How to test AeT efficiency

[Alex]

I would say <5%=good is like saying 300w FTP is good… All depends on what you are comparing to and a lot of other variables I really am telling you, I literally had 0% or like .2% some days…, that was when doing a hard zone 2 focus for years. So if all you care about is an aerobic test this is fine. If you actually wanted to find AeT and do true below AeT training then I would say this is still too hard…

You should realize that low HR training should not be taxing at all… A way to think about it is like this. What happens is up to AeT your stroke volume of your heart keeps increasing, once you reach AeT you have hit your maximum stroke volume and you now are gaining additional oxygen from increased HR only. So ultimately your goal is to improve your stroke volume without increasing any extra stress, so their is no reason to go above AeT. AeT feels easy. I know it is counter productive but trust me (and tens of thousands of others) it works. Just read Maffetone.

Drinking water might even negatively affect the test and should not be necessary… but I am not sure it is bad.

[Alex]

Also 5% is in reference to 2.5 hours… so the longer it is the more likely for higher decoupling. I would say < 5% in 2.5 hours is likely very good also. I think I was doing 60-90 minutes where I would say < .5%… I don’t remember longer.

[Alex]

Also when you read Maffetone followers they say, oh my god… this is impossible to go so slow, this is not going to do anything… And 6 months later they have improved their efficiency factor by 30%… Now the thing is that would not translate to a 30% increase in FTP, but it makes the training less stressful on your body so you can train more at a higher power levels, likely get sick less often, and usually go longer with less fatigue.

Also right now for you at 130bpm might feel super easy but in 6 months of the right pure zone 2 focus it should be feeling hard, or slightly hard and intervals are appreciated at that level, so breadth wise it would feel easier than your current 135 but physically it would feel as demanding or more demanding.

The thing is NOW IS NOT the time to start this… You want to start this at the end of your outdoor season because you want to enjoy your power/fitness now outdoors, not do pure z2… I would do 3-6 months minimum of pure zone 2 to see what happens and do the test you did each week. If you continually see your efficiency factor going up, it makes it easy to keep doing it. Then after this base period you do traditional training to get back to peak fitness with your new huge base.

Now you may never want to do this type of training and you don’t necessarily need to… Just providing you the theory. It’s mostly critical for runners and people training a huge number of hours that start falling apart, or getting sick regularly. i.e. doing more than they can recover from. Other than that it’s for obsessed people that want to try something new or lazy people that just want an excuse to train really easy

[BlackTek]

I agre on all your points @Alex it’s clear how Z2 training works. You train the body to be more efficient, use more fat, even at a little bit higher bpm. Basically you push up the floor (to use a comment of @MedTechCD Optimal Zone2 HR Target - #23 by MedTechCD)

But I’ve not understood one thing of your last comment:

Also right now for you at 130bpm might feel super easy but in 6 months of the right pure zone 2 focus it should be feeling hard, or slightly hard and intervals are appreciated at that level, so breadth wise it would feel easier than your current 135 but physically it would feel as demanding or more demanding.

Could you please clarify? I would have said the opposite

[Alex]

I am specifically stating my experience and Maffetone’s followers including Mark Allen said the same. You are starting at 130bpm and 150w… in 6 months you are doing 130bpm at 200w… 200w still feels harder than 150w even though your HR is the same. Overall 200w at 130bpm will feel easier than 200w at 138bpm but might be hard enough you still prefer intervals…

It’s similar to world tour cyclists with 420w FTP… for them doing zone 2 power is not easy, but when your FTP is 200w doing zone 2 feels very easy. Meaning more work feels harder even when you are equally stronger… It’s similar with strength training 200kg is always heavy when you can lift it 10 times or only lift it 5 times, it’s still heavy. Now if you did 300kg every day 200kg won’t feel so heavy relatively speaking…

[BlackTek]

now I’ve got the sense. I didn’t get that you mean “higher power 6 months later”. I perfectly agree. Also Friel says that after some time and power development it’s better to work at fixed power during the test, instead of fixed bpm.

The only remaining point of the discussion now is how to find the best HR target for the tests. Is there a more scientific approach in finding the right spot? “Testing and seeing” doesn’t say much if we don’t know what to measure/observe. I guess.

As 135 bpm is 11bpm below my Aerobic Threshold LT1 I think it’s close to the limit, impacting in terms of TSS and stimoulous, but also physically demanding.
Does Maffetone suggest something more precise, knowing the LT1 from laboratory test with mask?

[Alex]

I think from a test perspective your current test is fine, Maffetone has his 180-age ± other factors formula that is controversial (for some as it sounds like 220-age…) but seems to be accurate for the majority… I don’t necessarily believe this mask test is truly AeT but that might be my bias.

The only final point is people at your level might struggle to make aerobic improvements. Many people when combining lots of > AeT training will stop aerobically improving. Your FTP might go up and your W’ can go up but this test you are doing might never go up… That is when the discussion of 130 vs 135 becomes important (in training more than testing). For this test I don’t think it matters as much. I would do 130 but again that’s my bias.

