So this winter I am going to try and follow one of the British Cycling training plans.

It starts off by setting your HR zones from a Threshold Test and then trying to build an aerobic base with a fair bit of high (for me) cadence / Zone 2 HR rides.

I’m a big guy and on a road bike I’m from the ‘big ring grinding’ and ‘no pain no gain’ training school.

After 2 weeks these Z2 rides feel so alien to me. Any kind of incline I have to slow right down to stay in Z2. Everywhere I read advises this is normal and soon I will start to speed up at this HR zone but it just feels so wrong…

Anyone else gone through this?

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.

I must be weird, I actually enjoy that. It keeps me occupied; nice rolling countryside route…cadence, HR, gears, breathing…it’s almost zen-like!

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

You’re not kidding. About 45 mins is ideal for me, and hour’s OK…anything over that and time seems to start running backwards. I’d rather do a brutal 40-50 min of Vo2 max intervals than 2h of z2!

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

No their not and for the reasons I mentioned above. They contribute little and can be misleading unless you can control a huge number of variables very well and have a substantial amount of historical data.
Determining maximum HR is also a challenge. How many people spend the time and effort to determine this accurately. My max HR was 175 at 30 years of age. I found this by running myself to exhaustion on a number of occasions over 3 weeks and could have put no more effort into that if I was being chased by a Lion. How many people go to those lengths yet still think they can accurately specify HR zones?

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

“Hello, is that Sir Dave Brailsford? Great…got someone here that you’re going to be very interested in!”