# Decoupling at 3 hours of Zone 2



## alexp247365 (Dec 29, 2009)

Using Chapple's Base building for Cyclists as a training program, my mid-base work will begin on Tuesday. This phase is where you begin to transfer your strength training to the bike, and move into a maintenance only mode in the gym.

I'd like to be able to hit the three hour mark of riding in zone 2 without decoupling (where power at a sustained heart-rate begins to drop,) but have not had enough 3 hour rides to make this happen.

I am thinking that since I started early enough, I could afford another 4 week block of zone 2 work before starting strength training. While this doesn't follow the book, I could technically add 4 weeks of 2-3 hours rides and get closer to hitting the goal. I'm seeing slow increases in average mph for steady heart-rate/cadence ( I don't have power meter yet) so I think there might be more room to grow aerobically.

Any negatives or positives to this idea?


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

alexp247365 said:


> Using Chapple's Base building for Cyclists as a training program, my mid-base work will begin on Tuesday. This phase is where you begin to transfer your strength training to the bike, and move into a maintenance only mode in the gym.
> 
> I'd like to be able to hit the three hour mark of riding in zone 2 without decoupling (where power at a sustained heart-rate begins to drop,) but have not had enough 3 hour rides to make this happen.
> 
> ...


If you don't have a power meter, what are you calling "decoupling"? I don't know what your zones represent, but to me (I don't train by HR, but I do know what my HR typically does in training), one difference between zone 2 and zone 3 is that a steady ride in zone 2, of any practical duration (which for me is up to about 5.5 hours, in practice), happens at a steady HR, while a steady ride in zone 3 will produce decoupling after three hours (or less, if I'm higher in zone 3).

Also, I don't understand how it's time to "begin to transfer your strength training to the bike, and move into a maintenance only mode in the gym," but you're thinking about adding "another 4 week block of zone 2 work *before starting strength training*." Do you mean on-bike strength training? 

Are you trying to be in a particular part of this program at a particular time of year? If not, then what's the downside to adding additional early base training? That said, it's not obvious to me that it's a "better" way to reach that goal than just continuing on with your program.


----------



## alexp247365 (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm discounting cardiac drift, but my thought process is that riding at the same cadence and at the same heart-rate produces x speed (which translates on the kurt-kinetic road machine as watts.)

For example, I can maintain 17mph on the trainer at 80 cadence and 145 heart-rate (max 190 heart-rate) for about 2 hours and twenty minutes. As I push past this time-frame, my speed begins to decline for the same heart-rate, necessitating a change of gears to maintain the 80-90 cadence area. This is what I'd like to change, and be able to push to 3 hours without experiencing the slow-down for constant heart-rate.

I feel as if I start the on the bike strength training phase, I'll have few opportunites in the future to go back and continue building aerobic base. As road-races are more of a challenge for me (and upgrading a category in the off season) I'd like to finish the races strong, as opposed to holding on for dear life in the last 30 and have nothing for the sprint.

This is my first dedicated year of training, and am just trying to figure out the most efficient usage of time. Thanks for the reply Undecided. I hope this gives you a little more info.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

alexp247365 said:


> I'm discounting cardiac drift, but my thought process is that riding at the same cadence and at the same heart-rate produces x speed (which translates on the kurt-kinetic road machine as watts.)
> 
> For example, I can maintain 17mph on the trainer at 80 cadence and 145 heart-rate (max 190 heart-rate) for about 2 hours and twenty minutes. As I push past this time-frame, my speed begins to decline for the same heart-rate, necessitating a change of gears to maintain the 80-90 cadence area. This is what I'd like to change, and be able to push to 3 hours without experiencing the slow-down for constant heart-rate.
> 
> ...


Granted, following any training plan is better than following none, there is a lot you should look into changing. I'll list a few bullet points, as I am not your coach:


It is a mistake to ignore cardiac drift. Your KK trainer is good enough to judge power, and you should follow that, and _not_ your heart rate, in order stay in your zones.
Your first 2 paragraphs are a combination of cardiac drift and a lack of aerobic ability. I addressed the first one above, but the second one is even more important. The second one is where you need to focus.
On-bike muscle training is a myth, and you should ignore it. There's a 99% chance you'd be better off with creating another block of "base" work, and skipping the lifting entirely. If you're not a skinny female, it's probably even closer to a 99.99% chance.
Building aerobic base doesn't "stop" just because you leave zone 2. In fact, your best "base" will come with upper zone 3 and zone 4 workouts.

You should read the "sweet spot training" thread.

*edit to fix typos in bullet points


----------



## alexp247365 (Dec 29, 2009)

I'll take a look at that one. Thanks Nitro


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Scott Saifer says something quite different in today's cyclingnews (fitness Q&A in reply to "andy"):

"Excessive training near or above LT suppresses LT heart rate and power. By training roughy 75 miles per week near LT, you are making sure that your LT will never rise. Put in a few months of base training before you start riding hard again, and then restrict the hard riding to one or two days per week in general."

I was curious what his evidence was for this statement, since 'sweetspot' training (the upper zone 3 you suggest) has been suggested as targeting improvements in threshold power more than zone 2. Any ideas?


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

He is right. 75mi on the road for a 47yr old just starting to exercise, riding ~9hrs/wk, would put him at ~4.5hrs of threshold work a week. There are two things wrong with this that I see:

1. He is not really working at threshold, as 4.5hrs for someone of his caliber is probably impossible.
2. He goes by heart rate and genuinely does not know what threshold means, especially based on his HR numbers.

If someone like him is managing 4.5hrs/wk of true threshold work, he's probably about to fall off a cliff (not just hit a "wall"). I would consider threshold as being 91-105% of FTP. SST is roughly 85-95% of your FTP, largely depending on duration. This should really be the bread and butter of your base season, imo.

I would completely skip L2 if your ride is under 3hrs.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

LT is about 10-15% lower power than FTP.

Hard to rationalise how a good block of riding at that level is going to screw you, provided you are not trying to ramp up your training volume too fast, or do more than you are ready for.

But we know way too little about the guy in that item to draw any conclusions.


----------