[BlackTek]

in my case, I’m 45 yo, and 180-45 is exactly 135. Let’s keep it for good

I’ve lot of charts and documentation from the test, but all those numbers, IMO, should be seen over time, and see how they change.

My goal for this test was to monitor how the aerobic efficiency is developing over time. If it doesn’t go up I’ll shift more training time in the boring (Z2) zone

On Sunday normally I do 4-5 hours of riding with low-medium effort. But I don’t know what happens if the average HR is in Z2 HR zone, but during the ride you do many z4/z5/z6 incursions. MTB is more like Fartlek with a lot of up/down, stones to jump, steep uphills etc. It’s not easy to stay fully in Z2 like on HT.

Eg this sunday I had avg HR 133, but lot of steep uphills:

[BlackTek]

regarding LT1 I’ve this in my bookmarks

I think that the more we move away from LT1 (to the left) the less lactate is produced, despite being in the same Zone 1 (of the “polarisec” 3-zone model)

[Alex]

From Maffetone perspective it would max HR of 135, not average

[Alex]

So to partially answer your other questions. Base training is base training… MTB and base training don’t go very well together… and now the outdoor season is beginning. I would say just the basics… Get variety, not too much intensity… focus on progressive overload meaning slowly increase intensity yet it should still be 80/20 TIZ even peak season so starting out 5/95 or 0/100 and slowly building to 80/20… these are not exact values just the concept. If you are not over training (sleep problems, excess cortisol, getting sick or injured, or just burned)… then you have flexibility in how you train.

[BlackTek]

At the moment I’m following your suggestions with CJ (based on progressive overload).
I’ve created a plan that I follow on my HT based on two days (Tuesday SFR+Cad and Saturday Threshold).
On Thursday I’ve a ride outside with 8/10 VO2max repetitions (160%/80%) on a small uphill (started 8x20/40, after 10x20/40, after 10x25/35, this week 8x30/30 etc + one longer uphill of 20 minutes full gas - basically I ride it at my FTP). On Sunday I’ve long rides (4-5 hours on saddle), with intensity a bit lower.

I should do more Z2, I know I try to not sprint too much on Sunday, except when it’s strictly required (eg, it’s very hard to stay in Z2 on a 15% track)

Very hard with MTB to ride slowly

[Alex]

No, you do not need to do more z2. Z2 is not some magic bullet that makes you faster, except maybe as a base period… It’s more that Z2 helps keep you from over training most of the year. If you feel yourself over doing it then back off with intensity and add more z2… otherwise your plan is fine. Yes low power/low HR on MTB in hills is extremely difficult unless you get off and walk incredibly slow…

[Robert_UCL]

You could also mix ‘n’ match. If you have an extra hour during the week, you do some extra zone 2 there, preferably before your training, and on your Sunday ride, there are probably parts of your route that are more suited for zone 2 as there are parts that are not.

I always recommend the people who really want to get their energy out to dedicate a part of the training on zone 2 and a part of the training, doing what they want.

You’re not a pro; you do this for fun. So, if it isn’t fun, you won’t do it long term.

[BlackTek]

Hi @Robert_UCL
Thank you for your advice. Good the suggestion to do the Z2 at the start of the ride. Normally I’ve 7/8 km before reaching the mountains, and I use those km for Z2 training.

Stupid question: when you talk about z2 training you always refer to z2 power zone, right? Not to z2 hr zone, like in the AeT test. Sometime I’ve this doubt (only in case of Z2) because it’s possible for example that HR is Z2 and Power Zone is Z3 (or during short peak efforts even z4/z5)

[Robert_UCL]

That is not a stupid question. It is actually a very good one. There is no difference in power or hr zones.

What makes it confusing is that there are different zone models, and they are offered standardized, while in real life, they are not.

You got a 3-zone model, for instance. I usually work with a five-zone heart rate and a 7-zone power model. One is not better than the other.

I work with 7 power zones so that I can differentiate in training. It makes what you are doing very clear.
This is not usable in heart rate because when you are doing power zone 5,6, or 7 intervals, the heart rate can’t follow. Most of the time, you will reach the desired heart rate after the interval is over.

It confuses athletes, and I have seen that they will adapt the training by starting the interval too early or prolonging the interval so they are in the heart rate zone for as long as they should be.

I always tell them to forget their heart rate during training when they are doing short, high-intensity intervals.

The standardisation makes it confusing too. Athletes are offered a heart rate zone model, based on standardized zones of 10%, for instance. It gives you a reasonable estimate based on your max heart rate or your heart rate reserve.

In real life, these zones are very fluid. A rider that neglects his zone 2 training can have a small zone 2 and a bigger zone 3. In your case, you have a bigger zone 2.

