2x20?? and other base trainning ideas

[WarrenG]

Who, like the coach of one of the best international teams that called me yesterday asking for my opinion on how to best prepare for a particular event?

So what? Seeking opinions from a variety of sources can be useful. Whether the opinion is incorporated, and successfully is the real question. The best coaches know this, and the really good ones already know what's available on PubMed, just like you, but they have a better understanding of what is relevant and appropriate, and how to apply it, and even with my limited knowledge I can see some of your mistakes in that area.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

So what? Seeking opinions from a variety of sources can be useful. Whether the opinion is incorporated, and successfully is the real question. The best coaches know this, and the really good ones already know what's available on PubMed, just like you, but they have a better understanding of what is relevant and appropriate, and how to apply it, and even with my limited knowledge I can see some of your mistakes in that area.

I often wonder whether the opinions you express are those that your coach would? I'm just sort of curious. I think it would be great if he popped over here for a bit, and your coach, myself, and Andy, had like a round table discussion.

Ric

 

[acoggan]

even with my limited knowledge I can see some of your mistakes in that area.

How is that possible, given that you really don't know what sort of training plan I might prescribe for anyone?

 

[WarrenG]

As far as i'm aware Andy, doesn't actually offer training, but i'm sure if he did it would be evidence based (rather than calling it Pub Med based), which is how we work too.

Ric

Does your "evidence" include experience during 10-20 years of coaching riders, as individuals, and learning from their individual repsonses to training? (I hope so.) Or is it limited to what has been examined in formal studies because that's the restrictive criteria Andy chooses to place on what is an acceptable method of evaluating training methods.

Andy wrote:
"And how do you know that you wouldn't improve as rapidly, if not more rapidly, by training another way? The answer is that, unless you've done a formal study, you don't - all you have is your subjective impression, i.e., faith. That's simply not good enough to provide even a modicum of proof, at least to anyone with the brains to think for themselves."

 

[acoggan]

I often wonder whether the opinions you express are those that your coach would? I'm just sort of curious.

Well, I know that in at least one case they are not. Specifically, at a recent party in Colorado Springs Dr. Testa was overheard expressing his preference for field testing over lab testing for establishing training "zones".

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Does your "evidence" include experience during 10-20 years of coaching riders, as individuals, and learning from their individual repsonses to training? (I hope so.) Or is it limited to what has been examined in formal studies because that's the restrictive criteria Andy chooses to place on what is an acceptable method of evaluating training methods.

Andy wrote:
"And how do you know that you wouldn't improve as rapidly, if not more rapidly, by training another way? The answer is that, unless you've done a formal study, you don't - all you have is your subjective impression, i.e., faith. That's simply not good enough to provide even a modicum of proof, at least to anyone with the brains to think for themselves."

I've been coaching for ~ 16 years. I've been racing every years since i started in 1984. I've worked with riders in the TdF, world class riders, paralympians, and Masters world champions, as well as riders in all categories and non-racing cyclists too.

I know that when one cyclist responds one way, it doesn't mean another cyclist (even of the same category) will respond the same way. I also use an evidence based approach as described in the linked article that Andy pointed to previously.

I'm with Andy on that quoted paragraph.

Ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Well, I know that in at least one case they are not. Specifically, at a recent party in Colorado Springs Dr. Testa was overheard expressing his preference for field testing over lab testing for establishing training "zones".

(i wasn't sure if everyone knew it was Dr Testa who was Warren's coach).

Party...? What sort of self respecting cyclist and physiologist goes to a party!!!!?

I can't always keep up with Warren, but is he a lab testing devotee?

Ric

 

[acoggan]

Does your "evidence" include experience during 10-20 years of coaching riders, as individuals, and learning from their individual repsonses to training?

Your use of quotation marks around the word evidence is appropriate.

