Ric and other experts on the board: I have been reading a lot recently about raising LT and came across this site on running & LT:

http://www.ffh.us/cn/hadd.htm

The pages are collected from a very long thread at: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_re...8&thread=91048

Basically the guy is arguing that training long at lower intensity improves the ability of the body to handle lactate. A pace that once would have caused 2mmol/l of lactate to accumulate will, after training at a relatively easy intensity for a few months, only accumulate 1mmol/l of lacate.

I guess this is pretty basic stuff, been said a lot of times, but many of us train way too hard I think (myself included) and don't reap the benefits of training at lower intensity (ie. improved aerobic function/mitochondrial density/capilliaries etc..). This is not the old-style LSD ideas of the 60s, a pace that was too slow to have any benefit. But it does seem to make sense.

Obviously LT and VO2max workouts have their place too as races approach, but is what the guy Hadd says basically correct? Do we (generally) train too hard to benefit the aerobic system??

If I go out and ride at 200-250W, then would pushing hard up a hill at 350W engage anaerobic mechanisms and not train the aerobic system? Do we need to keep power in a reasonable zone (say up to 270W) to train the aerobic system in the way Hadd describes?

Just wondering about the validity of this type of training. I've read many times that the idea of long-slow-distance from previous decades was a waste of a lot of cyclists time/effort since it didn't bring improvements. But this guy is suggesting aerobic training at I guess 145BPM.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts, especially on whether aerobic conditioning is a greatly overlooked aspect of cycle training. Most of us are too eager to rush into intervals and I for one have seen my performance decline with more than a few weeks speedwork.

Originally posted by TTer
Basically the guy is arguing that training long at lower intensity improves the ability of the body to handle lactate. A pace that once would have caused 2mmol/l of lactate to accumulate will, after training at a relatively easy intensity for a few months, only accumulate 1mmol/l of lacate.

>This change represents an improvement in the lactate threshold(i.e. lactate begins accumualting at the a higher intesity). Research suggests that training at and around the lactate threhold is the best stimulous for improving it.

I guess this is pretty basic stuff, been said a lot of times, but many of us train way too hard I think (myself included) and don't reap the benefits of training at lower intensity (ie. improved aerobic function/mitochondrial density/capilliaries etc..). This is not the old-style LSD ideas of the 60s, a pace that was too slow to have any benefit. But it does seem to make sense.

> Agreed that quite a lot of people train too hard a lot of the time, but efforts towards the VO2max provide these benefits as well.

Obviously LT and VO2max workouts have their place too as races approach, but is what the guy Hadd says basically correct? Do we (generally) train too hard to benefit the aerobic system??

>You need to train your body specificaly, to stress your aerobic capacity maximaly you must do efforts at VO2max (VO2max = maximal aerobic capacity) as well as some low intensity work. Even maximal efforts of <1 minute may provide an aerobic training stimulous in less trained individuals because the aerobic system is used during the efforts and recovery. Training at low intensities provides a smaller stimulous for improvement, but can be maintained for longer.

If I go out and ride at 200-250W, then would pushing hard up a hill at 350W engage anaerobic mechanisms and not train the aerobic system? Do we need to keep power in a reasonable zone (say up to 270W) to train the aerobic system in the way Hadd describes?

>Its imposiable to seperate training for anaerobic metabolism and aerobic metabolism for a number of reasons. All energy systems are used to an extent all of the time, in the example above when you hit 350 W and lactate starts accumualting your aerobic system is already working maximaly, aerobic system is used in the recovery from anaerobic efforts, etc.

Just wondering about the validity of this type of training. I've read many times that the idea of long-slow-distance from previous decades was a waste of a lot of cyclists time/effort since it didn't bring improvements. But this guy is suggesting aerobic training at I guess 145BPM.

> My lactate threshold was measured recently and it around 150 bpm (this is a LT session for me), although I can hold 180 bpm for over 20 minutes. Cyclists do need some low intesity training, but many aspects of cycle racing require anaerobic efforts for success (e.g. sprints).