Testing is important and the best way to establish these zones. But even with testing it I not 100% clear where your zones are. If your nutrition and sleep wasn’t up to par during the week before testday, you might have a worse result than you are actually capable of.

On the other hand, if you did everything right to be the best before your test-day, doing things that are not realistically possible in real life, you’d get a better result than you can live up to.

Finally, and that’s what I love about your approach: not every test is the same. Every test has its benefits and downsides. So, doing different tests to test various aspects of your performance is an excellent way to understand your capabilities.

Because what matters in the end is that you are an individual and you need to understand what your body is capable of, creating a unique approach for your life and body.

Like Joe Friel says: Endurance sports is a life-long science with only one subject: you.

Keep going like this and you will get there.

[BlackTek]

Hi @Robert_UCL
thank you very vey much about your super detailed and dedicated answer. It’s really surprising to me to find people like you and @Alex willing to help and share their experience with people like me I’m honoured to be part of this community

I agree with all your points, but regarding the first one there is something that sounds not 100% clear, I referer to

There is no difference in power or hr zones.

Also Joe Friel reports that while you develop your fitness there will be a shift of the power zones from higher HR zones to lower HR zones. I mean (he also explains like that): when you start your Z2 power zone will probably be the Z2 or event Z3 HR zone. But while your heart, lungs and muscles (also brain with better coordination) improve you’ll be able to push more oxigenated blood to your muscles (and they become more efficient) and this way your HR will go down.
Do you agree/disagree on this point?

And if it’s like this, do we agree that we should always care about power zones about Z2 training? And do you suggest to stay at the lower part of z2 (closer to 56%) or higher part of z2 (closer to 75%)?
Happarently I made my AeT test at 81% of my ftp, but much below my LT1 HR of 146 measured in laboratory with the mask. Next monday I’ll repeat my indoor ftp test, perhaps the ftp now is a little bit higher (also according to intervals.icu the outdoor eFTP increased by 11 watts recently)

Sorry to bother you with all such questions, but you’ve probably understood that I’m an analytical person (also in the work) and I’m a strong believer that what can’t be measured cannot be improved.
Now I’m trying to understand (also from books) what are the triggers the starts some reactions in my body (individuality principle - we’re all differents, and most of the suggestions are good for the average population, and there depends where you’re on the gaussian curve: in the middle or at left/right?)

From the Friel’s book I’ve understood that we should first train the basic abilities, and later the advanced abilities. The “aerobic endurance” basic ability is one of the most important. From the test I made I’ve now a baseline number to compare how I’ll develop the “aerobic endurance” over time (the 1,35 Efficiency Factor calculated). But from this number can we already say if my “aerobic endurance” is at a good point or needs to be further improved before moving to training the advanced abilities in the current training cycle? I’m at 25% of a CJ training 16 weeks plan where I’m developing “muscular force” with SFR (+ weights at gym) and threshold workouts

Thank you again for your very appreciated feedbacks

[Alex]

So you are starting to ask a lot of questions that fall into opinion. Joe’s opinion being one, Roberts, Andreas, … mine being others (a lot of over lap in all of them)…

But, yes, I think it is extremely common as joe points out that typically the more aerobically fit someone is their HR will move up relative to their power zone. So eventually Z2 HR might = Z2 power . But the other thing is many different people define zones with different limits. Coggan zones are pretty popular but they are semi-arbitrary because anything other than 3 zone model is arbitrary.

I would say you are over thinking all of this and mixing different belief systems is just going to confuse you You have to decide who you want to believe and just stick with that.

Maffetone is extreme at one end when you want to really talk about “zone 2” or below AeT that is one set of belief’s. San Milan is similar but different he bases it on lactate levels. And Joe Friel’s thinking was mostly before this low HR training was considered valuable in cycling… and even today zone 2 HR is not mainstream in execution (especially outdoors) even though people are talking about.

So if you want to believe Joe, believe Joe, his stuff is good. I would say his info is quality mainstream. Again focus on doing a lot of “easy” and mix in hard with variety, and progressive overload. You are trying to put specific’s on stuff that is much more grey between the lines especially if you don’t pick your guru. If your guru puts hard lines then fine… Most of this stuff is a spectrum and hard to differentiate between zones and training high zone 2 or low zone 3 is going to have 90% of the same benefits. Only when you believe in Maffetone does that AeT become very critical line, but that includes a whole “life style” change oriented around aerobic improvement.

So Andrea, Robert and Joe would not have a critical line between HR zone 2, and power zone 2 that defines something to avoid or target.

[dthrog00]

You’re probably best off just riding your bike and not sweating the details on some of this stuff.

I was into the gurus for a while too, but there is no magical workout. There are rich gurus though

Dave

[Alex]

Exactly… A plan serves a purpose but for sure trying to merge everyone’s advice into a highly prescriptive cohesive strategy is a mess and it ends up more about removing details than adding them.