Andy wrote:
"And how do you know that you wouldn't improve as rapidly, if not more rapidly, by training another way? The answer is that, unless you've done a formal study, you don't - all you have is your subjective impression, i.e., faith. That's simply not good enough to provide even a modicum of proof, at least to anyone with the brains to think for themselves."

Ironically, I was thinking about this general topic just this morning...

Consider two riders, A and B, who are initially prescribed the same training program by their coach. Rider A initially improves quite dramatically, but rider B does not. A belief-based coach takes this as "evidence" that what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander, i.e., that rider B needs to train differently than rider A. An evidence-based coach, OTOH, realizes that fully half of someone's "trainability" is genetically determined, such that an equally, if not more, plausible interpretation of these observations is simply that rider B isn't as responsive to training as rider A. The evidence-based coach therefore stays the course, knowing that the training program they've prescribed is appropriately designed to accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish, e.g., to increase the riders' VO2max. Sure enough, over time rider B also shows significant improvement, albeit not to the same degree as rider A...

"Evidence-based coaches have fewer guides for practices, but what are included are highly predictive for accomplishing particular training effects." - Rushall, 2003

 

[acoggan]

Party...? What sort of self respecting cyclist and physiologist goes to a party!!!!?

I don't know if any cyclists or exercise physiologists were there...

I can't always keep up with Warren, but is he a lab testing devotee?

Very much so...according to Warren, lactate testing is really the only way to go, because it's just so much more precise for defining/prescribing training intensities, determining precisely what sort of training somebody needs, etc.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

I don't know if any cyclists or exercise physiologists were there...

i'll believe you, thousands wouldn't

Very much so...according to Warren, lactate testing is really the only way to go, because it's just so much more precise for defining/prescribing training intensities, determining precisely what sort of training somebody needs, etc.

ahh yes. now i remember..

 

[WarrenG]

Well, I know that in at least one case they are not. Specifically, at a recent party in Colorado Springs Dr. Testa was overheard expressing his preference for field testing over lab testing for establishing training "zones".

Second-hand, third-hand information? Wrong again Andy.

Just recently I asked him if I needed to come in for another lab test (I haven't done one in 9+ months). He said since I was going to be doing lots of training around threshold soon that I should do a lab test so we can get an accurate picture (target) for that training.

What you refer to as his "field testing" is getting verbal feedback (including some power, HR, and perceived exertion information) from the rider about how they feel and perform during several different types of effort. My "field tests" are never all-out time trials over a fixed distance or time except for a few 200m TT's, and these look at time along with several speed measurements. (He knows that one or two time trials will not accurately reflect all of the specific abilities/components we're trying to train/improve.) We sometimes make small adjustments to the training zones or target power based on this "field" information.

 

[WarrenG]

I've been coaching for ~ 16 years. I've been racing every years since i started in 1984. I've worked with riders in the TdF, world class riders, paralympians, and Masters world champions, as well as riders in all categories and non-racing cyclists too.

I know that when one cyclist responds one way, it doesn't mean another cyclist (even of the same category) will respond the same way...
Ric

Exactly what I would expect from a good coach.

Formal studies always look at how the group performed as a whole, not as individuals. Within that group there can be some people who responded positively to a stimulus and others who responded negatively to that same stimulus, and some who would have responded more positively to a different stimulus, even though the mean/average of the group might be positive or negative.

 

[WarrenG]

I don't know if any cyclists or exercise physiologists were there...



Very much so...according to Warren, lactate testing is really the only way to go, because it's just so much more precise for defining/prescribing training intensities, determining precisely what sort of training somebody needs, etc.

As usual, you have overstated what I've said to make your point. Can't you just constrain yourself to what has actually been said or is your reading comprehension really so poor?

I have never said it was the only way to go. I have not said it should used in all cases to determine precisely what sort of training somebody needs throughout all ranges of intensity. I mentioned it's value for certain intensities, especially for abilities not easily evaluated otherwise, and as an objective measurement of changes in certain areas.

 

[acoggan]

Second-hand, third-hand information? Wrong again Andy.

