Aerobic condition / are we doing too much speedwork?
- Thread starter TTer
- Start date
I fail to see how training LT (TTpower, MSPO really) and VO2max doesn't stress the aerobic energy system. Those sessions do stress the aerobic system maximally. Obviously lead-outs and sprints do not do much for aerobic ability, but 3-20minute intervals are working the aerobic system maximally. Such intervals will mean you can ride for hours at lower intensity!
For example, it seems barmy to say that doing 2x20mins at say 300W will do nothing for your riding ability at 200W. As if when I ride at 200W I will have a high heart rate because I have no 'endurance' or ability to ride at that level since I've only trained at 300W ?!?
The ability to ride at higher power levels makes all power levels beneath easier. By raising LT to the highest possible level, then doing endurance work to accustom yourself to riding for hours (e.g. for long races or Ironman bike leg) seems to make more sense. The only benefit endurance seems to bring is avoiding soreness on the bike (from the saddle, and in your shoulders/neck).
I agree 100%; this is a good reason why audax/touring riders should do intensity work. Even if they don't travel any faster, by being fitter they will reach their destination in a better state, because when fitter the same power output will occur at a relatively lower intensity.
This is the problem. You're saying that by riding at 2x20mins at higher powers will help your endurance when you have to ride for longer than that at, say, 200 watts. It will help, but you're also recovering between intervals which means that you're not staying at that steady state of 300 watts for example long enough to keep the stress on your aerobic system.
What about recovery rides? And what would you do for someone who's training for a hilly century in hopes of completing it in 5 hours? Would you have him go out and work up to doing something like 5x60 mins at or above LT???? That's what it sounds like from your past posts. He would be overtrained in a matter of weeks!
When you go near or above your LT, your body is not working aerobically anymore. It's using primarily carbohydrates as the fuel source (as seen by the RER value) and not fat. So unless you have these infinite carbohydrate stores, then there is no way you'll be able to maintain a maximal intensity for such a long period of time.
What the long rides do is train your body to use fat as a fuel source. The longer you're out, the more your body has to rely on fat AND the more is spares glycogen. This all means that you have more "quick" energy (i.e. glycogen and glucose) for the end of the race or just to have around so you don't bonk.
I don't know what races YOU do because you cannot race at an intensity greater than your VO2 max, hence the MAX part. Please fill me in on the type of racing you do where you're racing "above" your VO2 max for any length of time.
Ok, how about a trained athlete looking to ride 50-55 mins in a 40K TT? Previous TT personal best 59 mins. He also plans on racing 100 mile TT's and would like to place top 5 in cat2. What kind of long rides would you prescribe?
lactate threshold is actually quite a low intensity... i think there's a sticky thread on it. it can be maintained for many hours
it's defined within the scientific literature as a workload that elicits a 1mmol/L increase over exercise baseline levels, or at a fixed point of 2.5 mmol/L
Ric
It depends how you are describing VO2 max, but in the sense we have been discussing VO2 max represents the power at VO2 max. Races in which you often produce powers over VO2 max include all of the sprint races, the pursuit, the track endurance races, RR, crits, etc. are that enough races.
The MAX part of VO2 max represents your MAXIMAL RATE OF O2 USE not your maximal work capacity or work rate. The power at my VO2 MAX is about 390 watts, frequently in races I will exceed 1000 watts. Therefore, I am racing above 'VO2 max' (power at VO2 max).
Perhaps it would be helpful to demarcate between VO2max and peak power or power/velocity/intensity at VO2max. I think using VO2 max and power at VO2max interchangably is ultimately confusing, and if we want to have a scientific discussion about training methods, we should be fairly clear in what we mean when using scientific terms. I cannot process more oxygen than my VO2max (which is your maximum oxygen use in a given time offset against your weight), and power at VO2max (which is a measure energy over time in a certain state - wattage).
Thus while the meaning of 'above VO2max' makes sense if we take VO2max to actually mean power at VO2max, it is confusing, and it might help everyone if we keep power and oxygen consumption as separate concepts.
Just my 2 cents - there does seem to be a lot of confusion on these forums about what these terms mean.
Point Taken, you might like to check out this thread....
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t38627.html
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t38627.html
VO2 max and power at VO2 max are essentialy the same, except one is measured in watts and the other in L or ml. Peak power refers to something completly different, the maximum power that can be produced and is usualy acheived after only a few seconds of 'sprinting'.