I would be interested to hear your thoughts, especially on whether aerobic conditioning is a greatly overlooked aspect of cycle training. Most of us are too eager to rush into intervals and I for one have seen my performance decline with more than a few weeks speedwork.

>You must be doing the wrong type of training or training poorly, speed work should add speed! The law of training specificity suggests that 'low intensity training' will make you good at 'low intensity riding'. Training stimulous needs to be specific and of a large enough magnitude to encourage adapatation. In the UK, I would suggest that for most riders there is too much focus on long low intensity rides.

Bit pushed for time presently, but this should turn into a great thread.

The main thing that i find wrong with peoples training, is that generally they do too much, long low intensity work as 2Lap mentioned, and too much very high intensity work (e.g., 30-sec efforts). Never enough LT and TT type work.

People also settle into a routine, never really changing the way that they train, often just doing enough to get themselves to an 'acceptable' (which is relative to their own needs) level.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

I suspect that many people tend to train too hard on the "easy" days in their programs. It may be as a result of some competitive gene common to most cyclists! I have a real struggle on easy days staying in the planned zone when other riders pass me, for example. Getting riders to take rest days can also be a challenge!l

When this happens, though, it reduces the rider's ability to train as hard as they need to on the "hard" days - those involving sprints, intervals, hills and time trials. A successful training program relies on the selection and maintenance of a program appropriate to the individual rider's needs at that point in time. It needs to be flexible so as to account for incomplete recovery and injury. While there are a lot of very successful self-coached riders, I suspect that a second pair of eyes on the rider's progress is often very helpful in order to achieve the very best results from a training program.

There's no doubt in my mind that a lot of riders fail to develop sufficient base mileage before they move on to harder training. I generally like to see at least 10 weeks of good base training (13 in a new rider) before I feel comfortable in moving them on to more specific training areas. Training easy so that we are equipped to train hard is the way I like to think of it.

There's no doubt that specificity in training is key to improvement. The weight of evidence, both empirical and anecdotal, makes this quite clear. Training for LT improvement requires very different actions from the rider than those necessary for general conditioning or aerobic improvement. Because we cannot totally isolate our energy mechanisms we are using all of them to some - often very small - extent at any given moment. However, to optimize the effects of training we need to exercise so as to maximize the use of the energy system that we are hoping to improve. This often requires inefficient use of the body's systems for the duration of the training effort.

A temporary decrease in performance is not that unusual when a rider moves on to speedwork or a new area of specific training. If this performance decrease persists, however, it is almost always associated with some degree of overtraining, requiring adjustment to the program. Again, effective monitoring of performance and adjustment of training is a key element here.

To get the best results from a training program the rider needs to adhere to it. Ride easy on the easy days. Ride hard on the hard days and take the rest days as just that. If they're planned to be off the bike, stay off the bike. If they're an easy spin, than don't decide to do hill work. Riders need to eat right too. Poor nutrition and the resulting reduced fuel reserves can really sabotage the best training program.

Bottom line? Plan the work and work the plan!

Some good points! But why use 10 or 13 weeks? What do you describe as 'good BASE training'?

Lots of people give a long list of benefits of BASE training, but almost all of these benefits can be acheived with heavy, maximal and supermaximal efforts in a lot less time on the bike!

Spot on! Mitochondrion density, capillarisation, etc are often better developed at intensities closer to VO2 max.

I often find that it's best to give someone a short break at the end of the year (e.g., 2 - 6 weeks of light training) and then to bring in interval work. The break is really for no other reason than a mental rest and some enjoyment!

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Good points.

I was thinking more about relatively untrained riders or those returning to training after a layoff when I quoted the 10 - 13 weeks timescale. Obviously each rider is different and a I absolutely agree that a rider who has been in regular training for a while, even after a winter break, can generally start higher-stress activities considerably earlier than that.

