.

5

I don’t see how 80/20 can work for cycling

I mean there are plenty of examples of elite cyclists doing around 80% of their training easy. So it clearly can work. If it works for low volume is a different question.

Over the base phase, my FTP did not increase at all; however, I do feel like I can ride longer.

The goal of most base phases is not really to massively increase FTP. It’s to build a big aerobic base so you can then handle the training in build phase which should be more aimed at improving FTP. So the fact you feel like you can ride longer is actually a decent sign it did what it was supposed to.

I think this is because I did the most recent test in TT position, could have been a bad test too.

You need to normalise the test as much as possible to make the results comparable. But bad tests do happen. I wouldn’t get too worked up about one test. You should have a good idea based on what power you are pushing in your intervals and the rpe of where your fitness is without needing to do an FTP test.

Is 5-7 hours on the bike /week just not enough?

Judging from your training peaks CTL no. I’m not the biggest fan of CTL as a measurement of training/fitness, but without anything else to go on I’d say you would expect it to be increasing. Of course the solution could also be same time but more intensity in your hard workouts, although this may well pick up now you are in a build phase.

Probably also worth double checking your power meter is correct.

6

I don’t see how 80/20 can work for cycling

I mean there are plenty of examples of elite cyclists doing around 80% of their training easy. So it clearly can work. If it works for low volume is a different question.

.

Well yeah, same has been argued that 80/20 works because elite runners do 80% of their training easy, but someone like Mo Farah is running 240km a week… whereas your average age grouper is running 50km a week. And elite cyclists might be doing 6-8 hour rides. So guess we’re comparing apples and oranges. Running 80/20 on 50km a week is going to be 40km easy, 10km hard. Which in my opinion is going to do nothing. So yeah I don’t think 80/20 works for age groupers. At least not those on average volume.

I feel, with 80/20, something has got lost in translation. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but 80/20 is applicable only to high volume, that’s the key. Run/ride easy, but run/ride lots. Whereas AGers are adopting it and applying it to low-moderate volume programs and it just doesn’t work.

7

A couple fundamental questions before any other details can be addressed:

  1. Do you have time in your average week to train more?
  2. Do you have recover-ability in your body to train more volume and/or intensity?

It sounds like the answer to both of these is yes. I’m not a big fan of the traditional base/build for anything but the seasonal amateur. If you’re serious about training it’s not restart training with intervals almost immediately after whatever offseason you take. Base building is cool if you’re staring from zero, but MVDP/Blu/most athletes with years under their belt are starting with a big base. Jump straight into threshold stuff, Vo2 stuff, whatever you need to bring up the most. Get more specific as the event gets nearer.

What can you do between now and Placid? Not a ton. Pick the intensity range you think you can ride/run at and just hammer that intensity until you go blue in the face. If you feel your top end weak from the base work try throwing in 1-2x week of Vo2 stuff at 10-15min at VO2max HR however you can get it.

My personal opinions is that a lot of coaches unconsciously lower their programs because people disproportionately quit the hard ones ($$$). Train as much as and as hard as you can recover from. You should never go into any training session feeling 100% recovered, but you also shouldn’t go into anything but rec sessions less than ~50% recovered. You can train a lot harder than you think you can.

Edit to add: FTP is an okay but flawed measure for IM, 60min =/=600min. Ditto for TSS, it’s good but the scaling of intensity:volume is more appropriate for ~1h length events. Huge swings (like your FTP swing) are notable, but small differences can just be an imperfect algorithm.

8

"All the decent cyclists and AGers I know do very little Z2 riding. " Yes as someone I know said you can’t even get people to have a crack on a group ride anymore, people only want to f-ing ride Z2… but then again he just loves the drop rides where if you can’t hang on you are riding home by yourself and they hammer through the harbour tunnel in SYD

9

Aside from whether 80/20 is actually beneficial, training needs to be enjoyable to some extent. I did a 200km IM training ride with a group, sitting on 27/28km/hr. Including stops for lights, punctures, water refills the ride took over 7 hours. Started at 5am, by the time I got home it was 2pm…complete and utter shit. I’d never do that again. Bored out my mind.

