Shownotes

Training zones guide

03:39 -

• This is a common issue in endurance sports: having access to data but not knowing how to use it effectively. It can be just as problematic to think you understand the data, only to misinterpret it and draw incorrect conclusions. When that happens, instead of helping, the data can actually hinder your training.
• That’s why I’m generally not a fan of triathletes doing lab tests unless they have a coach who thoroughly understands the data and how to apply it.
• While labs will often give you a detailed printout, complete with training zones and advice on workouts, in my experience, these reports are often poor when it comes to providing useful training guidance.
• The key takeaway here is that simplicity is usually far more effective. It’s easy to overcomplicate things and lose sight of what actually works.
• So, before getting into the specifics of training zones, it's essential to remember that simple doesn’t mean ineffective—often, it means just the opposite.
• Now, let's shift our focus to training zones. Although they can be anchored around physiological markers, training zones are fundamentally a communication tool.
• They help us prescribe, monitor, and discuss training. However, this tool only works if everyone is speaking the same language. There are a lot of potential misunderstandings in training zones due to the different systems people use.
• For instance, Craig mentioned using 80% versus 85% of max heart rate as an anchor point for a zone. Sometimes the differences are minor, but in other cases, they can be significant, such as the number of zones (three versus seven) or whether you’re basing them on power or heart rate data.
• This is where miscommunication often arises. There are so many variables, from the number of zones to the data source (lab-based versus field-based). If your training plan uses zones, you need to understand how those zones are defined and how to execute your training accordingly.
• The specifics of the zones themselves—whether they differ from someone else’s or how many there are—aren’t what matters most.
• Training zones are simply a tool for communication, and what’s critical is understanding what they mean for your training plan or coach.
• One important point I always emphasise is not to create a Frankenstein’s monster when it comes to your training. What I mean by that is, that you shouldn't wildly mix and match training methods or ideas from different sources without proper consideration.
• For example, you might have one coach who recommends doing VO2 max training twice a week, year-round, with sessions like 30 seconds on and 30 seconds off. Then, you hear another coach saying that effective VO2 max work needs to be all-out efforts totalling at least 20 minutes, with intervals of two minutes or longer.
• Now, both of these approaches could be effective on their own, but if you mix them together in a random way, like doing twice-weekly VO2 max sessions using a completely different structure—say, five intervals of four minutes each—that’s creating something neither coach originally advised. You’re pulling different elements together in a way that could lead to suboptimal results.
• I’m not saying you should never combine different inputs. It’s important to learn from a variety of sources. But the key is finding the right balance in how you apply what you’ve learned.
• You need to avoid cherry-picking bits of advice from different places and ending up with a system that gives you the worst of both worlds instead of the best.
• This applies particularly to the conversation around training zones. For example, some advice geared towards the general population, like “you should be doing 80% of your training in Zone 2,” might sound reasonable if your audience is people who go to the gym a couple of times a week and go for a casual walk on weekends.
• For this type of person, the recommendation is often to make their training much easier than what they’re currently doing. That advice could help them be more consistent, making training less daunting and more enjoyable.
• But if you’re someone who’s already highly trained—let’s say you have a 388-watt FTP—and you start doing all your training at 250 watts, following that same 80% Zone 2 advice, you’re going to burn out.
• For an untrained or lightly trained individual, Zone 2 might feel very easy, but for a well-trained athlete, it’s significantly more demanding. That’s why lab printouts with generic advice often lead people to train too hard in what should be their easy sessions.
• So, when it comes to integrating different training zone concepts, be cautious about taking bits of information from different sources and trying to patch them together.
• You could easily end up with a system that’s not only confusing but also ineffective because the pieces weren’t meant to work together in the first place.

The impact of zone training on different athletes

12:26 -

• When we discuss zone two training, even if we’re referring to the same parameters, such as the 55-75% of FTP (Functional Threshold Power) that Coggan defines, its implications can vary greatly depending on the athlete’s level.
• For a higher-level athlete with an FTP of 380 watts, zone two might range broadly from 190 to 285 watts. In this case, although prescribing zone two training may give the athlete autonomy to self-regulate, it can be problematic if they tend to favour the top end of this range, as the upper boundary is significantly more taxing.
• This can also create communication challenges, especially in broader platforms like podcasts, where listeners might not grasp that staying at the lower end of the zone can be just as effective as pushing the upper limits.
• For instance, riding at 290 watts is vastly different from riding at 250 watts, despite both being classified under zone two.
• In contrast, for an athlete with an FTP of 180 watts, zone two becomes much narrower, ranging from 99 to 135 watts. Here, prescribing "zone two" works with less ambiguity because the range is small enough to maintain the intended training effect.

