Originally Posted by
climberevan
Thanks. This is something I've wondered about.
I know the old Sieler 80/20 study that Polarized training has its roots in was based on self reporting of entire workouts characterized as easy or hard (as opposed to time spent in zone). Now that we all have power meters or at least HR, it sounds like we should think more about accumulated time in the desired zones.
What I wonder about is on rides that are supposed to be Z2 endurance. In my example above, I wanted a long Z2 ride, but thanks to the terrain I spent 66.6% in Z1/2, 27.6% Z3/4, and 5.8% Z5+. This falls into the "pyramidal" classification.
I think a lot of the "too hard for easy but too easy for hard" MTB rides we were talking about earlier would look like that, and I'm wary of falling into that trap. Or am I off base here? Should I really just look at the total time in zone compared with the grand total per week, say?
Also, what do you think about the old Coggan/Allen idea of recovery time from a given TSS? The stuff I've seen says that rides around 400 should require several days of recovery, so how should they fit in a structured plan?
Thanks again for taking the time to answer our questions!