However, having said that, I've seen too many riders (myself included) train themselves into an early-season injury because they did not take the time to strengthen muscles, tendons and ligaments enough to support more advanced and therefore more stressful training. Overall, I'd prefer to have a rider achieve a good level of general conditioning before moving them up to high-stress training rather than lose prime training and racing time because of an injury.

There may also be some philosophical differences in training style on this side of the pond. From posts in these forums it looks a little as if the current UK philosophy emphasizes higher training intensities earlier than the current thinking would recommend in my little corner of paradise on the left bank of the Atlantic. Does that fit in with your observations, Ric?

Thanks!

I agree with the above on untrained riders, or those coming back from a long lay off.

I do believe that there are some differences in coaching style dependent upon where you reside. however, i think the biggest difference is more dependent upon the background of the 'coach'.

For example, i *guess* (i'm guessing because we haven't discussed this in detail) that my and 2Laps coaching styles would be similar, not because we're both in the UK, but primarily because of our sport science/exercise physiology background. I know US exercise physiologists who have a similar style of coaching.

Also, i think there's possibly some confusion in our terminology: i'll have riders complete zone 4 and 5 work over the majority of the winter -- the forces that the rider has to cope with on the bike are very low, and this sort of work shouldn't injure anyone.

The highest forces on the bike are generally, when accelerating from stationary, and we can all cope with that. Obviously there's high forces involved when sprinting (but these are lower than when accelerating hard from stationary).

Certainly, i believe in training to train (getting in some base fitness). However, if the rider has little or no time off (or just easy spins for a few weeks) then they won't loose much and can then get back into some more moderate intensity work (zone 4)fairly rapidly.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Originally posted by TTer, i reply with >>

Ric and other experts on the board: I have been reading a lot recently about raising LT and came across this site on running & LT:

http://www.ffh.us/cn/hadd.htm

The pages are collected from a very long thread at: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_re...8&thread=91048

>>Bad i know, but i don't have time to sift through the thread -- hopefully, i know what they're talking about without reading :-)

Basically the guy is arguing that training long at lower intensity improves the ability of the body to handle lactate. A pace that once would have caused 2mmol/l of lactate to accumulate will, after training at a relatively easy intensity for a few months, only accumulate 1mmol/l of lacate.

>>In untrained athletes this is definitely true (i.e., any exercise causes an increase in fitness)

>>It's also quite likely in trained athletes too -- for example, we know that some riders come out of the (e.g.) Tour de France* fitter than they went in (especially after a taper). However, in trained athletes this might require a very large volume (e.g., 4-hrs a day). Apart from the fact most people don't have this sort of time available, it doesn't half mess with other things in your life. Therefore, we the majority of people need volume and intensity.

>>*Obviously a race such as a grand tour has a stack of volume and intensity

I guess this is pretty basic stuff, been said a lot of times, but many of us train way too hard I think (myself included) and don't reap the benefits of training at lower intensity (ie. improved aerobic function/mitochondrial density/capilliaries etc..). This is not the old-style LSD ideas of the 60s, a pace that was too slow to have any benefit. But it does seem to make sense.

>>mitochondrial density, increased capillarisation, etc. occurs not just at low intensity (e.g., zone 2), but is also highly correlated to work at TT pace and VO2 max


Obviously LT and VO2max workouts have their place too as races approach, but is what the guy Hadd says basically correct? Do we (generally) train too hard to benefit the aerobic system??

>>by definition LT (lactate threshold --- NOT tolerance) and VO2 max are aerobic. In fact LT is quite a low intensity (around zone 2/low level 2) and can be maintained for up to several hours

If I go out and ride at 200-250W, then would pushing hard up a hill at 350W engage anaerobic mechanisms and not train the aerobic system?

>>Obviously this will depend on your fitness level. For a pro this is easy, on the other hand a 50 kg untrained female is going to fall to pieces at this intensity very quickly.