How Mikael uses training zones

14:10 -

• When it comes to training zones, I view them as tools, but I approach them from a practical, philosophical perspective. While they have their uses, I don't rigidly stick to them for prescribing training.
• It's quite rare for me to ask an athlete to do an entire swim, bike, or run session solely in a specific zone. Occasionally, I might use zones as an addition to verbal cues for clarity.
• For instance, I might say something like "easy run, RPE2-3, zone one," but the key is ensuring the athlete understands what I'm asking for.
• If they do, great; if not, then the method falls short. The bottom line is that I rely more on other metrics like "steady endurance" or "RPE4-5" rather than dictating training through zones alone, especially for higher intensities where I combine power, pace, and heart rate with verbal instructions.
• Where zones really become valuable for me is in analysis. This is where they shine, particularly when examining time spent in different zones. I can analyse this from the perspective of pace, power, heart rate, or a combination.
• For example, I look at how much time an athlete spends in specific zones during a race, like zone three or zone four. This analysis isn’t limited to just one workout or race. I might compare an athlete’s time in each zone across several weeks leading up to a key race, especially if they had contrasting performances.
• If someone performed poorly, I’ll compare that with a race where they did well, to identify any differences in time spent in zones. Did they spend too much time in zone five in the recent race compared to a previous one where they performed better?
• This type of insight can guide us in adjusting future training. Of course, this analysis only makes sense when we have clear definitions of what each zone means for that individual, as the subtle differences in zone boundaries can significantly impact the conclusions drawn.
• The third area where I use zones is for high-level description. Even though there might be disagreements about where one zone ends and another begins, I think there’s a general consensus in endurance sports, like triathlon, about what the different zones represent.
• Most people tend to use a five-zone system. Zone one is easy, zone two might be Ironman effort, zone three is tempo, zone four is threshold, and zone five is VO2 max.
• Some might add zones six or seven for higher intensities, but those are less relevant. Although there can be confusion about exact percentages within zones, particularly with heart rate, zones provide a practical shorthand for describing training.
• For instance, if we’re having a casual chat before a race, I can say, "I’ve done a fair bit of zone four work," and that gives a clear, albeit broad, sense of my training without diving into specific power or pace details.
• It’s a convenient way to communicate training at a high level, even though it lacks the precision that might be needed for in-depth discussions.

Common mistakes to avoid

21:07 -

• When we talk about training zones, it's crucial to recognise a few common misconceptions that people often fall into. Firstly, people often assume that when we discuss a particular zone, we're all referring to the same thing.
• However, that's not necessarily the case. Different people may have varied definitions of zones, leading to potential confusion. Secondly, some believe that zones are entirely based on physiology.
• While some zones may be anchored around physiological markers, this doesn't mean there's a clear physiological difference between, say, Zone X and Zone Y.
• The truth is that these zones exist on a continuum, and the changes between them aren't as distinct as many might think. The difference between the top of Zone 3 and the bottom of Zone 4, for instance, is virtually non-existent. We shouldn't consider them as sharply separated.
• Another misconception is assuming that a specific zone offers the same benefits and drawbacks for different athletes. Even if we share definitions of zones, their implications can vary significantly depending on the athlete's level and training context.
• Athlete A and Athlete B might respond very differently to the same zone-based workout.
• Now, when it comes to using zones for prescribing workouts, it's not inherently wrong, but I don't think it's ideal, especially for more advanced training. For easier workouts, like Zone 1 activities, it's fine. Running or cycling at a low heart rate or power can be effective, but as we move to higher intensities, just using zones leaves too much room for interpretation. I prefer a more precise prescription, where I give athletes a target pace, power range, or heart rate range, along with cues for effort or RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion) to guide their intensity.
• For instance, in a recent set of workouts I prescribed, I varied the intensity and effort levels based on the athlete, terrain, and equipment.
• One bike session focused on an easy endurance ride with RPE 3-4 but with short all-out sprints interspersed, while a swim workout emphasised maintaining a consistent "best average" pace across several sets. I also provided guidelines for running intervals at specific target paces, with recovery jogs in between.
• The key takeaway here is that while I don't think one method is inherently better than another, it's essential that the athlete understands and executes the workout as intended.
• If the athlete follows the prescription correctly, then the workout is effective. If they don’t, then the problem lies in how the workout was communicated or understood.
• To sum up a few principles for effective workout prescription, especially for self-coached athletes:
  • Use ranges rather than exact targets. In some cases, I might say 500m at around 3:40 pace, rather than being overly specific. This allows for flexibility while still keeping the workout on track.
  • Anchor workouts to personal best efforts, such as “all-out sprints” or a swim set where the goal is to hit the best average pace for that session.
  • Relate the workout to race efforts, whether implicitly or explicitly. For example, prescribing intervals based on a half-marathon pace prepares the athlete for race conditions.
  • Use verbal cues and RPE to guide intensity. Especially in warm-ups or less structured parts of the workout, allowing the body to adjust naturally rather than relying solely on metrics like power or pace.

