[Closed] Zone 2 HR Training

Same is true for running

At first if feels totally padestrian, but its about building a bigger aerobic base by doing loads of miles and making the workout repeatale day after day, so it only really works if you are commited to the time it will take, both out of your week and number of weeks.

My Z2 pace for running improved by more than a minute a mile in the last 12 months

Most of my runs are on the bottom of Z2 now, with 2 sessions a week where I work really hard.

Got any links to that training plan Freester?

Thanks for the reply. I am going to try and commit to this plan - even if I have to get a turbo.

SammyC - long time and all that. No links - it's members only part of the website. (I might have the pdfs somewhere. Ahem.).

You will struggle to stay in Z2 on the inclines, especially if you're on a road bike (road gearing) and if you're a big fella. I've done loads of Z2 over the last 3 years, I'm now (very) modestly fit (for a road rider) and no longer overweight and I still go out of the zone.

A quiet canal tow path is the best place to stick to Z2...unless you hit a mahoosive loch system 😀

Yeh Rusty I am finding that but for the zone 2 rides I can normally piece together a flatter ride where I can just about stay in Z2 in very easy compact gears if I go very slowly up the modest inclines.

Interesting discussion.

I've got a new HRM recently and was considering some of this base training lark, but work and family commitments mean I'm unlikely to get much more than my current six hours a week riding.

Increasing my riding and living somewhere with hills has seen my fitness improve a lot over the last year anyway, and I tend to just go as hard as I can up each hill.

Worth trying to be more structured or not considering my time constraints? I feel I still have more benefits to come from just riding hard, fwiw.

yep - thats part of the thing about Z2 'base' miles, they're almost by definition 'supposed' to be boring.
its quite interesting to see how the HR is affected by inclines, but if you do it right it does feel like you've done a real workout (strangely afterwards rather than during - does anyone else feel this?). and you're supposed to keep pedalling on the downhills to keep in the zone, so better to do it on flat courses.
you're supposed to not take on carbs apparently (dont bonk though), and also do hours and hours of it if you can to encourage the fat burning for energy (i think)....

Z2 actually feels quite easy initially but after long rides in higher zones I feel I'm struggling to get my HR up there consistently.

Turbo - couldnt last much longer than an hour but its obviously good for keeping exactly in the zone. (music/podcast essential :D)...

Turbo - couldnt last much longer than an hour but its obviously good for keeping exactly in the zone.

2 hours of z2 on the turbo the other night, mentally it's a pretty tough session! So much easier outdoors on a reasonably flat loop. Though most of my z2 these days is recovery rides, don't really do the weeks of hours at z2 anymore though.

Cheers all so it's a good thing to do but need to commit. I must admit I did worry it would spoil my enjoyment. It's so boring and right now I am having to monitor my cadence / HR all the time.

It's so boring and right now I am having to monitor my cadence / HR all the time.

2 hours of z2 on the turbo the other night, mentally it's a pretty tough session!

I'd rather do a brutal 40-50 min of Vo2 max intervals than 2h of z2!

Easier mentally! I do a lot of turbo work and I'm convinced at times that completing some sessions is far more a mental exercise than a physical one.

cadence, HR, gears, breathing...it's almost zen-like!

Certainly is. Gives you time to focus on position and pedalling fluidity too.

At first if feels totally padestrian, but its about building a bigger aerobic base by doing loads of miles and making the workout repeatale day after day, so it only really works if you are commited to the time it will take, both out of your week and number of weeks.

My Z2 pace for running improved by more than a minute a mile in the last 12 months

The thing with any form of training is the opportunity cost. You cant be sure you are training optimally. You may be significantly fitter if you had followed a different training program.
I dont agree that running strictly within HRM limits is efficient use of time. For full time athletes with a significant amount of support to utilise the data and control their diet/sleep and environment then maybe. For Joe bloggs no.

Increasing my riding and living somewhere with hills has seen my fitness improve a lot over the last year anyway, and I tend to just go as hard as I can up each hill.

