S&C Template / Cycling / Zone 5 Training

Greetings Docs!

1st Question:

During my last post, I explained that I was starting to cycle and looking to focus on this for the near future. For the past 10 weeks I have been following the S&C Template (per Jordan’s recommendation) plus training for a Century Race (100 mile bike ride). My century race is on October 5th, FWIW.

In addition to the S&C template, I have been following a Garmin Century Training plan which entails 4 training sessions per week consisting of 2 HIIT Days and 2 LISS days on the bike. One of the LISS days becomes progressively longer in order to increase mileage on a progressive interval (every 2 weeks).

I feel like I have made good progress on the S&C template while also cycling 6-10 hours per week. I haven’t felt like recovery has been any kind of issue and have even seen some of my lifts increase. Full transparency, I haven’t been as diligent with the GPP as I could have as I’ve been cycling those days! :hushed:

I’m wondering if there is any compelling reason to switch to another template (Powerbuilding I or Endurance) or just run the S&C again with varied exercises?

2nd Question:

My Garmin cycling training plan utilizes the 5 Zone HR model. All LISS work is in Zone 2. HIIT work is either in Zone 4 or Zone 5. I’m training outside in Louisiana where the temps are regularly triple digits. What I have noticed is, my HR doesn’t always correlate to the perceived effort. For example, a lot of Zone 2 and Zone 3 effort according to my HR, feels less than what I’m putting out on the bike (based on speed, cadence, and just perceived exertion). I’m thinking it’s because it’s 110 degrees outside, so my HR is higher. (Just my theory)

My question is, would it be more beneficial to convert the HR Zones to RPE as follows, in order to autoregulate these efforts?:

Zone 1 = RPE 5-6
Zone 2 = RPE 6-7
Zone 3 = RPE 7-8
Zone 4 = RPE 8-9
Zone 5 = RPE 9-10

As always, thanks for the advice and insight!!

Lee,

Thanks for the post.

To your first question, it’s hard for me to recommend a change in programming if someone is making progress, enjoying the training, and otherwise has no overt need for a change of pace. In short, this is up to you and should mainly be based around training preferences.

For your second question, more extreme environments (specifically heat, humidity, headwinds, and so on) tend to increase the exertion level for a given amount of work. This typically results in a higher HR, higher RPE (these correlate reasonably well), higher lactate, and so on for a given power output. Because the HR (and RPE) still correlate to the physiological milieu of each zone (more or less), I don’t think you should have a hot weather RPE scale that’s different than when it’s more temperate.

Admittedly, there’s a tone of squish in these zones and some people get bent out of shape about it. Realistically, I think the 5 zone model is probably overkill and impractical for most people to use unless they have some advanced instrumentation, e.g. blood lactate analysis, power meter, and so on. I’d favor a 2 zone model for the gen pop, e.g. “moderate exercise” and “vigorous exercise”, likely correlating to 60-80% max HR and + 80% max HR. For athletes, I’d favor a 3 zone model, e.g. active recovery, aerobic threshold, and anaerobic threshold, which I’d generate from some testing.

1 Like