More (or less) on what to do during the winter

Doublebiker

[font=&quot]J Strength Cond Res. 2007 Aug ;21 (3):943-9 17685689
[/font]

[font=&quot]Impact of training intensity distribution on performance in endurance athletes.[/font][font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot][My paper][/font][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]Jonathan Esteve-Lanao[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Carl Foster[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Stephen Seiler[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Alejandro Lucia[/font][font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]Esteve-Lanao, J., C. Foster, S. Seiler, and A. Lucia. Impact of training intensity distribution on performance in endurance athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21(3):943-949. 2007.-
[/font]

[font=&quot]The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of 2 training programs differing in the relative contribution of training volume, clearly below vs. within the lactate threshold/maximal lactate steady state region on performance in endurance runners. Twelve subelite endurance runners (who are specialists in track events, mostly the 5,000-m race usually held during spring-summer months and who also participate in cross-country races [9- 12 km] during fall and winter months) were randomly assigned to a training program emphasizing low-intensity (subthreshold) (Z1) or moderately high-intensity (between thresholds) (Z2) training intensities. At the start of the study, the subjects performed a maximal exercise test to determine ventilatory (VT) and respiratory compensation thresholds (RCT), which allowed training to be controlled based on heart rate during each training session over a 5-month training period. Subjects performed a simulated 10.4-km cross-country race before and after the training period. Training was quantified based on the cumulative time spent in 3 intensity zones: zone 1 (low intensity; <VT), zone 2 (moderate intensity; between VT and RCT), and zone 3 (high intensity; >RCT). [/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]The contribution of total training time spent in zones 1 and 2 was controlled to have relatively more low-intensity training in Z1 (80.5 +/- 1.8% and 11.8 +/- 2.0%, respectively) than in Z2 (66.8 +/- 1.1% and 24.7 +/- 1.5%, respectively), whereas the contribution of high-intensity (zone 3) training was similar (8.3 +/- 0.7% [Z1] and 8.5 +/- 1.0% [Z2]). [/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]The magnitude of the improvement in running performance was significantly greater (p = 0.03) in Z1 (-157 +/- 13 seconds) than in Z2 (-121.5 +/- 7.1 seconds). These results provide experimental evidence supporting the value of a relatively large percentage of low-intensity training over a long period ( approximately 5 months), provided that the contribution of high-intensity training remains sufficient. [/font]


[font=&quot][/font]

frenchyge

So, if I'm reading that correctly:

Group 1 did 80.5/11.8/8.3 percent of their training in z1/z2/z3, and
Group 2 did 66.6/24.7/8.5 percent of their training in z1/z2/z3. Group 1 had better improvement.

Interesting. Does the full paper say whether total training time/workload was controlled or differed between the 2 groups?

Piotr

Hmm. Was it "better improvement" or less fatigue? It doesn't look like the groups were allowed a proper taper.

__________________
blog

strader

Can anyone explain what ventilatory threshold (VT) and respiratory compensation thresholds (RCT) refered to in the paper represent? I would like to understand what the equivalent cycling training levels would be (L1/2/3/4/5).

Steve_B

Yeah, I'm wondering that too. Like, did the Z1 group get more volume and/or "CTL"?

Doublebiker

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/Seiler...d%20article.pdf
I believe this is the study in question.

frenchyge

Sorry, no. That one is from about a year earlier, involves skiers instead of runners, and didn't test for improvements or training results at all.

Both do appear to involve Stephen Seiler, however.

Doublebiker

Ooops, my wrong, better check myself next time. The link is to the study that proceeded the one with the runners.

Interesting though, first they study how the athletes actually train, then they do a long term study on the effects of two different training protocols.

