Aerobic condition / are we doing too much speedwork?

[Shibumi]

This is a good thread!

I read on another thread a while back that the very high intensity speed work should be regarded as the icing on the cake. This year, I've done lots of LT work, and for the last 3 months, 3 TTs per week. So, with my season drawing to a close, maybe it is time for a bit of icing? What would anyone recommend I do in terms of short speed intervals?

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Shibumi
This is a good thread!

I read on another thread a while back that the very high intensity speed work should be regarded as the icing on the cake. This year, I've done lots of LT work, and for the last 3 months, 3 TTs per week. So, with my season drawing to a close, maybe it is time for a bit of icing? What would anyone recommend I do in terms of short speed intervals?

Try some 4-minute intervals, see here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/trainingstern.shtml

ric

 

[zakeen]

Originally posted by 2LAP
Wouldn't you agree that a RR rider needs a good aerobic capacity to 'get round the event' while the ability to sprint, ride above LT and ride above VO2 (i.e. anaerobic capacity) is important for tactical movements?

I just had a interesting thought! oh what you said above!

you state

Originally posted by 2LAP
RR rider needs a good aerobic capacity to 'get round the event'.

I am thinking about the Pros so I think I am answering a different question. Pros dont need that, ok wrongly said, they have enough of that and done need the term

Originally posted by 2LAP
to 'get round the event'.

But I guess from what you said is very correct from a different level rider, not as highly trained.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by zakeen
I just had a interesting thought! oh what you said above!

you state



I am thinking about the Pros so I think I am answering a different question. Pros dont need that, ok wrongly said, they have enough of that and done need the term



But I guess from what you said is very correct from a different level rider, not as highly trained.

Are you saying pro's don't need or don't have to improve their VO2 max and LT?

Ric

 

[zakeen]

Originally posted by 2LAP
Wouldn't you agree that a RR rider needs a good aerobic capacity to 'get round the event'

Yes I am saying that PROs dont train to 'get around the event'

'get around the event' = Expression = I believe he means to finish the even(I could be wrong)

AND Yes PROs dont train to finish races, They Train to RACE races.

So when a new rider comes alone and has some questions of improvement areas he would be looking at a different program then a trained Pro

PROs dont train to finish races, they have those miles already in the bank(legs(another EXPRESSION)) Where a beginner will train to finish a race!

dissagree?

 

[Don]

Originally posted by zakeen
Yes I am saying that PROs dont train to 'get around the event'

'get around the event' = Expression = I believe he means to finish the even(I could be wrong)

AND Yes PROs dont train to finish races, They Train to RACE races.

So when a new rider comes alone and has some questions of improvement areas he would be looking at a different program then a trained Pro

PROs dont train to finish races, they have those miles already in the bank(legs(another EXPRESSION)) Where a beginner will train to finish a race!

dissagree?

 

[zakeen]

Originally posted by Don

hhhhhmmm... very interesting! hehehehhe!

 

[Don]

I typed in a long answer and then lost it. Will try again later. Don.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by zakeen
Yes I am saying that PROs dont train to 'get around the event'

'get around the event' = Expression = I believe he means to finish the even(I could be wrong)

AND Yes PROs dont train to finish races, They Train to RACE races.

So when a new rider comes alone and has some questions of improvement areas he would be looking at a different program then a trained Pro

PROs dont train to finish races, they have those miles already in the bank(legs(another EXPRESSION)) Where a beginner will train to finish a race!

dissagree?

i was talking about VO2 max and LT (aerobic capacity).

Ric

 

[2LAP]

Getting around the event - could also mean getting around the event in contention, with anaerobic/sprint type efforts needed for winning tactics (other than a lone break).

I have no doubt that pros train to increase their VO2 max and LT (try telling me hamilton or armstrong doesn't).

Aerobic training makes up part of the training to win program!!

 

[zakeen]

Originally posted by ricstern
i was talking about VO2 max and LT (aerobic capacity).

Ric

As you can see I wasn't - people using these forums come from all around the world and expression mean one thing in one culture to another(I know, my girlfriends Austrian, I am australian), like me calling that guy a mate and he went spastic!

I hold for what I said about PROs dont train to get around the even, and I uderstood that as, to finish a race. But he ment something else.

 

[Shibumi]

Originally posted by ricstern
Try some 4-minute intervals, see here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/trainingstern.shtml

ric

Thanks for the reply. This is exactly what I was after!

 

[rkohler]

Originally posted by TTer
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_read.php?board=1&id=91048&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.

Hey TTer,
I think what he's getting at is that people tend to train at too high of an intensity for what they're attempting to accomplish from that specific workout. For example, in your first paragraph that has the part about training at lower intensities to help buffer lactic acid, I'd have to disagree with it. If you're running at say, 2 mmol/L for something like 4 hours, and you work up to and beyond this during training, then your body wouldn't have that "overload" of lactate buildup and wouldn't have to respond to buffer it since it's not that high to begin with. Now, this may occur in more trained athletes, but I can see your point when you look at untrained people...2 mmol/L may be right at their LT, whereas elite athletes may have 2mmol/L and barely be breathing hard.

