The Wahoo plan(s) are more geared as ‘sweet spot’ training than the 80/20 polarized training that has come into use in the last several years. CTS and TrainerRoad use a similar algorithm for the ‘time crunched’ athletes.
Within these plans, the lower intensity shorter training sessions are positioned to allow for recovery between harder ones. I just loaded the 12 week Century training plan and it still follows that formula. The long endurance days (Z2) are on the weekends. Generally there is a day off (or easier day) then a hard VO2 or threshold workout, followed by an easy day, then another VO2 or threshold workout before another day off.
In the past I’ve made the mistake of skipping the ‘easy’ day mid week due to time constraints. It didn’t feel like it was necessary or worth the time invested BUT the reality is the body does adapt with different energy systems.
No serious coach or scientist denies the value of HIT work.
Z2 work is not a substitute for HIT, nor is HIT a substitute for Z2. Both target different physiological regimes. And yes, the effects of HIT training take effect faster than the effects of Z2 training.
The issue is (in the three zone model) how far into Z2 do you go?
I wouldn’t write off Z2 completely. For me it’s been super useful for building base fitness without burning out, especially when I’m stacking a lot of weekly volume. The harder sessions hit better when I’ve got that steady mileage in. I just treat the Z2 rides as filler/recovery that still moves the needle a bit instead of junk miles.
With the caveat that I don’t use the SYSTM structured training plans, I wouldn’t really categorize what you’ve described as “sweet spot” training.
From my understanding, sweet spot training consists of most workouts being just below or near threshold, usually somewhere around 90% FTP.
A training plan that includes two VO2 Max sessions a week, out of only four/five/six training sessions, wouldn’t be considered sweet spot training from the descriptions I’ve come across.
I may not have been clear as most of this thread has to do with replacing Z2 workouts with high intensity workouts. The sub-threshold (sweet spot) falls in the region that Heretic was questioning (three zone ‘Z2’ workouts). I started using these types of lower volume plans back in 2006-2007 (Carmichael’s time crunched cyclist and time crunched triathlete) when my workload didn’t allow for multiple hours of training per day.
If you look at SYSTM training plans, they make up for lower total volume of riding by changing some of the workouts to sub-threshold. In the Century plan, out of the 7:30 riding hours the first week, two rides (4:10) are endurance pace and one (2:00) is sub-threshold, leaving two rides for VO2 Max or NM.
Last year I tried a TR training plan and was not happy with the lack of volume (max riding time was 2 hours). When I talked to their coaches, they emphasized that they make up with it using sweet spot training and high intensity intervals and a rider could opt to do longer rides on their own by not following the TR training plan.
So what training plan are you following for your events and what type of mix of workouts does it have?
I don’t race myself, and just ride for enjoyment/fitness (usually around 4-5 hours a week, with occasional longer weekend rides), but I do find it interesting to follow sports science and training discussions.
Fantastic discussion of Z2 and the paper referenced above dissected with the author on a recent The Real Science of Sport Podcast, and on their discourse page.
It’s a nicely evidence based discussion and the author is able to dive a bit deeper into his paper. Is a great podcast and covers lots of cycling and endurance physiology
I haven’t listened to the resources yet—I will—but I don’t really see how you can “debunk” endurance training. That’s like saying we’ve debunked eating, or we debunked skills training.
My guess is that maybe some of the more extreme, less supported claims that you may find out on the Internet, like zone 2 is the only way to train mitochondria, or even tat zone 2 is uniquely special physiologically, are being debunked, which is not the worst thing.