In reply to another topic (Commentary on Train-Low Compete-High in the ACSM Report, Stephen Seiler Sportscience 10, 8 (sportsci.org/2006/ss.htm)), Seiler made this comment:
Long duration, low intensity exercise bouts seem to be at least as good–and perhaps better than–shorter more intense loading as a driving signal for key metabolic adaptations at the cellular level, according to several recent studies. I think this idea makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. For our distant ancestors, exercise was presumably often associated with an energy-depleted state and the pursuit of food. Long, low intensity bouts (plus the occasional very high intensity bout to avoid being eaten or trampled) would dominate the prehistoric periodization plan, not 30-minute running bouts performed at the lactate threshold. Is it a coincidence that elite endurance athletes across several sports polarize their training by avoiding anaerobic-threshold intensity? (See, for example, Seiler and Kjerland, 2006.) I had assumed that the explanation for this self-organization pattern (emerging from training experience, not sport science) was found within the rubric of “reducing the sympathetic stress load and avoiding overtraining”. Now we may also see that there are fundamental adaptive signalling issues that also dictate increased duration and decreased intensity for a lot of the total training load.

frenchyge

Heh, I wonder how our distant ancestors or elite endurance athletes would change their training habits if they had to work a job 40-60 hr/wk, ferry kids between extra-ciricular activities in the evenings, do yardwork on weekends, etc.?

Actually, it sounds like they train specific to their competitive events. For non-cave-people and non-elite endurance athletes, 1-2 hours near threshold is closer to competition-specific (certainly for running/skiing) than very long, low intensity efforts would be.

john979

I agree that understanding the taper may be crucial to interpreting the results.

"The contribution of total training time spent in zones 1 and 2 was controlled to have relatively more low-intensity training in Z1 (80.5 +/- 1.8% and 11.8 +/- 2.0%, respectively) than in Z2 (66.8 +/- 1.1% and 24.7 +/- 1.5%, respectively).." implies that Z2 subjects had a higher CTL than Z1 subjects, since the training time was controlled, not energy expenditure/TSS.

Therefore, a pausible conclusion could be that Z1 subjects were simply more "fresh" when performing the simulated 10.4 km race at the training period's end. Moreover, looking at the training load from a TSS perspective, Z2 subjects might have had a significantly higher CTL (and lower TSB) than Z1 subjects, due to the approx 13% time spent in Z2.

frenchyge

That's possible. I read it to say that the relative contributions were controlled, but the absolute amount of training may not have been, meaning the Z1 group might have just run *more.* That would make for a poorly constructed study, which is why it'd be nice to see the whole thing.

john979

Still, a very interesting meta-analysis with some plausible conclusions, the most significant being that among elites with a very high VO2 max, L1 training elicits a higher O2 muscle flux than higher intensity training in non-elites.

Keep in mind too that studies rarely control for subject's muscle morphology. While elite of specific disciplines have more homogenous muscle morphologies (i.e., marathon runners very high percentage Type 1 muscle fiber), a group of non-elites elites tend to possess a more heterogeneous muscle morphology and untrained subjects posess a very heterogeneous muscle morphology.

Therefore, it is quite plausible that a group of elite marathon runs might benefit most from a polarized training model, as given their high VO2 max low training intensity will elicit a significant O2 flux in the muscle. In addition, since such subjects lack significant Type II muscle fiber, their only need for high intensity training would be to peak VO2 max, which occurs fairly rapidly.

OTOH, those with more Type II fiber might benefit more with a larger volume of high-intensity training, to not only peak VO2 max but to elicit Type II muscle fiber training adaptations. Moreover, if such subjects possess only a moderate VO2 max, threshold training might also be required to fully develop Type I fiber adaptations, as their absolute O2 flux at any training level is less than that of an elite athlete.

frost

Very interesting point! Do you know if there is studies to back this idea?

__________________
"It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

Sikhandar

welcome to the magic world of cycling!!!!!

no well I'm joking, I think it's a very interesting scientific (well ok some would say "pseudo-scientific") confirm of an old winter-training method as old as cycling!

Moreover keep in mind that during winter it's important to keep an eye on...your mind itself, you shouldn't terminate your brain energies in doing hard trainings starting from november... You would need them during the first races and during the real "build" period in jan/feb/march... it's important also to enjoy riding sometimes, and winter is optimal for that!