Inconsistency

Perhaps the greatest thing about the training technology we have now is the ability to track how training and performance are progressing. Before the digital age this was done largely by guesswork and rough estimations. Now it’s fairly precise if you have a heart rate monitor, power meter and speed-distance device.

For example, I’m in a training block right with the focus on aerobic endurance training. The objectives are to improve fat metabolism, create a bigger capillary bed in the primary-mover muscles, increase the aerobic enzymes, cause type 2x muscles to take on the characteristics of type 2a muscles, boost movement efficiency, and more. Now I can’t measure all of these in field tests but I can get one metric which tells me how the “black box” is doing. This is the output-input ratio which TrainingPeaks now calls the “Efficiency Factor.” (EF).

I’ve talked about EF before, only not with that name. All this represents is the ratio of output (power or pace) to input (heart rate). It’s found by simply dividing the normalized power (or speed for running) by average heart rate. For the information to be dependable the variables in the workouts to be compared should be quite similar.

Below is a table that shows my workouts since November 27 when I started doing aerobic threshold (AeT) in this block of training. The AeT sessions are very similar. The warm-ups were about 20 minutes on the same stretch of road at the same power range. The AeT portions of the workouts were done on the same course with the same equipment for 90 minutes each. The heart rate for each AeT portion was kept in the range of 120-125 bpm (lower half of zone 2). They were done at about the same time of day and at about the same time relative to breakfast. The breakfasts were quite similar. The cool down was about 10 minutes. (Sound boring yet?)

Below is the table that summarizes these workouts. The ones labeled “AeT” are the ones we’re focused on here. The EF ratio is shown for each of these. A rising EF is a good indication that aerobic endurance is improving. There were other workouts also. And you’ll notice a large number of days off. These were due to business travel. There were also 2 days of relentless, hard-driving rain during this period (December 12-13) when workouts were shortened and modified.

Nov 27  AeT EF=1.41

Nov 28  Day off

Nov 29  AeT EF=1.43

Nov 30  2h “force” workout

Dec 1    AeT EF=1.50

Dec 2    Day off  (travel)

Dec 3    Day off (travel)

Dec 4    Day off (travel)

Dec 5    AeT EF=1.44

Dec 6    AeT EF=1.42

Dec 7    AeT EF=1.46

Dec 8    2h recovery ride

Dec 9    Day off (travel)

Dec 10  Day off (travel)

Dec 11  1h hill reps z3 (late on day of return from trip before sunset)

Dec 12  1h hill reps z3 (rain)

Dec 13  1h AeT EF=1.29 (indoor trainer, rain)

Dec 14  AeT EF=1.37

Dec 15  AeT EF=1.42

Dec 16  2h recovery ride

This is a good example of what inconsistent training does to fitness. There are 3 segments here in which AeT rises: Nov 27-30, Dec 5-7 and Dec 13-15. Each of these segments generally shows EF improvement. But after each of the first 2 there was time off from training due to travel. That resulted in EF dropping back down again.

That’s what inconsistent training does to us. Hard-won gains are lost by days without training. If you don’t use it you lose it.

Now, while this sounds all very scientific it is by no means “science.” There are many variables which were controllable (weather, for example) and there was only 1 subject—me. And I certainly wasn’t blind to the outcomes which introduces the possibility of placebo.

The lesson here, however, is simply that if you frequently miss workouts you are relinquishing, to some degree, your gains made in training. This is not meant to be an indictment of anyone. Missing workouts is common for everyone, including pros, at this time of year, especially. But you need to understand what it means to your fitness and plan your training accordingly. In my case, it means that when things begin to settle down for me (less travel) I will need to keep plugging away at AeT workouts to get my aerobic endurance to a point at which it stabilizes. Then I know it’s time to move on to the next block of training.

Comments

[Angela]

Hi Joe,

Is it safe to go longer as long as there is no decoupling? (time permits)

I am using TrainingPeaks VCoach and it gave me Base 1 workouts to follow and I wanted to know if it's okay to increase the duration for those Z1-Z2 workouts as long as I don't see decoupling. The first week is going okay and recovery is looking good so far.

thanks.

[Angela]

I think I meant no drop in power with same HR in Z1/Z2 or decoupling of 1%...

I am quite new to this so please forgive me if I am not using the terminology right...but I think I am getting there.

[Joe Friel]

Angela--You're doing great. Yes, it's ok to extend those workouts. No downside so long as excessive fatigue doesn't interfere with your training.

[Mikkel]

Hi Joe

I've just started my base 2 block, but what is worrying me at the moment is a vacation planned in march.
It is a business trip for 5 days where i am not able to train at any level (monday-friday). According to my ATP this week is a R&R week after my build 2 period. In the weekend following the weekend i am going to a gathering with my team. I am wondering how this will affect my hard earned fitness, because i am going to starting the tapering and peak weeks, right after this R&R week. Any advices on how i should handle this and how it will affect my fitness and form? My first A-priority race lies 2 weeks after this week :)
Thanks ;)

[Haakon_s]

Is there a way of tracking this in a chart?

[Dylan]

Interesting.

However I have a bit of controversy with a statement not related to the EF but more along the lines of muscle fibers and you stating, "cause type 2a muscles to take on the characteristics of type 1 muscles", in the first paragraph.

