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.
I don’t think he is saying that.
And of relevance to this thread, what “base training” entails isn’t necessarily the same for both.
I don’t think he says that either.
Ignoring the bit about the use of ‘decoupling’ as a tool for monitoring when your ‘base’ training is complete for now, all he says is that you should set the intensity/duration of your personal z2 work to suit your experience or your race length. Experienced athletes at the upper end, less experienced at the lower.
He then goes on to say that for cyclists, 2-4hrs of z2 with little evidence of decoupling, is evidence that a sufficient base has been built. Nowhere does he say that Xc whippets or crit racers or TT guys should use a different indicator?
The whole point of base is that it is NOT specific to any discipline. It’s generic fitness. That why you can substitute a certain amount of base work with cross training with no ill effects to the end result.
‘Build’ is where you start to get specific no??
(Mrblobby, given the speeds of some of your rides that appear on Strava, I can’t believe I’m questioning anything you say, but I’m keen to check what I believed when I wrote my Friel based plan is correct 😉 I also think those kind of stand alone articles are often misleading, particularly when they are promoting the analytical power offered by their software)