10

I don’t see how 80/20 can work for cycling or swimming, running, perhaps but that would be high volume. All the decent cyclists and AGers I know do very little Z2 riding. Z2 would be a recovery ride really. For a 70.3, most of us would do a longer ride say 100km on the Saturday which would have Z2 in it, but include intervals. Say 5 x 15min at 80% FTP 3 recovery. With an easy warm up and cool down. If I going to really simplify it, for me training hard reaps rewards. I’ve never seen much of a connection with training easy. I did see some decent benefits with my run with 80/20, but that was 70-80km a week and even then the longer “easy” runs would drift into Z3 because you’re running with others. If you’re finishing the session fresh as a daisy then perhaps there hasn’t been much benefit?

For the OP: coaches and scientists will almost always tell you the opposite is true.

Still not sure if zedzded is serious or just trolling 😂

11

I agree with zedzded. 80/20 makes a lot of sense at high volumes because obviously you can’t do 50km of hard running per week. But if you’re running 50km total per week, you can handle more productive work than just 20%.

12

For the OP: coaches and scientists will almost always tell you the opposite is true.

Still not sure if zedzded is serious or just trolling 😂

Serious.

Like I said 80/20* worked for me for my running, but that was 70-80km a week, biggest week 100km. Most Agers are on 40-50km week. I guess it’s a sliding scale, more volume, the easier you can go, doing 8-10 hours a week and 80% of it easy is not going to see much progression.

  • my easy running was still faster than recommended.
13

This always triggers me up so bad, lol I do not know why but it does. I’ll be kicked out and sleeping out with the dog tonight at this rate.

The problem with those zone 2 twitter influencers is they just all say the same thing over and over and have a big love in. Much better to just go out and have a cry when you get dropped and then do it all over again. Over years.

People new to aerobic sports can’t just follow Peter Atia or Alan Couzens or those other zone 2 people, buy a garmin and do a few zone 1 rides and think your going to let it rip. Need to really have a go and do your best to hold shit the bed pace and then do a lot of steady work on top of that

14

I may just be talking to myself, but one of the things they recommend is buying a lactate testing kit so you can set your own zones and make sure you don’t train above 1 or 2 mml of lactate. Because obviously if you do that you will have bad breath and merit a terrible spanking.

Imagine taking a lactate meter down to the pool or the surf club. The boys would be so confused and take you aside. I would bow my head in shame, too pitiful to ever return.

15

Training for Placid in July. Just started the build phase this week. Cycling is by far my weakest discipline. Over the base phase, my FTP did not increase at all; however, I do feel like I can ride longer. To be fair, I did start the plan with a decent level of fitness. Looking at my TP graphs you can see my fitness did not improve at all. If you couldn’t guess, about 80% of the riding was in z2. Looking ahead at the build phase, it seems there is only one day a week with some z3 intervals–this just doesn’t seem like enough training stimulus to get faster. I understand specificity, but I want to be able to go longer faster.

Should I add another day of riding to the schedule each week with some z3/z4 intervals? For context, I weigh 143lbs and my new FTP was 176 (down from 205). I think this is because I did the most recent test in TT position, could have been a bad test too. I don’t understand why my FTP (and w/kg) is so low. I’m relatively fit (70.3 time was like 5:15). Is 5-7 hours on the bike /week just not enough?

https://imgur.com/a/FzkwpTg

I don’t see how 80/20 can work for cycling or swimming, running, perhaps but that would be high volume. All the decent cyclists and AGers I know do very little Z2 riding. Z2 would be a recovery ride really. For a 70.3, most of us would do a longer ride say 100km on the Saturday which would have Z2 in it, but include intervals. Say 5 x 15min at 80% FTP 3 recovery. With an easy warm up and cool down. If I going to really simplify it, for me training hard reaps rewards. I’ve never seen much of a connection with training easy. I did see some decent benefits with my run with 80/20, but that was 70-80km a week and even then the longer “easy” runs would drift into Z3 because you’re running with others. If you’re finishing the session fresh as a daisy then perhaps there hasn’t been much benefit?

In the 7 zones system of Fitzgerald zone 2 ends at 83% of ftp so a high zone 2 training would be above the 80% interval you mention. People often use different zone systems and this makes discussions confusing.