It all depends on the fitness level of that athlete. As far as the suggestion of aerobic training at 145bpm, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Again, you'd be surprised at what peoples' LT's are at, yet the continue to train too hard and too close to them to really train the aerobic system for a long period of time. And it's that long duration that increases mitochondial density, cappalirization, etc.

I'll look around at the other replies to see what others have to say, but think that this guy is on the right track. And to answer your question, yes people tend to train too hard for what they want to accomplish (training the aerobic system optimally).

Ryan

 

[TTer]

Originally posted by rkohler
It all depends on the fitness level of that athlete. As far as the suggestion of aerobic training at 145bpm, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Again, you'd be surprised at what peoples' LT's are at, yet the continue to train too hard and too close to them to really train the aerobic system for a long period of time. And it's that long duration that increases mitochondial density, cappalirization, etc.

What the experts on here say though is that these aspects are developed much more quickly with higher quality (read: intensity) workouts rather than more hours at such a steady pace. From what I have read there is a lot of evidence to support higher intensity training rather than hours and hours of long steady workouts.

 

[rkohler]

Originally posted by TTer
What the experts on here say though is that these aspects are developed much more quickly with higher quality (read: intensity) workouts rather than more hours at such a steady pace. From what I have read there is a lot of evidence to support higher intensity training rather than hours and hours of long steady workouts.

See, with the longer hours at the lower intensity, you'll develop the aerobic system better. If you go out and do intervals at or above your LT as it sounds like they're suggesting, then you're going to train one system...the "anaerobic" system. You'll train your body to be able to buffer lactate better and to produce power at threshold, but when it comes to efficiently (and that's a key word that I don't see much when these experts talk about their training methods) training your aerobic system, you're not going to allow your metabolic system (oxidative system) to be trained long enough to actually have to respond and adapt to the increased stress of being out exercising for 4, 5 + hours. When it does respond and adapt, it's going to increase capillary density and increase mitochondrial density, and also increase oxidative enzyme activity.

The next point is that muscles are the structures that allow us to do exercise. Look at it this way. If you were strength training and trying to develop endurance, what type of lifting program would you do? Would you do high reps with lower weight, or do "intervals" of high weight and low reps? If we did the latter, then we'd develop strength, but it would do nothing for our endurance.

The higher intensity training does have its place though. In untrained people anything will help as Ric said in another post, and I completely agree with that. But as you get more and more fit, you need more specificity to the training and the intervals will only work for a certain amount of time.

Your thoughts?

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by rkohler, i responded with >>

See, with the longer hours at the lower intensity, you'll develop the aerobic system better. If you go out and do intervals at or above your LT as it sounds like they're suggesting, then you're going to train one system...the "anaerobic" system. You'll train your body to be able to buffer lactate better and to produce power at threshold, but when it comes to efficiently (and that's a key word that I don't see much when these experts talk about their training methods) training your aerobic system, you're not going to allow your metabolic system (oxidative system) to be trained long enough to actually have to respond and adapt to the increased stress of being out exercising for 4, 5 + hours. When it does respond and adapt, it's going to increase capillary density and increase mitochondrial density, and also increase oxidative enzyme activity.

>>whilst i recommend and prescribe 'long' training sessions, i should point out that a high capillary and mitochondrial density is highly correlated to having a high VO2 max, which in turn is trained by exercising at or approaching this intensity

The higher intensity training does have its place though. In untrained people anything will help as Ric said in another post, and I completely agree with that. But as you get more and more fit, you need more specificity to the training and the intervals will only work for a certain amount of time.

>>isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Ric

 

[TTer]

Originally posted by rkohler
The next point is that muscles are the structures that allow us to do exercise. Look at it this way. If you were strength training and trying to develop endurance, what type of lifting program would you do? Would you do high reps with lower weight, or do "intervals" of high weight and low reps? If we did the latter, then we'd develop strength, but it would do nothing for our endurance.

Endurance is useless though if it isn't event specific, ie. too slow. Training for 4-5hours is fine if you event is that long. But if you're aiming to time trial at 25mph for a 1hour event, then what's the point of doing 4-5hours at 18.5mph except for fresh air & recovery? Isn't it better to develop basic speed then train at or near that, eg. improve speed/power, then extend how long that power can be maintained to event distance?

Originally posted by rkohler
The higher intensity training does have its place though. In untrained people anything will help as Ric said in another post, and I completely agree with that. But as you get more and more fit, you need more specificity to the training and the intervals will only work for a certain amount of time.

You said the magic word, specificity. Where's the specificity in long rides at moderate heart rate/power/pace? Racing does not demand this... it demands the highest LT, and in road racing the higher the LT the fewer times and less severe will be transgressions over it to respond to attacks or changes of pace.