Take home message

28:35 -

• When discussing training zones, it's essential to acknowledge that they primarily serve as a communication tool. I understand that the variety of systems available today, each using its own terminology, can make things confusing.
• I admit I’ve also been guilty of not always being precise in defining zones. However, the core point is that people use different ways to communicate about training, which leads to this confusion.
• The most important takeaway, as I mentioned at the start, is to understand what your coach or your training plan is trying to communicate.
• Beyond that, the specific labels or zones don’t matter as much—it’s the effectiveness of the training itself that counts, not the arbitrary terminology we use to describe it.

Differences between LT2 and VT2

30:06 -

• When it comes to lactate thresholds (LT1 and LT2) and ventilatory thresholds (VT1 and VT2), the key distinction lies in the methods and equipment used to determine them. Both involve a step test, where the intensity is gradually increased—on a bike, for instance, by raising intensity by 25 watts every few minutes, or while running, by increasing speed by 1 km/h every few minutes.
• The main difference is that lactate thresholds are measured via blood tests, while ventilatory thresholds use a mask and metabolic cart to measure oxygen uptake and CO2 production.
• For lactate testing, blood samples are taken at the end of each step to measure lactate concentration. The ventilatory threshold test, on the other hand, continuously measures oxygen uptake, CO2 production, and minute ventilation (the volume of air inhaled and exhaled per minute in litres).
• Though lactate tests have multiple definitions for the first and second thresholds, I prefer focusing on the first and second inflexion points in the lactate curve. In theory, this is simple, but identifying these inflexion points can be challenging in practice, particularly the first one.
• Sometimes I use a guideline where an increase of 0.5 millimoles per litre or more from baseline indicates the first threshold, especially when the inflection point isn’t clear.
• After the first inflexion point, the lactate concentration ideally follows a steady linear increase up to the second threshold. Beyond that, the increase becomes much steeper, marking the second threshold.

VT1

34:00 -

• In a gas exchange test, we identify the first ventilatory threshold (VT1) by looking at the increase in the ventilatory equivalent for oxygen (VE/VO2), which represents the ratio of minute ventilation to oxygen uptake. Essentially, this ratio measures the efficiency of breathing relative to oxygen consumption.
• Now, VT1 is crucial because, until this point, carbon dioxide (CO2) production and removal remain relatively stable. Once you cross this threshold, CO2 production rises due to the accumulation of hydrogen ions, which accompany an increase in lactate concentration.
• These hydrogen ions are acidic and cause muscle acidosis unless buffered. During this buffering process, the body produces more CO2, which it tries to expel by increasing ventilation.
• At VT1, ventilation increases disproportionately compared to oxygen uptake. Up until this point, ventilation and oxygen uptake increase at roughly the same rate, meaning their ratio stays constant.
• However, past this threshold, the body ramps up ventilation to expel the excess CO2 produced by the lactate build-up. As a result, the ratio of ventilation to oxygen uptake increases.
• In essence, this is why ventilatory thresholds often end up slightly higher than lactate thresholds when both are measured in athletes. The pace or power at VT1 is typically higher than at the lactate threshold (LT1), even though they are related concepts, just measured differently.
• While the technical details may seem complex, the key takeaway is that VT1 is akin to LT1 but is usually measured slightly higher due to the difference in how the body handles CO2 at this point. This translates to a higher power or pace during performance.