This

The thing with any form of training is the opportunity cost. You cant be sure you are training optimally. You may be significantly fitter if you had followed a different training program.

Pretty much why I don't spend days doing z2 anymore. Really only do it as active recovery between harder sessions now.

and I tend to just go as hard as I can up each hill.

Just a pretty crude form of interval training. If you just want to get out and ride a lot and don't want anything structured, it's not a bad way to go. Equally just ride hard to the next town, or sprint to the next roundabout, etc.

After 2 weeks these Z2 rides feel so alien to me.

It will do yes. You may feel that it's not doing anything, but it really is. Your legs have basically three modes - slow, fast and sprint. Slow burns up fat, fast burns up stored carbs and sprint uses ATP (stores of ready made muscle fuel).

By riding in the fat zone, you are training the fat burning system allowing you to burn fat better. Fat can be burned without much fatigue to your muscles, so the more energy you can get from it the longer you can ride at a given pace without becoming knackered.

It works, trust the experts. It's doing you good even though you can't feel it. If it's too easy, do it for longer - you should still be feeling it at the end 🙂 2 hours is probably only just long enough.

However it's called base for a reason - when you come to do speed work you'll get much faster very quickly. You have to build on base.

Increasing my riding and living somewhere with hills has seen my fitness improve a lot over the last year anyway, and I tend to just go as hard as I can up each hill.

That works, but structured training works better.

Just a pretty crude form of interval training. If you just want to get out and ride a lot and don't want anything structured, it's not a bad way to go.

The opposite. This is actually a very good way of utilising limited time. If your goal is to improve fitness and race times then intensive intervals are appropriate.

That is just one (pretty time consuming) way of many to build a base though.

The opposite. This is actually a very good way of utilising limited time. If your goal is to improve fitness and race times then intensive intervals are appropriate.

Agreed. My point is that just going hard up random hills that just happen to be on your ride probably isn't very structured. If you train regularly then you may want better control over training stress.

That works, but structured training works better.

Define structured? if I follow a "structured" program of running 3 miles 3 days a week will I race faster than running say an hour every day as I feel?
"structured" doesnt by definition mean optimal

Your legs have basically three modes - slow, fast and sprint. Slow burns up fat, fast burns up stored carbs and sprint uses ATP (stores of ready made muscle fuel).

I went through a period where I seldom ran slower than 6 mins per mile but only about 35 mpw. Why was I very thin despite eating anything that wasnt nailed down?
You are generalising and this is not scientific.

Agreed. My point is that just going hard up random hills that just happen to be on your ride probably isn't very structured. If you train regularly then you may want better control over training stress.

Of course but if your training is random and you have limited time then this type of training will provide very good benefits. I would argue that the training discussed earlier in this thread is far less effective.

So how many hours of Z2 per week is required to make it worthwhile? Or alternately how many long slow rides across the winter?

Just trying to work out if its for me or not - but appreciate it would need to be done properly or it'd be a massive waste of time.

You are generalising and this is not scientific.

Yep. I thought it best to give a basic simplified answer.. but in any case I wasn't talking about losing weight, I was talking about utilising fat for energy. I believe what I said is still correct, no?

So how many hours of Z2 per week is required to make it worthwhile?

Afaik even one 2 hour ride will help, but it depends what kind of riding you do normally and *I think* it depends on your metabolism. From what I can tell, some people naturally are better at burning fat, so they tend to ride using a greater percentage of fat, and hence get even better at using it. They then seem to enjoy long steady all day rides out of choice.

Others may be better at eating, storing and using carbs, so they tend to enjoy flat out hammering around the local woods, which gets them even better at that.

I think we unwittingly play to our own strengths when we choose our rides, which may mean training your weaknesses depending on where you want to improve.

All I can say is over the last 2.5 years on my road bike I've just tried to ride as much as possible. Short rides at as high average speed as poss. The longer stuff I've just tried to pace myself and feed myself appropriately. I haven't avoided hills or long rides. Just tried to choose as challenging ride I can fit in the time I had.

This has worked until this summer. Marked improvement in my average speeds, TT times and dare I say it Strava segments.