>>However, unless you really rest before making an all-out effort, then the effort will be aerobic. If i assume that you've done a MAP test, and come close to ~400 W (guesstimate from the figures shown), then it's highly likely that the 350 W will be a minimum type effort that will elicit VO2 max.

>>I don't think it really helps to imagine the energy systems as being separate (e.g., is this effort aerobic, was that one anaerobic) they're all on a continuum

Do we need to keep power in a reasonable zone (say up to 270W) to train the aerobic system in the way Hadd describes?

Just wondering about the validity of this type of training. I've read many times that the idea of long-slow-distance from previous decades was a waste of a lot of cyclists time/effort since it didn't bring improvements. But this guy is suggesting aerobic training at I guess 145BPM.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts, especially on whether aerobic conditioning is a greatly overlooked aspect of cycle training. Most of us are too eager to rush into intervals and I for one have seen my performance decline with more than a few weeks speedwork.

>>Generally, i find that people like to rush into the very high intensity intervals (e.g., 30-secs all out) because it hurts like hell and they imagine that, that does them good.

>>completing moderate intensity intervals (e.g., 90 - 95 % of TTpower) will really help boost LT and VO2 max, which will increase fitness.

>>obviously, this advice is geared towards endurance riders, and the specific case mentioned here. A coach will help point you in the right direction for your training. I obviously recommend myself

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

First timer here, so go easy on me.

I think it is relative to an individual's strengths and weaknesses as an athlete. This is not to say that we all would not benefit form more aerobic development, but some are more fit in this respect than others. I, for example, came into this sport with a good all around cardiovascular condition, but jumped right into hard rides with the guys. What I found lacking in my own fitness was simple aerobic base training to do just what the article suggests, help me tolerate and buffer lactate at higher intensities at a later date. This is of course, why preiodized training programs emphasize a fairly strict structure that spends time in each of these energy systems, thus alowing the proper development of each, which over time allows each to become fitter and more effective.

I think we all would beneift from this training, but only when mixed with the apropriate doses of intensity, in the correct order. Many athletes are missing just the opposite, adequately applied intensity. Many do not push it enough and lack the anaerobic fitness to function at higher levels of exercise intensity for any length of time, or to repeat it with any level of sufficiency.

TT'er:

I think you are on the right track with what you came across. Basically all I do is stuff like that and speedwork, with most of it aerobic riding .

The vast majority of TT effort is aerobic and the more power you can generate below your acid limit the better. Months ago, I talked about basically the same thing in the "average speed" post.

I got the idea from an ABCC interview with Sean Yates, and he said he never uses anything bigger than a 42x14 on a fixed gear or a 53x17 on a road bike, always keeping constant power output by maintaining 80-100 rpm at all times. He only got on his Lotus once a month to actually do a TT, and he was doing 50-52 kmh for 10/25's.

A 42x14 sounds weak to many riders, yet many riders would struggle to maintain 95-105 rpm in that gear for 30 minutes, let alone for an hours training ride. Yates said it's not easy to maintain 22-23 mph for an hour, or maintain over 80 rpm in a 53x17. It's true. Those gears sound small but if you force yourself to just hold 80-100 rpm, you will develop a nice power range and improve aerobic fitness.

Obviously, the gear needs to be tailored to the individual, but try this method to see how well it works. You could handle a 42x14. With this gear, go out for an hour and try to hold over 90+ rpm the entire ride. My max is currently 180 bpm, and for me, this gear puts me in the 150's at around 95-98 rpm on mostly flat/somewhat lumpy terrain with fairly strong crosswinds. Perceived exertion is moderately hard.

Whatever I do, I don't let the cadence fall below 90 rpm in a 42x14. On a 53x17, I don't let the cadence go below 85 rpm. That's the key, never letting your cadence drop below 80 rpm no matter what gear or terrain you use. Shift down on the hills to maintain at least 80+ rpm. It's ok to generate some lactate on a climb, but the purpose of the ride is to ride "clean," without generating very much acid.

