I don't think I understand the role of Tempo workouts outs (zone 3 or 89-93% LTR) during the base/early build periods. For those of us with limited on the bike (I'm sure most of us) it seems doing Functional Threshold Power (FTP....zone 4-5a or 94-100% LTR) 2x20 intervals with solid rest days in between would be a better/ more "modern"(?) way to work on your base.

Tempo seems to lack the intensity and efficiency of FTP workouts, yet be too intense to be used as a recovery ride. What am I missing here? There seems to be a good number of autherities (Joe Friel) that feel Tempo workout plays a major role during the Base periods. Any clarification on this would be great. Thanks

It's really kind of a screwy difference. I mean, you have to be pretty darn dialed in to be able to accurately train at 90%, instead of 95%, or something.

People argue about this stuff.

But you say that it's too intense to be a recovery ride ... um, by a lot. A lot a lot. Zone 2 is not a recovery ride either.

I think the point is, it is a good hard pace that you can keep up for a long time. It is not so taxing that you are going to be wiped out the next day. The point of the base period is to be able to ride day after day, put in the miles.

In my limited experience opinion, people with real-world, job-and-kids limited training time (like, 8-10 hours week) don't need to bother with a "base" period anyway. You can't tear yourself down with that much volume.

Base. Zone 2 can be too boring, and who wants to do 3 hours of Z2 on a trainer?

Z3 is a solid training session, it is definitely not a recovery ride. Do it the day after a shorter inverval session.

Some of us need to work out 5-6 times per week to prepare for racing demands. Skipping every other day isn't really an option.

there's a decent discussion of zone 3 training on pezcyclingnew (part of Horwitz's toolbox stuff). Both pros/cons and especially the rut a lot of riders get into doing too much zone 3 at the expense of not stressing other systems

I don't think I understand the role of Tempo workouts outs (zone 3 or 89-93% LTR) during the base/early build periods. For those of us with limited on the bike (I'm sure most of us) it seems doing Functional Threshold Power (FTP....zone 4-5a or 94-100% LTR) 2x20 intervals with solid rest days in between would be a better/ more "modern"(?) way to work on your base.

Sounds like you are acquainted with the lingo, so I'm assuming you are using cyclingpeaks? If so, so this experiment: do two one hour rides. During the first one, do your 2x20 workout. During the second, just jump right in and do 90% of FTP, but hold it for the whole hour. Then check and see which ride gives you the higher TSS score.

For working stiffs with limited training time, the upper end of Z3 is a GREAT way to build a winter base.

Yeah, the Pez article says this: "the good news is that if you’ve reached this level [the "zone 3 plateau"] with your riding, chances are you’ve built up a pretty good base of fitness.

It's acceptable to have a "hard workout" in that zone. I think Horowitz is arguing about the rec-rider hammerhead who ALWAYS goes "pretty hard" -- enough to sweat a bunch, breathe pretty heavily, etc.

One of the big differences you'd see going on group rides with serious racer types, versus those who race little to none and just do it for the fun, is that the racers go a lot slower....

One of the big differences you'd see going on group rides with serious racer types, versus those who race little to none and just do it for the fun, is that the racers go a lot slower....

Having done a fair bit of training with some very successful masters athletes, I can give a little qualified agreement with this. Qualified because if the group is going slower, it is most likely going far longer. So rather than seeing the weaker links ready to cash it in 20 miles in, it's 60. Or maybe it's that I do most of my training with masters athletes who don't have the luxury to train more than 10 or 12 hours a week.

One of the big differences you'd see going on group rides with serious racer types, versus those who race little to none and just do it for the fun, is that the racers go a lot slower....

Agreed, especially when you compare it to what they are capable of. But, as soon as they want to tear it up...heh.

The "problem" with going zone 3 is that rarely does one go beyond it. Zone 3 (friel, et al) is great for long rides, not for 1-2hr rides. High L3/L4 (coggan) is better for the shorter 1-2hr rides.

Doesn't Charmichael use Tempo to increase muscle endurance by keeping the cadence 70-75 rpm while keeping the HR in the tempo zone? The result is that the rider is using a larger gear at low cadence for a significant period of time. I don't recall other coaches keeping the gearing low-just focusing on HR zone. So I think Charmichael recommends Temp at certain time of the season to build strength and endurance.

Lots of good input and ideas. I'm not using cyclingpeaks...and am not using a power meter..though I would love to justify the purchase of polar's new power system.

...from what I'm gathering from everyone one is that z3 training works...but my real question is, with time constraints, why not focus on FTP workouts sandwiched between low low intensity recovery rides?

I'm not necessarily concerned with the debate between if z3 training builds endurance. I am interested in though, if I totally omit z3 training and replace it with balanced FTP and recovery, what do you loose in fitness?

Thanks for all the great thoughts.

...from what I'm gathering from everyone one is that z3 training works...but my real question is, with time constraints, why not focus on FTP workouts sandwiched between low low intensity recovery rides?