It just feels I've plateaued with this unstructured method. So I've chosen to give the British Cycling training plan a go. It is a mix of Z2 work at the beginning / but also intervals and at least one ride a week 'on feel' rather than looking at HR etc.

So how many hours of Z2 per week is required to make it worthwhile? Or alternately how many long slow rides across the winter?

Depends where you are at, what your training background is, and what your goals are really. Short, high intensity events would have a different approach to longer, lower intensity events.

Not really or at least its not so clear cut. You use a number of stores and the cut over points are not as discreet as you say. If I was running "fast" (fast and loose with the term I know but fastish) then why did I lose weight (fat)? when I should only have been burning carbs?

^ you sound like you need a power meter

You use a number of stores and the cut over points are not as discreet as you say

No I know, I shoudl have said it's cumulative. Fat burning is limited by the amount of oxygen you can get to your muscles, so as intensity increases you burn the max amount of fat then some carbs on top of that.

then why did I lose weight (fat)? when I should only have been burning carbs?

Cos you burn both. But you know this - I'm explaining it for the benefit of the OP, if I'm wrong or incomplete then add your own contribution 🙂

You use a number of stores and the cut over points are not as discreet as you say. If I was running "fast" (fast and loose with the term I know but fastish) then why did I lose weight (fat)? when I should only have been burning carbs?

I'm not a physiologist but... 😉

I don't think it's cut over points as such. Explanations I've heard is that you just use different proportions of each energy generating systems at different intensities. It's not like one cuts out and another cuts in.

Cos you burn both. But you know this - I'm explaining it for the benefit of the OP, if I'm wrong or incomplete then add your own contribution

Fair enough. Not a fan of HRM's for training in most situations.

Yep -Fat burning zone does not mean the zone where you only burn fat, it means the zone where fat is most efficiently burned.

I think its still only 60% or so energy derived from fat burning, but higher intensities and that figure drops.

HRMs are better than nothing, if you know what zones to aim for. Problem with power meters are they are so expensive.

From my experience, lactate threshold (ie the point where blood lactate starts rising over rest levels, and where you want to do your z2 training) corresponds loosely with the pace at which your breathing just begins to interrupt normal chatty conversation.

I think its still only 60% or so energy derived from fat burning

I think that depends quite a lot on the individual.

Surfer does bring up an interesting point...

The thing with any form of training is the opportunity cost.

In the process of sorting out some coaching now mostly because of this ^^ and limited time. Generic training plans are fine but a tailored plan put together by a suitably experienced person should give you more return on your time as it'll (hopefully!) be more specific to your goals and physiology.

There is always that nagging doubt though that you could somehow be using the time more effectively.

Problem with power meters are they are so expensive.

PMs coming down in price all the time. A $399 one about to be released in the US by 4iiii. Find they help me massively. I'd not want to go back to training by HR.

HRMs are better than nothing

question- over those 3 weeks, how much did the 'max' very by and how much would that have affected your Z2 range?

Determining maximum HR is also a challenge. How many people spend the time and effort to determine this accurately

BC suggestion is to work out threshold value by going all out for 30 mins and use your ave HR for last 20. Enter this value into a calculator which gives you your zones.

I've done this recently and compared the result to my most recent TTs and it's pretty similar so I'm happy I gave it 100% effort.

Surely it must be similar for power?

I tried to find my max HR by cycling as fast as I could up a mahoosive hill, until my legs screamed, I could see stars and I wanted to throw up. In my repeated attempts over a few months, my max never varied by more than 2bpm.

As for z2, I went for a ramp test at my lbs.

Blobby has addressed most of the points you need to think about.

I've done the Z2 thing.
I've worked out a better approach for myself now.

Z2 is all well and good. There are a few reasons why traditionally Pro's do a lot of zone 2 base work. Pretty high on that list is the fact that its their job to ride a bike and they have 30 hours a week to ride.

Ask yourself how many hours a week you can/want to commit to training.
What are your goals? Are you racing? What discipline? How long is your longest race? Address the specific requirements of the goal event.