Just recently I asked him if I needed to come in for another lab test (I haven't done one in 9+ months). He said since I was going to be doing lots of training around threshold soon that I should do a lab test so we can get an accurate picture (target) for that training.

What you refer to as his "field testing" is getting verbal feedback (including some power, HR, and perceived exertion information) from the rider about how they feel and perform during several different types of effort. My "field tests" are never all-out time trials over a fixed distance or time except for a few 200m TT's, and these look at time along with several speed measurements. (He knows that one or two time trials will not accurately reflect all of the specific abilities/components we're trying to train/improve.) We sometimes make small adjustments to the training zones or target power based on this "field" information.

As relayed to me from someone who was there, Testa expressed a preference for having a rider performed specific efforts using a powermeter outdoors, versus measuring their blood lactate response while riding indoors. I interpret this to mean that apparently he, too, recognizes that "the best predictor of performance is performance itself".

 

[acoggan]

As usual, you have overstated what I've said to make your point. Can't you just constrain yourself to what has actually been said or is your reading comprehension really so poor?

I have never said it was the only way to go. I have not said it should used in all cases to determine precisely what sort of training somebody needs throughout all ranges of intensity. I mentioned it's value for certain intensities, especially for abilities not easily evaluated otherwise, and as an objective measurement of changes in certain areas.

Nice attempt at spin control, Warren. However, I think all anyone has to do to see where you really stand on this issue is to read over the prior threads in which you have vociferously asserted the accuracy and precision of lactate testing over more direct measurements, e.g., power output.

 

[WarrenG]

As relayed to me from someone who was there, Testa expressed a preference for having a rider performed specific efforts using a powermeter outdoors, versus measuring their blood lactate response while riding indoors. I interpret this to mean that apparently he, too, recognizes that "the best predictor of performance is performance itself".

For some aspects of ability he prefers the field tests and for some other aspects of ability the lab test is useful. He sometimes uses the lab test to provide additional information that is not so apparent from a road test.

For example, if someone comes to you and says they want to increase their threshold power, how do you figure out what components of that person's threshold power need the most training, and would result in the greatest increase short-term and/or long-term? IOW, what would be the most efficient use of time and energy for that person to improve their threshold power and still allow that person to work on other aspects of their ability?

 

[WarrenG]

Nice attempt at spin control, Warren. However, I think all anyone has to do to see where you really stand on this issue is to read over the prior threads in which you have vociferously asserted the accuracy and precision of lactate testing over more direct measurements, e.g., power output.

Not spin control, just trying to correct your careless summarizations of what I've actually said.

 

[acoggan]

if someone comes to you and says they want to increase their threshold power, how do you figure out what components of that person's threshold power need the most training, and would result in the greatest increase short-term and/or long-term?

No need, as there aren't multiple components, at least in any sense that would really be addressable via different forms of training.

IOW, what would be the most efficient use of time and energy for that person to improve their threshold power and still allow that person to work on other aspects of their ability?

That will of course depend on the individual, their capacity to tolerate a specific dose of training, etc....but not on anything that you'd learn from measuring their blood lactate response to exercise.

 

[WarrenG]

No need, as there aren't multiple components, at least in any sense that would really be addressable via different forms of training.



That will of course depend on the individual, their capacity to tolerate a specific dose of training, etc....but not on anything that you'd learn from measuring their blood lactate response to exercise.

Really good coaches know better. Your approach is simple, which is fine when good enough is good enough.

 

[acoggan]

Really good coaches know better.

Anybody who thinks that there are multiple components to threshold that are specifically trainable doesn't have a very good understanding of the physiology of exercise. But, that's part of what differentiates belief-based and "evidence-based" coaches, isn't it?

"Belief-based coaching also includes pseudo-scientific coaching. Pseudo-scientists attempt to give the impression of scientific knowledge but invariably their knowledge is incomplete resulting in false/erroneous postulations." - Rushall, 2003