These gears sound light, but go out for an hours training once warmed up and hold the rpms indicated in those gears. Ride the gears like you are on a fixed-gear bike, meaning maintain tension on the pedals when going downhill, no matter how uncomfortable it is.

The first thing to go when you get tired is your legspeed, and it's really tempting to go into a 53x15 when your legs are tired of spinning fast in a 17 cog, but that's one of the ways it will build your power, forcing you turn the cranks at high cadence, even when you are tired.

These rides are not all out TT efforts, you should be breathing above a conversational pace, but below a TT effort. Just think, if you could ride "easy" like this at 25 mph (101 rpm/53x17)for an hour or so. You would be able to ride a 28+ mph TT without too much difficulty, and maybe even faster!!!

I bounce back and forth between riding like this and doing shorter intervals/speedwork, always allowing for proper recovery in between workouts. Currently, enroute to an interval workout, I'll go slower in a little easier gear, maybe a 42x15 or 42x17 if it's real windy.

Lactic acid is toxic. You have to generate it to tolerate it, but overall, try to minimize it, and don't expose yourself to high acid levels too often. Allow for long recoveries (10+ minutes) between intervals to allow for lactate clearance between efforts. This will help ensure that the next interval can be ridden with maximum quality.

Speedwork is like salt. A little bit goes a long way, not much more will spoil the whole meal. In my experience, 3-5 minute intervals are ridden too frequently and with too little recovery between efforts (1:1 work/rest ratio). They are very important, just don't do a lot too often.

Yates also said his brother made a "comeback" after 10 years off the bike. He did 30 minutes every other day in plimsolls, on 53x17, uphill and down, and in one month, he got down to a 52 minute 25!!!

Good luck!!!

__________________
Send comments, praise, or flames to:
jm_560@Hotmail.com

So, 2x15-30mins at 90-95% TT power is a very good workout for improving LT/VO2max.

But... this workout can only be completed 2x per week, becomes mentally taxing (something you might not look forward to week-in week-out), and needs good recovery (48hours until next session) between. I know I become tired of doing these intervals, not looking forward to the hard effort every week in training (racing is different as you are more motivated).

How much more effective is the above compared to riding on average 1.5 to 2 hours per day at a decent aerobic pace. For me aerobic pace would be up to 155bpm (max is 194bpm) or around 200-230W. This kind of training is relatively easy, not as fatiguing as the intervals, but due to the long duration will it have a similar effect on LT. From what I've read I believe you need above-VO2max efforts to improve VO2max, but can only nudge up LT effectively by training beneath it (i.e. training longer near LT, short intervals above it don't seem to help??).

So I guess this all boils down to what effect the two types of training effort have. They're both different, shorter intervals near TT pace, or longer aerobic rides tickling LT (LT as per ric's proper scientific definition of increase above 1mmol/l). Are they both as effective, but a trade-off of time/intensity?

J-MAT: I read the article on the ABCC site on Sean Yates. Seems like he thrived on the long aerobic workouts.

On a similar note, can aerobic ability suffer if sufficient training time is not decided to it between hard interval workouts in the speedwork phase? I've read a few books now that say aerobic base can be lost if you concentrate on speedwork and drop the miles too quickly. If that's true, then isn't it a tough prospect to do the above hard interval workouts 2x yet still do enough aerobic miles/rides between?

Originally posted by J-MAT

I got the idea from an ABCC interview with Sean Yates, and he said he never uses anything bigger than a 42x14 on a fixed gear or a 53x17 on a road bike, always keeping constant power output by maintaining 80-100 rpm at all times. He only got on his Lotus once a month to actually do a TT, and he was doing 50-52 kmh for 10/25's.

>If you maintained the cadence, power output would vary with environmental conditions and terrain covered. I seem to remember that Sean used some very old techniques, obviously they work but there are more effective and less time consumbing ways of training now. Particularly when people work!