Depends where you are at, what your training background is, and what your goals are really. Short, high intensity events would have a different approach to longer, lower intensity events.

Wasn't intending to hijack the thread, sorry OP. But since you ask...

Doing six hours a week solidly, sometimes nine. Averaging 8,000m ascent over four weeks. Last 100 mile road ride I did was just under 6hrs, and about 2,700m ascent, if that helps.

My original aim was to get fitter for long days out and multi-day trips, which I've achieved, and also seem to recover quicker from hill efforts now.

I'd say my main weakness is sustained efforts - climbing or just pedalling road bike on the flat. Strava says my strengths are sprints under 10 mins and climbs under five mins.

🙂

Z2 is all well and good. There are a few reasons why traditionally Pro's do a lot of zone 2 base work. Pretty high on that list is the fact that its their job to ride a bike and they have 30 hours a week to ride.

Of course, but another reason is that it's important. Remember we're talking about training, not weight loss here.

I'd say that you need some base - how much depends on how much time you have as well as the other factors. One ride a week might be sufficient. Of course as amateurs our training's not going to be ideal, so we do what we can.

my strengths are sprints under 10 mins

so we do what we can

Which is what i am saying. If all you have is 45 minutes for example each day then flogging yourself for 30 of them is actually the most effective way to train (within reason)
If you have unlimited time and resource then the whole game changes. You can sleep twice a day for a start and get the whole range of training options in.

Hey Rusty, even us amateurs need to get fitter too.

🙁

[pedantic bell-end]
No one can [b]sprint[/b] for 10 mins...10 seconds yeah, 20 or so at a push!
[/pedantic bell-end]

Hey Rusty, even us amateurs need to get fitter too.

If you only have 45 mins a day then fine, but base is important so if it is at all possible to do one 3 hour ride a week you should. It would be very beneficial.

I'd say that you need some base - how much depends on how much time you have as well as the other factors. One ride a week might be sufficient. Of course as amateurs our training's not going to be ideal, so we do what we can.

Just to reiterate, there are many ways to build a base. Long z2 rides are one way to build a specific type of base.

If you only have time for sub 10hrs training a week read time crunched cyclist.

I do most of my z2 during winter on my old mtb which is boring and unexciting to ride and as such I am content to pootle about looking at the scenary. I find z2 on the turbo pretty easy I just put a movie on like Lord of the rings - there goes 3hrs...

I think you do need a decent amount of z2 / base work if you plan to race a lot throughout the season but you do also need some high intensity in there. So for example I'll do 4 hours of z2 on Saturday then roughly 5 x 5 mins over geared climbs, 4 hrs z2 Sunday, Monday z1 recovery ride, Tues 1.5hrs of structured high intensity, Weds z1 recovery, Thursday similar to Tuesday, rest Fri. Plus core & gym work. My z2 rides are phased out / cut down in Jan / Feb time for race prep....so that's around 3 months of base building.

I never used to believe in z2 but having a base has allowed me to recover quicker aerobically in races / training, it's rare I feel aerobically challenged when racing and I can handle a harder training schedule too.

If you don't have a lot of time to train I think Friel recommends z3 so there's less of a de training effect but don't quote me on that!

there are many ways to build a base. Long z2 rides are one way to build a specific type of base.

I'm interested, tell me more?

if you've been biking for a few years, exactly how much "base" do you need?

why do you need a Monday recovery ride from 8hrs in zone 2 over a weekend after resting on the friday
your training sounds crap to be fair, 2x 1.5hr high intensity, not much is it

if all you do are z2 rides, all you are good as is z2 rides

2x20 and Sprint Intervals, and long long rides, if you usually only do 3 hours, do 4, 5 hours

[pedantic bell-end]
No one can sprint for 10 mins...10 seconds yeah, 20 or so at a push!
[/pedantic bell-end]

OK I getcha, I'm sure people get my drift anyway.