From my knowledge and readings, you can not convert type 2 muscle fibers to type 1 muscle fibers. The only change or % change that you can acquire between muscle fiber groups would be the 2b (or 2X) muscle fibers would express 2a characteristics.

Was curious if you have any research or evidence proving your statement is correct?

[Joe Friel]

Haakon_s - Not that I'm aware of but you could make one with an Excel spreadsheet.

[Joe Friel]

Mikkel - I don't know of anything you could do other than to train quite hard before the trip for a few days. There aren't any silver bullets for this.

[GA]

Joe, did you consider that usually several consequent workouts cause a drop in average HRM given the same power output - due to fatigue. But as soon as you rest well, the HR rises up again. Can't this be the case here?

[Joe Friel]

Dylan--Yes, you're right. I've corrected the post. Some are proposing there is a type 2ab fiber which might help to explain this. Thanks for catching that.

[Joe Friel]

GA--Yes, it's possible that this is a factor. I've seen research that shows a decrease in HR over several days of fatigue-producing training (Mounier 2003). But I've never seen a study in which HR was kept the same to determine the affect on power/speed when fatigued over several days. I'm a bit skeptical that such a study would find an increase in output with fatigue as HR remains constant. There's still much to be learned about the relationship of fatigue, HR and performance.

[Blake]

I've always thought (based partly on your books) that it takes about a week before training resulted in positive performance changes, and then they would only be slight. your analysis seems to imply significant improvement within a few days. Could you please discuss how quickly the body responds to training? I know it would vary with period, age, previous fitness, etc. but an explanation for your specific case would be illuminating.

Maybe this is a topic deserving of a blog as I have never seen it addressed directly anywhere.

[Derek]

Hi Joe

I subscribe to Training Peaks and WKO+ and for now measure my running pa:hr, which typically is around 5%. Next year I will buy a power meter for my rdies. Where can I find my EF measure on TP's or WKO+?

[Joe Friel]

Hi Derek--EF is not on WKO yet. On TP.com if you select "Map and Graph" for a given run workout and then look on the ride side you'll find EF.

[Joe Friel]

Hi Blake--Yes, you're right. Good point. There are a couple of things going on here. I think improved technology (and how to apply it) is allowing us to view things we couldn't see before. And since what you saw in the table of workout results for this post occurred early in the year after some down time fitness was likely to change rapidly and therefore be more apparent. In other words, if I was in much better shape now the changes for this type of workout you see described here would not be as evident.

[Blake]

Another question: Could one use changes in EF to change FTP settings without testing? It would be wise to be conservative, but a rise of 5 watts at a given Z2 HR should translate to at least 5 watts at threshold, right?

[Miguel]

I think you are making too much of a jump with the data you have presented. All the AeT scores are between 1.37 and 1.50 - there just isn't enough signal to know if we are looking at signal or noise. You have posited one plausible explanation, and though you did similar workouts and controlled for weather, breakfast, course, etc - there's just too much other extraneous stuff that I think you can't account for in this short data set with very little variation. To your credit, I think you know that and hint at it in your post. Perhaps this should be a "things I'm looking into post". Fitness gains and losses are always going to be very individual as well - there are "hard gainers" and "easy gainers".

best,
Miguel

[Joe Friel]

Blake--I don't believe you could draw any specific conclusions about what your FTP should be based on EF. But I believe you could tell if it was time to test again.

[DS]

On Training Peaks, using a HR + GPS watch, I don't get EF data on the Map & Graph page. Like Derek, I see only the "Pa:HR" which seems to measure aerobic decoupling. Through 2 hours of a long run, the Pa:HR number is just under 1%, then it increases to 3% by 2:30, then it's just over 5% by the 3:10 mark.

As an aside, does this mean I meet your "under 5% decoupling" guideline, or should the entire run be under 5% even for 20+ mile runs?

[LMG]

Thanks. This is a timely post for me as I am a month into base training and it is my first season putting serious work into AeT and following an ATP. I have had some concern about what HR I should be riding at. According to the numbers I have come up with (following your books)I should be between 130 and 144 (with an AT of 163) but sometimes I feel like I am working harder than I should be for base training. This may be due to variations in PRE because of hectic work schedule. For point of comparison would you mind sharing your Aerobic Threshold?
(I realize one answer to the issue might be "your aerobic endurance is poor, but my comparative strength in endurance focused events (100 and 50 mile mtb) seems to suggests otherwise).

[Chuck Tran]

Hi Joe,
Your EF at the beginning and end of this period is essentially unchanged (1.41 and 1.42). Does that mean your aerobic endurance has not increased appreciably? Do you feel you have higher aerobic fitness now?
Chuck

[Joe Friel]

Hey Chuck--That was my point--inconsistent training has not allowed me to make any gains as of the last such workout.

[Joe Friel]

LMG--Just ride in your low HR 2 zone (my system) which is roughly 30bpm +/-2bpm less than LTHR.

[Joe Friel]

DS--Your decoupling sounds good. I'll ask support at TrainingPeaks about EF for you.

[Joe Friel]

DS--I asked TP.com what the status of EF for running is. Here is the reply... "We are not calculating NGP in the file viewer yet, so I can not calculate EF for runs right now. We are working on NGP and rTSS in the graph for January and when it is there I will add EF."