Ah yes…but it is programmed in power because everyone who asked for it didn’t really believe in not having the power to go by! 
I would make sure NOT to go after those wattage goals and do it by feeling, that is what really makes these work.
1 Like
thanks Steve - so just to be clear, when you say ‘by feel’ you mean max repeatable effort right? So 3x40/20 would mean 40 secs max repeatable effort rather than all-out 40 secs and then see declining power on the next reps?
1 Like
Yes max repeatable for the duration of the ON / and the recovery you have after.
Enjoy.
2 Likes
Second attempt, thought with fast start and low cadence for the tempo. Power was down compared to my last attempt, but this felt about right. 2 x 30 min. LT1-ish type stuff at the end.
1 Like
Interesting that you mention how it felt.
To my experience the mind (motivation / central fatigue perception) is very subjective and not to be trusted unless backed up by data (rest HR, HRV). The muscles however, seem to be objective.
→ muscles report pain after warm-up → adjust accordingly
→ mind says ‘go back to couch’ but HRrest=normal → go for it
2 Likes
Yeah, I felt like I was working right at the line between majority aerobic and majority muscular in terms of feel, if that makes any sense at all.
Absolutely, it does!
1 Like
I’m going to throw in my n=1 anecdotal results here if you’ll indulge me… 
I spent the last 3 months doing exclusively z2 and z3 work. My z3 work was a progression out to 1x80 mins but I will add, that like all good type A athletes not given a HR cap, I was mostly going a little harder than Steve is suggesting here as this plan was suggested by another coach before I discovered Steve’s work. I was mostly about 4-6bpm higher on average, so top rather than mid-z3 for me. That was all the intensity I’ve done though.
Did a 5 and 20 min test before, and another 5 min test today, almost 3 months to the day after I started this block. The result…+22w/+7% or 307-329w.
I’m also going to add that I’m 51 and been training seriously 12 years, so these aren’t newbie gains, and I spend a lot of time last year doing LSD z2 rides after a winter with lots of harder SST work in 20/21 that pushed out TTE but gave negligable power increases. So, VERY pleased, and surprised, at what can be achieved with this kind of sub-max work. I really wasn’t expecting much, if any, bump to 5 min power frankly. Will be interesting to see the result of my 20 min test tomorrow
1 Like
Nice!! Great gains! Spread the word: zone 5 is overrated
1 Like
What about zone 6? As someone who has historically done almost no anaerobic work, I wonder if I’ve been barking up the wrong tree hitting zone 5 periodically. If we’re training systems…seems like zone 6 should take priority.
The difference between an hour at Steve’s tempo intensity (for me) and sweet spot (90% of FTP) is around 11 TSS per hour. When you factor in the fact that I can almost certainly do more at the lower intensity, I’m not sure I see the benefit.
There is also this:
Lactate Profile Changes in Relation to Training Characteristics in Junior Elite Cyclists
To compare the intensity distribution during cycling training among elite track cyclists who improved or decreased in ergometer power at 4 mM blood lactate during a 15 wk training period. 51 young male German cyclists (17.4 ± 0.5 y; 30 international, 21 national junior finalists) performed cycle ergometer testing at the onset and at the end of a 15 wk basic preparation period, and reported their daily volumes of defined exercise types and intensity categories. Training organization was compared between two subgroups who improved (Responders, n = 17; DeltaP(La4) x kg(-1) = +11 ± 4%) or who decreased in ergometer performance (Non-Responders, n = 17; DeltaP(La4) x kg(-1) = -7 ± 6%). Responders and Non-Responders did not differ significantly in the time invested in noncycling specific training or in the total cycling distance performed. They did differ in their cycling intensity distribution. Responders accumulated significantly more distance at low intensity (<2 mM blood lactate) while Non-Responders performed more training at near threshold intensity (3-6 mM). Cycling intensity distribution accounted for approx. 60% of the variance of changes in ergometer performance over time.
1 Like
Just to add to the magic of aerobic training:
Between weeks 6 and 26 of last year, i performed COPID training (HR zone 2 as the basis, with 20% of the training in Z3 or Z4 using intervals <= 120 seconds).
My distribution for this period was:
Z1: 17%
Z2: 45%
Z3: 30%
Z4: 7%
Z5: 1%
My average power output in zone 2 sky rocketed:
I very much enjoyed seeing those weekly gains. It totally pushed me away from taxing performance testing.
2 Likes
Wowzers. That’s pretty crazy! @kjeldbontenbal what sort of volume were you doing and was this an increase to your historical training load? Thanks!
Another big difference for me in those few % difference between tempo and SST, is that last winter I did a big SST progression out to 100 mins, and my TTE was superb and really benefited from that in long events that year, BUT it buried me and I was dead to interval training come January, and my planned threshold progression never happened.
This time out I was tired at the end of my tempo block, but a rest week and I’m fired up ready to smash my next threshold block!
I plan a big block of Steve’s tempo & 2 min intervals after I finish LBL in April, to get ready for a week in the high mountains in July.
2 Likes
The responders did 93.8% in Z2 and below , the non responders 87.6% in Z2 and below. A 6% difference doesn’t look like much, but it clearly added up.
1 Like
Wowzers. That’s pretty crazy! @kjeldbontenbal what sort of volume were you doing and was this an increase to your historical training load? Thanks!
5 shots of epo a day 
Seriously: 6 times 1 hour a day, 1 rest day.
But I should add that i averaged 3 hours per week in 2020 and increased to 6 hours in 2021:
Here is my professional plot… of trained time and power development through a longer period for my ‘zone 2 test training’, COPID experiment highlighted in green:
1 Like
Thank you! I’m at like 15 hours a week on average and fear I may have run out of headroom.
Probably, with that many hours you will not see such spectacular gains, especially if you keep volume up during off season.
1 Like
What’s interesting is the performance of the two groups wasn’t different later. The authors hypothesize the group that did more medio work might have transitioned to a polarized approach after base training. I’ve seen references before to the idea that threshold work generates poor lactate profiles. I can’t find it now but I’m pretty sure it was the guy from lactate.com (Jerry?) posting on the lets run forum. @steveneal would likely know for sure since he’s done so much testing.
Yeah, and your z2 is my z5 so thank you for depressing me!
1 Like