I'm thinking I'll just crack on as I have been TBH. Maybe break the turbo out again now the nights are drawing in and do some of those sufferfest vids.

if all you do are z2 rides, all you are good as is z2 rides

Yes but you have a HRM so you have to find a use for it

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/winter-training-base-level-training-lsd-vs-intervals

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/zone-2-training-yawn

I'm interested, tell me more?

Trickydisco's saved me some typing with his link...

That shouldn't be taken to say that a very effective program couldn't also be structured around a large amount of early season LSD. However, assuming someone isn't coming off an extended period on the couch with an endless supply of potato chips, then it's probably worth noting that over the years the terms "base training" and "base miles" seem to have gotten inappropriately tied into the LSD concept. Base simply refers to building and fine-tuning your aerobic engine. Intensity levels higher than LSD are more efficient (per hour of training time) for this purpose, so long as recovery is adequate.
If you have large amounts of free time, you could probably build a great program with large LSD components. However, if you're under 10 hours per week you should also seriously look at some newer-school concepts of building base through more "sweet spot" or tempo riding.

So why do professionals spend huge hours early in the season doing what (for their relative ability) is LSD? The answer is that most riders and racers (aside from these professionals doing long stage races) aren't hampered as much by aerobic efficiency as they are by aerobic capacity. These pros need the aerobic efficiency to tap out that final 1%-2% in their potential, and it takes many saddle hours to achieve this i.e. no shortcuts. For the rest of us, we're nowhere near to maximizing our aerobic capacity, and so our training is better to be focused on this instead of trying to squeeze out the last bits of efficiency.

Where 15 years ago everyone wanted to train like a pro, assuming that would also give them the best results, it's now a fairly commonly held belief that training like a pro doesn't necessarily scale down well to a smaller number of available training hours, and for riders who aren't doing 20+ days of ~200km racing. Current methodology for "real" people has come somewhat full circle in that regard.

Then again, there's many different ways to build and execute a successful training program, and it varies by individual. Although you can collect ideas from other people to experiment with, the biggest challenge is to find a program that works for you specifically.

another quote from that thread

Hours at zone 2 give very few exclusive fitness gains - you can get fitter/faster, in less time with a different approach. Even training to be efficient at fat burning can be achieved by certain interval sessions at certain times.
IMO many coaches prescribe zone 2 as it fills time in a schedule and makes it look like they're earning their fee's. I'd rather make efficient use of a clients time, but of course some can't see that I've saved them x hours per week. They think that paying for training means there should be lots of training rather than the minimum effective amount which is closer to my approach.

there are many ways to build a base. Long z2 rides are one way to build a specific type of base.
...
I'm interested, tell me more?

[url= http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/supply/47-base-a-new-definition ]Base: A New Definition[/url]

Good link that. Reckon if you are time constrained (certainly if less than about 12hrs a week) and you race events that are less than a couple of hours in duration and a week or two apart, then that's a better way to do "base" than hours of LSD.

Since not doing many long rides I've noticed that when I do, I get tired sooner than I used to - as you'd expect.

Of course, there could be many reasons for this - could be psycholigical.

then that's a better way to do "base" than hours of LSD.

By 'that' I assume you mean riding at what that guy calls 20MP which is basically threshold aka 10 mile TT pace..?

Base training is training that improves threshold power.
Pretty much anything that keeps you riding, motivated, includes efforts at all intensities, with the majority of work up to and including threshold power levels is base.

Tooling about at recovery / low end power levels all the time really is a wasted opportunity IMO. OK for a week or two for a break and some fun, or if you've had a long break and are restarting.

And for those who are indoors a lot in the winter, heck, up the ante on the trainer so you don't have to spend so much time on the turbo for good effect.

Saved me some typing!

By 'that' I assume you mean riding at what that guy calls 20MP which is basically threshold aka 10 mile TT pace..?

Depends really on what you're working on. I'll do 2x20 or 3x15 at hour power and consider that to be work on base. Long over/under intervals, pyramid type sessions, that sort of thing. With the amount of time I have to train I think it's far more beneficial than the same amount of time spent at cruising at z2 - I just don't think I have the time to do the required volume, and I don't think I need the efficiency benefits it brings to long events.