I'm not necessarily concerned with the debate between if z3 training builds endurance. I am interested in though, if I totally omit z3 training and replace it with balanced FTP and recovery, what do you loose in fitness?

Assuming that what we are specifically talking about is winter base training for a cyclist with limited time to train (say 8-11 hours a week year round), the benefit of high L3/low L4 (aka sweet spot training) is that you can do it day after day after day, wihtout taking (as many) recovery days, whereas that 2x20 @ 100% leaves you too flat the next day. So cumulatively you are doing more aerobic work over a week or month or training cycle.

Additionally, you don't need to push 100% of FTP to increase FTP. Those longer efforts at 93% will do wonders to raise your threshold. Well they have for mine anyway.

to open the discussion of zone 3/winter base training up a bit, the whole idea of avoiding higher intensity training over the winter seems to be one of those notions that trickle down from pro-level training, tradition etc., that may do more harm than good when followed by amateur racers, especially those with limited time for training, as with the OP.

Base training is traditionally detraining other physiological systems that are the real limiters of most amateur racers, like anaerobic capacity. Why not continue to train these systems throughout the winter by combining the sweet spot training (the zone3/4 Coogan talks about) with intervals? I can see why a pro rider would need a period of rest, and they will be able to train these systems in the spring with huge training volumes, but this just seems like a bad model to copy. Perhaps reduce higher interval training to 2 sessions a week (versus 3 in a spring build phase), but continue to work on primary limiters, which isn't likely endurance for most US amateur racers.

Right. OP is asking "Why tempo? Why not sandwich FTP with recovery rides?" And, like SD says, the answer is, because with a solid tempo workout you don't need so much recovery.

The concept of a noodling "recovery" ride is really for people who spend a lot a lot of time on the bike, anyway, IMHO.If you are training ~10 hrs / week, your recovery should be on the couch ...

Perhaps reduce higher interval training to 2 sessions a week (versus 3 in a spring build phase), but continue to work on primary limiters, which isn't likely endurance for most US amateur racers.

Wow, that's really really wrong. The primary limiter IS aerobic capacity, and it's what most amateurs, esp. the ones in the lower cats really avoid working on.

Aerobic capacity is the foundation upon which all other abilities (save for maybe a pure track match sprinter) in cycling rest. VO2 max rests on top of your aerobic capacity. Raise the floor (aerobic capacity) and you can raise the roof (VO2 max).

The problem with integrating VO2max work into a build phase is that you WILL need to recover from VO2max interval sessions, whereas you'll be able to do SST stuff nearly endlessly once you find the balance that your body can handle. Build that big base, THEN transition to the mixed work phase, and really I find that I can "race into" that phase, using aggressive training races (i.e. not necessarily tactically smart) as the VO2max work.

Wait a minute sb.... where do you race? If its in the NCNCA, please disregard the foregoing, as it's AWFUL advice.:thumbsup:

+1 to most o' that, though I think I'd clarify we mean power at VOmax, not the actual amount of oxygen processed, which doesn't change so much, as I understand it.

Beating a dead horse, but succinctly: The reason to avoid intensity in the winter is not because it is "bad." It is because your volume is maximal, and you cannot sustain maximum volume, and maximum intensity, for long.

The more I do this, the more I think that so many people overthink all of this stuff. Your body adapts to the stresses you throw at it. If you throw volume at it, you'll adapt to volume. If you throw intensity, you'll adapt to intensity. There is little need to really hit the intensity hard during the winter, so, give your mind (I'm convinced that weekend warriors -- most amatuers -- have little physical need for an extended break) by riding lots of tempo and have fun. Work in the intensity a little later on, more when you're mentally getting ready to race, and when you'll likely more feel like it.
As for temp riding, it's fun, and you can do a lot of it. By definition, you spend a great deal of your racing at tempo, so, good on you. You're preparing to race. Then when you need to inject more pain, you're set.

I really don't think that it's a whole lot more complicated than that. I mean, it is and it isn't. It is in the sense that working all that you need into your daily/weekly/monthly diet requires something of a broader view, but the idea that it's all counterintuitive, with complicated double secret workout recipes borne of elaborate testing and deep understanding of physiology is, IMHO, way overblown.

can also be a very good indicator. I like to give myself a mental break from training and just ride through the holiday season, then in January start my "training phase". I check my morning HR almost religiously every morning that isn't a complete rest day. As a Master's level racer with three kids and FT Job, other issues besides riding/training/racing can sometimes cause a larger TSS than my actual work out. This is something that can't be measured by a Power Meter. I know from expereince that if my RHR is below my average RHR, then I can do some very hard stuff if I feel up to it mentally. At or just slightly above, a tempo/aerobic ride is what I will do. Much over that and I will do somthing nice and easy or just take the day off and see if I can get a good night's sleep. That is just me ... I am sure a power meter would help me get even more from my WO, but that will come in time because I don't have one yet. But, the RHR has been a very reliable indicator of potential performance and during race season, I can ride easy with some jumps to prime the legs the day before a race even if I have a low RHR.