 

[rkohler]

Originally posted by TTer
Endurance is useless though if it isn't event specific, ie. too slow. Training for 4-5hours is fine if you event is that long. But if you're aiming to time trial at 25mph for a 1hour event, then what's the point of doing 4-5hours at 18.5mph except for fresh air & recovery? Isn't it better to develop basic speed then train at or near that, eg. improve speed/power, then extend how long that power can be maintained to event distance?




You said the magic word, specificity. Where's the specificity in long rides at moderate heart rate/power/pace? Racing does not demand this... it demands the highest LT, and in road racing the higher the LT the fewer times and less severe will be transgressions over it to respond to attacks or changes of pace.

TTer, what type of racing are we looking at here? Only time trialing? If so, then you're right...those long hours in the saddle wouldn't be the best thing, but how many people do you know who ONLY race TT's? Not too many. I'm talking about aerobic conditioning as far as improving fitness and/or racing in longer events such as 50-100+ mile races.

You said, "what's the specificity in long rides at moderate heart rates." Racing doesn't demand that...you're right. It does demand the highest LT, BUT I guarantee that if you go out and do ONLY LT rides for your training rides, you absolutely will not have the same endurance capabilities as someone who included long endurance rides at moderate HR ranges and appropriately placed LT rides. I'll bet my life on that one. You need to correctly develop your aerobic system by doing those rides not only to gain the physiologic benefits associated with them, but also to build the kind of aerobic system that can RECOVER from more intense efforts. When will you be at a race where you do the entire thing at your LT???? If there's a hill, you'll go above it...if there's a breakaway, you need to bridge it (or maintain it if you took off on it)...the better developed your aerobic system, the faster you can recover from the high intensity efforts, so that's why LT rides and high intensity rides will only help you to a point.

Plus, talk about recovery and over training! You need longer rides (this can be anything - 45 min to 2 hours or more) to not only train the aerobic system, but also to allow your body to recover, like you said. If you do LT rides only, you're going to overtrain or injur yourself.

 

[rkohler]

Originally posted by ricstern
Originally posted by rkohler, i responded with >>

See, with the longer hours at the lower intensity, you'll develop the aerobic system better. If you go out and do intervals at or above your LT as it sounds like they're suggesting, then you're going to train one system...the "anaerobic" system. You'll train your body to be able to buffer lactate better and to produce power at threshold, but when it comes to efficiently (and that's a key word that I don't see much when these experts talk about their training methods) training your aerobic system, you're not going to allow your metabolic system (oxidative system) to be trained long enough to actually have to respond and adapt to the increased stress of being out exercising for 4, 5 + hours. When it does respond and adapt, it's going to increase capillary density and increase mitochondrial density, and also increase oxidative enzyme activity.

>>whilst i recommend and prescribe 'long' training sessions, i should point out that a high capillary and mitochondrial density is highly correlated to having a high VO2 max, which in turn is trained by exercising at or approaching this intensity

The higher intensity training does have its place though. In untrained people anything will help as Ric said in another post, and I completely agree with that. But as you get more and more fit, you need more specificity to the training and the intervals will only work for a certain amount of time.

>>isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Ric

It's not a contradiction in terms. I'm saying that in untrained people, anything will help. BUT, in more fit athletes, they need to have longer, moderately paced rides to train the aerobic system. Just as I mentioned in my post in reply to TTer's answer, you need to build your aerobic system to effectively recover from the high intensity efforts.

VO2 max training is great for increasing your well, VO2 max, along with your power production at and above LT, but you'll never be racing at your VO2 max, so there has to be "something" that allows you to repetitively hit that high intensity effort, recover, and do it again as quickly as possible..that would be the aerobic system.

You said that you recommend and prescribe long training sessions. What do you consider "long" for an athlete? And what type of race would he be preparing for with this long session?
If you prescribe long training sessions, then what are we discussing anyway? From what you said, it sounds like we're doing the same thing...we both use the high intensity sessions along with "long" training session, so aren't we doing what we're discussing here?

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by rkohler, i responded with >>

It's not a contradiction in terms.

>>as i've understood your message to which i've replied, i believe it is a contradiction. Similarly, TTer also thought the same thing, although TTer expands on what i didn't say.


I'm saying that in untrained people, anything will help. BUT, in more fit athletes, they need to have longer, moderately paced rides to train the aerobic system. Just as I mentioned in my post in reply to TTer's answer, you need to build your aerobic system to effectively recover from the high intensity efforts.

>>i'm not disagreeing with this.



VO2 max training is great for increasing your well, VO2 max, along with your power production at and above LT, but you'll never be racing at your VO2 max

>>i don't know what races you do, but i frequently race at intensities far greater than VO2 max...


, so there has to be "something" that allows you to repetitively hit that high intensity effort, recover, and do it again as quickly as possible..that would be the aerobic system.

You said that you recommend and prescribe long training sessions. What do you consider "long" for an athlete?

>>depends on the athlete and their goal(s)

And what type of race would he be preparing for with this long session?

>>I was disagreeing with what i think you were infering about physiology (that long rides are best for e.g., increasing mitochondria, capillarisation)

>>the contradiction bit, was you said about doing TT specific training with long rides