I still think z2 can help in certain situations.

If I still had them I'd show you the before and after blood lactate tests I did. Very significant in my case I think but I was apparently unusual.

With the amount of time I have to train I think it's far more beneficial than the same amount of time spent at cruising at z2

Yes of course, no-one's arguing that you can simply ride slowly for an hour and get fitter. z2 rides have to be really long otherwise there's no point, that's always been known even in the old school.

I still think z2 can help in certain situations.

and me.. I did this years ago
[img] [/img]

essentially my fat utilisation was terrible - 43% at 127bpm.. (the tester told me this was appalling)

I did 1hr max zone2 rides (all indoors) and this figure after 5 months went to 84% (this combined with the idave diet) and my zone 2 range went from 122-144bpm to 140 - 158 (the zone where i was utilising the most energy from fat)

I did 1hr max zone2 rides (all indoors) and this figure after 5 months

Quite interesting that. Is that all you did or just all the z2 you did?

I did 1hr max zone2 rides (all indoors) and this figure after 5 months went to 84% (this combined with the idave diet)

I suspect that it was more to do with the iDave diet than 1hr of z2 but I could be wrong.

This is what your lactate graph is meant to look like:

[img] [/img]

A flat line until a threshold where it starts to go up, and you start to utilise glycogen. Training moves the threshold upwards. However when I did this test first with Torq, I didn't get any flat line at all, and the line started trending upwards immediately. Matt said he'd never seen a graph like it. Possibly like trickydisco I was really bad at utilising fat, but I was already a decent rider and had done lots of races by that point.

After doing a few months of z2 riding, the graph looked the same as the picture.

EDIT mine looked a bit like this:

[img] [/img]

[i]after 5 months went to 84%[/i]

And this is why the long rides have been used, in the past. It's been noted that the body can adapt and in this context, improve the utilisation of body fat as a fuel source.

Fat is a great source of fuel, approximately double the calories, per unit weight, of carbohydrate, with no need to carry the additional weight of the water required to store carbohydrate.
Thanks to TrickyD's table, it's easy to demonstrate how fat utilisation is proportionate to the intensity of the exercise.

According to my reading, the body can adapt to optimize the amount of fat it can us for 'fuel'. This is essential to help deal with the losing battle of carbohydrate depletion and hitting the wall during an event/race. Even the best adapted of use will carry about, IIRC, 500g of carbohydrate, ~2000 calories. So, during a long race, stretching out your stored and ingested carbohydrates for as long as you can, is the goal. However, then you must supplement you energy with another fuel source, fat.
This is why fat utilisation is important and why the long ride/base exercising has been employed to reach that person's best attainable fat utilisation, adaptation.

Quite interesting that. Is that all you did or just all the z2 you did?

I didn't have the time to do any outdoor rides so my coach said 1 hr at zone2 indoors was very beneficial for me to raise that fat utilisation. Also going on the idave diet helped massively. It's not all to do with training. nutrition plays a big part.

Of course this was a 4 years ago now when I thought i'd have a go at road anc crit racing. I only cycle to work and the odd cross race now

Friel has his own take on building aerobic base.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/aerobic-endurance-and-decoupling

If you do long races, you need to do some long rides.

[i]nutrition plays a big part.[/i]
An iDave style diet will help, as far as a change in diet can, in fat utilisation. However, earlier this year, I read a book titled "the paleo diet for athletes". You could try disregarding the 'P' word if it offends you, and imo, it would still be a worth while read. The book clearly states that in the opinion of the authors, being "paleo" while good, isn't enough for a person with athletic goals/targets.

Friel has his own take on building aerobic base.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/aerobic-endurance-and-decoupling

If you do long races, you need to do some long rides.

So what he's basically saying is...

If you want to do 100 mile epics... train for 100 mile epics..
If you want to be an XC whippet... train for XC whippetry...

etc etc.

An iDave style diet will help, as far as a change in diet can, in fat utilisation

And that's primarily why i did it. Lost 6kg in the process

So what he's basically saying is...