Determining VT2

36:02 -

• The first ventilatory threshold, VT1, refers to the point where there's an increase in the ventilatory equivalent for oxygen, meaning the ratio of ventilation to oxygen uptake rises.
• In contrast, VT2 marks the moment when there's an increase in the ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide, where the ratio of minute ventilation to carbon dioxide production rises. This is a key indicator of how efficiently the body expels carbon dioxide relative to its production.
• Below VT2, the body maintains a relatively stable balance, where ventilation increases proportionally to carbon dioxide production, keeping everything in check.
• However, once we pass VT2, which coincides with lactate threshold dynamics, things shift. At this stage, lactate production surpasses clearance, causing a rapid build-up of lactate and hydrogen ions in the body.
• As these ions accumulate, the body attempts to buffer this growing acidosis, which in turn leads to a sharp increase in carbon dioxide production.
• At this point, the body responds by increasing ventilation disproportionately to the rise in carbon dioxide production. This is known as ventilatory compensation for acidosis, which drives the increase in the ratio of ventilation to carbon dioxide production.
• This uptick in the ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide signifies the second ventilatory threshold (VT2), also known as the respiratory compensation point.
• VT2 and lactate threshold 2 (LT2) are closely linked, although LT2 typically occurs slightly earlier than VT2, as was the case with the first thresholds.

Testing methodologies

38:37 -

• When it comes to lactate testing versus ventilator (gas exchange) testing, I don't think one is inherently better than the other. The key is to ensure that the equipment being used, whether it's a metabolic cart or a lactate meter, is accurate and properly calibrated, and that the person handling the tests knows what they're doing.
• If the data collected is reliable, either testing method can be very effective.
• Gas exchange testing does have the advantage of providing continuous measurement throughout the test, which allows for better insight into potential measurement errors and makes it easier to spot if a test might be unreliable.
• However, the drawback of gas exchange testing is that it's typically more expensive compared to lactate testing.
• A crucial factor that often gets overlooked is the step length in the testing protocol. For instance, if I'm given the choice between a gas exchange test with three-minute steps or a lactate test with five-minute steps, I'd choose the lactate test every time.
• The reason is that shorter step lengths may not allow the body to reach a stable, steady-state physiological condition, and this is particularly important when collecting accurate data.
• Three-minute steps, which many labs use, often don't allow enough time for physiological stabilisation, meaning the results might not reflect a true steady state.
• This is especially concerning for lactate testing, where you can't visually inspect whether steady-state conditions have been reached, unlike with gas exchange testing, where you can. 
• That's why I'd prefer a minimum step length of four minutes, though five or six minutes would be ideal, for more reliable results.

Misconception about VT1 and VT2

40:47 -

• When it comes to ventilatory thresholds, they closely align with lactate thresholds. Although you don't need to push yourself to your maximum during testing, combining both tests often provides comprehensive data, including your VO2 max.
• Once you've passed VT2 (ventilatory threshold 2) during incremental tests, you can increase the pace or power until failure, which helps determine your VO2 max. Alternatively, you could rest for 10 minutes and do another test to ramp up intensity every 30 seconds until you reach failure.
• One critical point I want to emphasise is the importance of using proper equipment, protocols, and accurate data analysis during testing.
• Incorrect methods can seriously harm your training. Done properly, ventilatory and lactate threshold tests are valuable, particularly for elite athletes seeking marginal gains as improvements become more challenging to find. However, for about 80% of the athletes I work with, lab testing isn’t necessary.
• I use a simpler method to estimate the first and second thresholds based on heart rates specific to their sport.
• For the first threshold, I estimate it to be around 70-80% of an athlete’s maximum heart rate, depending on fitness level. Lower fitness levels would fall closer to 70%, while higher fitness levels near 80%.
• The second threshold is generally between 80-90% of the maximum heart rate. For pacing in running, the first threshold corresponds to a half-marathon pace or 90% of a marathon pace, again depending on fitness.
• Similarly, the second threshold could range from a 10k pace to a half-marathon pace. For highly fit athletes, those times could mean half-marathons around an hour.
• In cycling, I set the first threshold at 70-75% of Ironman power, while the second threshold aligns with critical power, which is easy to test and provides valuable insights.
• Encouraging athletes to use their race data, whether it’s a 10k run or Ironman, allows me to estimate their performance metrics and physiological markers. Historical training and race data, especially for metrics like maximum heart rate, provide an accurate enough starting point for training prescription.
• Small differences in data, whether that’s a few beats per minute off or a slight difference in wattage, don't matter much because you adjust training week by week. Your recent training performance is a much better indicator for future training plans than rigid physiological markers.

• Mallorca Training Camp 2025 

• Portugal Training Camp 2025