A 42x14 sounds weak to many riders, yet many riders would struggle to maintain 95-105 rpm in that gear for 30 minutes, let alone for an hours training ride. Yates said it's not easy to maintain 22-23 mph for an hour, or maintain over 80 rpm in a 53x17. It's true. Those gears sound small but if you force yourself to just hold 80-100 rpm, you will develop a nice power range and improve aerobic fitness.

>Obviously, quoting gears and cadences is pretty unreliable. HR and power output are much more valid. Training should be relative to the individual.

Obviously, the gear needs to be tailored to the individual, but try this method to see how well it works. You could handle a 42x14. With this gear, go out for an hour and try to hold over 90+ rpm the entire ride. My max is currently 180 bpm, and for me, this gear puts me in the 150's at around 95-98 rpm on mostly flat/somewhat lumpy terrain with fairly strong crosswinds. Perceived exertion is moderately hard.

Whatever I do, I don't let the cadence fall below 90 rpm in a 42x14. On a 53x17, I don't let the cadence go below 85 rpm. That's the key, never letting your cadence drop below 80 rpm no matter what gear or terrain you use. Shift down on the hills to maintain at least 80+ rpm. It's ok to generate some lactate on a climb, but the purpose of the ride is to ride "clean," without generating very much acid.

>Wouldn't it be better to ride a HR or power output that represents LT. That way you know that you are training as hard as you can without accumulating LT.

These gears sound light, but go out for an hours training once warmed up and hold the rpms indicated in those gears. Ride the gears like you are on a fixed-gear bike, meaning maintain tension on the pedals when going downhill, no matter how uncomfortable it is.

The first thing to go when you get tired is your legspeed, and it's really tempting to go into a 53x15 when your legs are tired of spinning fast in a 17 cog, but that's one of the ways it will build your power, forcing you turn the cranks at high cadence, even when you are tired.

>This would be a neurological adaptation that could also be trained better in another session - not strictly an aerobic endurance measure.

These rides are not all out TT efforts, you should be breathing above a conversational pace, but below a TT effort. Just think, if you could ride "easy" like this at 25 mph (101 rpm/53x17)for an hour or so. You would be able to ride a 28+ mph TT without too much difficulty, and maybe even faster!!!

>Are you sure, even a 3 mph increase in speed requires a massive increase in power output. If this increase caused you to accumulate Lactic acid (i.e. it pushed you over LT), then you would soon be slowing down.

I bounce back and forth between riding like this and doing shorter intervals/speedwork, always allowing for proper recovery in between workouts. Currently, enroute to an interval workout, I'll go slower in a little easier gear, maybe a 42x15 or 42x17 if it's real windy.

Lactic acid is toxic. You have to generate it to tolerate it, but overall, try to minimize it, and don't expose yourself to high acid levels too often. Allow for long recoveries (10+ minutes) between intervals to allow for lactate clearance between efforts. This will help ensure that the next interval can be ridden with maximum quality.

>Actualy during efforts at LT or just above LT, there is very little lactate accumulated over an interval so rests can be quite short. During anaerobic intervals (e.g. short intervals a few minutes or less) lactate accumulation is massive and long rests are required for complete recovery between efforts. But this thread is about aerobic endurance.

Speedwork is like salt. A little bit goes a long way, not much more will spoil the whole meal. In my experience, 3-5 minute intervals are ridden too frequently and with too little recovery between efforts (1:1 work/rest ratio). They are very important, just don't do a lot too often.

>The session you describe is a VO2 max session; I wouldn't describe this as speedwork.

Yates also said his brother made a "comeback" after 10 years off the bike. He did 30 minutes every other day in plimsolls, on 53x17, uphill and down, and in one month, he got down to a 52 minute 25!!!