If you want to do 100 mile epics... train for 100 mile epics..
If you want to be an XC whippet... train for XC whippetry...

etc etc.

Which is why pro roadies do lots of long rides.

I my experience I can do a good 20 minute interval without too much long distance training. The problem is I blow up after about 1.5 to 2 hours.

If you do long races, you need to do some long rides.

I agree, from the psychological point of view as much as anything else.

The book clearly states that in the opinion of the authors, being "paleo" while good, isn't enough for a person with athletic goals/targets.

I would agree with that (in fact, I've been saying it for years and being roundly mocked in the process). I've been strictly dieting recently and doing only a couple of rides a week, and my power levels have suffered. I went to Cwmcarn on Saturday and felt absolutely battered from the start. However now the weather's gone to pot and I no longer have an incentive to get out on the trails, I will do those couple of rides on roads nice and steadily, and see what happens with the weight.

So what he's basically saying is...

If you want to do 100 mile epics... train for 100 mile epics..
If you want to be an XC whippet... train for XC whippetry...

etc etc.

And of relevance to this thread, what "base training" entails isn't necessarily the same for both.

[i]I would agree with that (in fact, I've been saying it for years and being roundly mocked in the process). I've been strictly dieting recently and doing only a couple of rides a week, and my [b]power[/b] levels have suffered.[/i]

[i]and see what happens with the [b]weight[/b].[/i]

What is the goal, I think someone posted on page two, an order of improvement. Where strength and power were the later stages/goals in reaching a peak in condition. It seems to me that in the context of this thread, doing long and steady has been employed to improve fat utilisation, as a process. If a reduction of stored, excess, body fat occurs as a side effect, then I'm lead to beleive this is a bonus, only provided you have excess BF, in the first place.

I think I want some rollers now.

[b]molgrips - Member [/b]
I've been strictly dieting recently and doing only a couple of rides a week, and my power levels have suffered.

Can you elaborate?
How have they suffered? Which zones and by how much?

[i]I think I want some rollers now. [/i]

Well, if you thought riding at a long and steady pace on road was boring and therefroe why you admitted you failed to do much of it.
Multiply that bordem many times for rollers. As I think someone on this thread mention, I've resorted to DVDs while using rollers.

I cannot elaborate, no. I was on my MTB, and despite not having ridden for several days I felt utterly drained on the climbs. It's a trail I've done hundreds of times both on and off form so I know what to expect, and I felt like I was nearing the end of a 24hr solo.

Solo yes I know indoor training is dull, but if 10-20 mins of threshold is going to do me more general good than I thought, then perhaps I could be doing that on rollers...

[i]Solo yes I know indoor training is dull, but if 10-20 mins of threshold is going to do me more general good than I thought, then perhaps I could be doing that on rollers... [/i]

Ok, I thought you were considering rollers for longer sessions. I have cyclops rollers. They're basic, no resistance and are not programmable, etc. The way I figured it, less to faff with or to go wrong/break.

I had borowed some rollers for a while - I thought it was a problem that I couldn't sprint on them (not enough resistance) but it could still have been useful for threshold work. In any case their owner wanted them back.

[i]The book clearly states that in the opinion of the authors, being "paleo" while good, isn't enough for a person with athletic goals/targets.

I would agree with that (in fact, I've been saying it for years and being roundly mocked in the process).
[/i]

Hang on moment. AFAIK you never did [i]Paleo[/i] because the essenetial nutrients in Coca cola and cheesecake, weren't recommended for Cavemen and so wouldn't provide you with the means to unleash the Powah!

A point within the book was to advise those who had decided to subscribe to Paleo, on how to supplement such a diet, [u]along lines in keeping with the paleo theme[/u]. Furthermore, the book gave, imo, a good break down of what to eat and when, what would be required for events/races of differeing lengths.

Edit:
Another observation of that particular book was that while world class athletes may be fit and fast, this shouldn't be mistaken for being in good health. This is why imo, "[i]racing weight[/i]" by Matt Fitzgerald seems on prima facie evidence to "add-up".