I also follow a 80/20 program and almost always try to do my workouts at the upper parts of the zones and I see improvement with that. It also enables me to train while running my own company and have a family live. I couldn’t do that if I trained more intense.

16

The problem with those zone 2 twitter influencers is they just all say the same thing over and over and have a big love in. Much better to just go out and have a cry when you get dropped and then do it all over again. Over years.

People new to aerobic sports can’t just follow Peter Atia or Alan Couzens or those other zone 2 people, buy a garmin and do a few zone 1 rides and think your going to let it rip. Need to really have a go and do your best to hold shit the bed pace and then do a lot of steady work on top of that

I may just be talking to myself, but one of the things they recommend is buying a lactate testing kit so you can set your own zones and make sure you don’t train above 1 or 2 mml of lactate.

I do think you’ve set up a nice strawman here. I’ve never heard of the lactate-testing-to-stay-in-zone-2 people. I’ve heard of Attia and Couzens but I’m talking a whole wide world of coaches and scientists and not the keto shill Attia (Couzens I have a lot more respect for but I didn’t find following him interesting).

Running 80/20 on 50km a week is going to be 40km easy, 10km hard. Which in my opinion is going to do nothing. So yeah I don’t think 80/20 works for age groupers. At least not those on average volume.

I feel, with 80/20, something has got lost in translation. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but 80/20 is applicable only to high volume, that’s the key. Run/ride easy, but run/ride lots. Whereas AGers are adopting it and applying it to low-moderate volume programs and it just doesn’t work.

Let’s say the 50 km a week is 5 hours. (Make it 6 if you like). An hour at intensity is, for example, 10x2’ at VO2max in one workout and 4x10’ at threshold in another, plus easy recoveries, plus warm-up and cooldown and zone 1/2 runs (with strides - they don’t count as intensity). You think that’s too easy for the average amateur to make progress on? Most coaches would say it’s way too much running intensity for a triathlon program.

The reason why 80/20 works is not because elites do it (strawman! and elites do more like 90/10). It’s because if you run 5 hours a week, you’re not ready to do more than an hour of intensity - even accounting for the extra aerobic base that cycling and swimming give you that partly carries over to running. You need the mitochondria from low intensity work to recover from your moderate and high intensity work and to adapt.

17

Now the gloves are coming off as you’ve accused me of the straw man. Your point is taken.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/?post=7616658#p7616658

This is a post from AC. Now I will be as fair and reasonable as my prejudice against these training priests allows

Of course he’s not advocating exclusive zone 2, but he is definitely encouraging a lot of low work for “metabolic fitness “ which has got to be a pretty vague term. Many of his posts talk about metabolic fitness instead of hour power , 20 minute power etc. he has been prolific in his blogs and while he writes a lot of great stuff I think sometimes they get down the rabbit hole. It’s as though the pursuit is of metabolic fitness rather than just fitness

For someone in the OPs position, the two tests have no correlation as done on different bikes, but just do more riding and do it a bit harder than “ I am just riding around easy and my arse is sorer than my legs”

Another thing I find triggering is Strava posts where people post a 40 minute ride and call it fat max. Maybe I’m just the problem here

Ultimately when you are doing more workouts and recovery is actually hard to get and you feel pretty dusty then that is where you can pull back and go easier and steadier , whether that is 75/25 or 90/10 I do not know but I’m just cautioning wasting time getting sucked into the zone 2 religion

18

I actually don’t disagree with anything you’re saying here.

19

And its kind of a moot point. Hardly anyone wants to train at 80% easy. I can’t think of anything worse than going for a 3 hour ride at 27km/hr or running 20km at 6min/km pace. I’d be bored shitless. Plus you won’t find anyone that will want to join you, so you’re training solo 80% of the time… cuts out most group rides and certainly all swim squads, unless it’s some beginner or “seniors” swim squad. You’d burn out, not because you’re training too hard, but because you’re training too easy. Doesn’t matter if its beneficial or not, if you hate the training (and you will) then you’ll ditch the sport pretty soon.

20

It’s not supposed to be 80% easy, but, rather, 80% not exceeding zone 2, which means you can stick to about 70% of your FTP. Then, if you put in big hours, it’s not going to feel super easy, but, rather, steady