>Do you think that may have been 'inspite' of his training rather than because of his training. Obviously, he is gifted with the same genes as his brother!!! This session also sounds quite intense, whereas TTer is asking whether these intesnse sessions can be replaced with longer low intensity sessions.

Originally posted by TTer
So, 2x15-30mins at 90-95% TT power is a very good workout for improving LT/VO2max.

>It would be a good session.

But... this workout can only be completed 2x per week, becomes mentally taxing (something you might not look forward to week-in week-out), and needs good recovery (48hours until next session) between. I know I become tired of doing these intervals, not looking forward to the hard effort every week in training (racing is different as you are more motivated).

>Sounds like you need more variety in your training, periodisation and recovery! I wouldn't consider doing the same sessions for more than 8 weeks in a row and every week of training is at least a little different from the last. I have an 'easy' week every fourth week. Sounds like you have been 'stale' at times. Real TT's are a good way of getting time at this intensity and far more motivating.

How much more effective is the above compared to riding on average 1.5 to 2 hours per day at a decent aerobic pace. For me aerobic pace would be up to 155bpm (max is 194bpm) or around 200-230W. This kind of training is relatively easy, not as fatiguing as the intervals, but due to the long duration will it have a similar effect on LT.

>These sessions would be less effective at raising VO2 max and LT. You would also be on the bike a lot longer! These could be a greater feature in your training at different times in the year. You would never be quick if you did these in isolation (how many quick 'club run riders' and 'touring cyclists do you meet').

From what I've read I believe you need above-VO2max efforts to improve VO2max, but can only nudge up LT effectively by training beneath it (i.e. training longer near LT, short intervals above it don't seem to help??).

>A range of intenisties/sessions around VO2 max will increase your max! You need to stress your aerobic system maximaly to cause improvement.

>LT training needs to be done at or just above LT, again overloading the systems that determine LT. Given that LT is determined by production of lactic and its removal, sessions that develop high levels of Lactic acid (e.g. anaerobic type efforts - 1 minute maximaly with 3 minutes off) can improve LT. These types of sessions are sometimes called 'lactic stacking'.

So I guess this all boils down to what effect the two types of training effort have. They're both different, shorter intervals near TT pace, or longer aerobic rides tickling LT (LT as per ric's proper scientific definition of increase above 1mmol/l). Are they both as effective, but a trade-off of time/intensity?

>Its best to target VO2 max and LT sessions seperatly. Consider the TT pace efforts and LT intervals as similar. VO2 max sessions usualy consist of efforts of 4 to 6 minutes with a similar or longer period of rest (J-MAT's speed work sessions).

J-MAT: I read the article on the ABCC site on Sean Yates. Seems like he thrived on the long aerobic workouts.

>But is this now outdated?

On a similar note, can aerobic ability suffer if sufficient training time is not decided to it between hard interval workouts in the speedwork phase?

>Your aerobic capacity should increase as the maximal or anaerobic efforts also stress the VO2 max strongly. Your LT may go down if you don't do any riding at that intensity.

I've read a few books now that say aerobic base can be lost if you concentrate on speedwork and drop the miles too quickly. If that's true, then isn't it a tough prospect to do the above hard interval workouts 2x yet still do enough aerobic miles/rides between?

> But these sessions you have described are for training the aerobic base (aerobic base being made up of VO2 max and LT). Don't confuse these sessions with short sprints or anaerobic training (what I would call speedwork). All of the benefits of BASE training can be acheived from shorter high intesnity efforts quicker than traditional BASE type training.

2Lap -- Wow, I couldn't be more confused (and I apologize for being dense).

Do LT and VO2 max sessions differ by THAT much? Can you give specific examples for both (i.e., HR for a 190 bpm max)?

And you seem to be arguing for reducing distance work in favor of short, intense sessions. Do I at least understand that much correctly?

I'm very interested in this as I don't really enjoy sessions over an hour, and yet would love to be able to race next season (nothing crazy, just Cat4/5 and be in the pack).