Given that these two terms essentialy mean the same thing, 99% of the time when people say VO2 max or power at VO2 max they mean POWER AT VO2 MAX. This is because power at VO2 max is more useful (it takes the efficiency of the cyclist into account) and not many people have the facilities to measure oxygen uptake during normal cycling (so use power or HR instead).
I agree completely; but in most of the posts refering to 'above VO2 max' intensity and/or power have been included.
I've just read the book "Long Distance Cycling" by Burke and Pavelka. The training programs recommended for 100/200 miles and beyond have a foundation of base miles at planned event pace. But they also all recommend LT work at least one day a week, either as intervals, hill climbs, or sustained (2-3 hour) rides above pace.
The question of how much/how often training above LT is probably individual. Around here in the hills, the challenge is to do a long endurance ride without having to go into LT all the time. I'm hoping my new bike with triple chainring will help here.
Dan
The question of how much/how often training above LT is probably individual. Around here in the hills, the challenge is to do a long endurance ride without having to go into LT all the time. I'm hoping my new bike with triple chainring will help here.
Dan
Hey Dan, the hill repeats will definitely help you in that department. Even if you're riding near your LT during the repeats (along with doing your endurance rides), you'll help your body tolearate lactate better and probably won't need the triple after a while.
Happy training!
So when I exceed VO2max(power) in a 15 second sprint, I am processing more oxygen than my VO2max???!?!?!
I'm terribly sorry, but it is simply nonsensical to say that something measured in Watts is essentially the same as something measured in Litres or mls (actually it's mls or L/minute/kg). One is a volume over time and weight, the other a measure power. I believe your point is that when you guys say over VO2max, you actually mean over VO2max(power). That's fine. But it's apples and oranges between VO2max and VO2max(power) (but less similar because they aren't both fruit). They are totally different things.
If something has a different unit, it's not the same (I'm not talking meters versus feet here, I'm talking length versus volume or volume versus energy - there are different SI units for a good reason, because different things are being measured).
I know that VO2max and power at VO2max are correlated, but this doesn't make them the same. Correlations between different things are very interesting - the subject of science.
Note: I have seen peak power used to mean the power attained at the end of an incremental VO2max test. Looks like, as often happens, we are talking at cross purposes. This seems to show, once again, the necessity of clarity.
I appreciate that you want to be technically precise, but the benefits of a forum like this are that scientific concepts can be discussed between people of different backgrounds and academic skill. The clash between people with purely practical knowledge and a more scientific standpoint makes for some very interesting discussions which should benefit all of us.
As a person with no physiological training I have had no problem with following discussions relating to V02max, lactate threshold etc. (as defined many times on previous threads)
I think that if we insist on defining each concept in precise scientific terms everytime we use them then posts will become laborious to read, and possibly impenetrable to those without a scientific background. The forum will then become somewhere for specialist scientists to argue definitions between themselves, rather than a place to discuss how we can all ride bikes faster.
So, are we doing too much speedwork?
m.
I said at an intensity that exceeds VO2 max, and this is what 2Lap meant too. It's common and normal to use such an expression within the scientific literature.
Roadie_scum wrote: "actually it's mls or L/minute/kg)".
Actually, that's incorrect, it's mL/kg/min or L/min.
Peak power: Certain terms have no definite meaning within the scientific literature and this is one of them. Some researchers use this term to mean at the end of an incremental stepwise test to exhaustion, and others to mean "sprint" power. In fact, thinking about it, it may be dependent upon the journal it's printed in rather than the author.
Ric
Please read what I said again; I didn't really say that or even hint at that. Obviously, power at VO2 max is exactly that and when you exceed your power at VO2 max no additional oxygen is processed despite increased power.
Obviously they are different things, but why can't they be considered as essentialy the same given that they occur at the same time point as each other in an incremental test (i.e. power at Vo2 max occurs when performing at VO2 max), describe the same intensity and induce the same metabolic consequences? Please refer to Rics post about the actual units.
This is an interesting point and one part of the difference between the oxygen consumption used resultant power is the efficiency at which the energy derived from metabolism is used.
While length and volume use different units they both define size, in the same way as power at VO2 max and VO2 max can be used to express an intensity.
Off course they are not same (I used the words 'essentialy the same'). For example, increases in power at VO2 occur as a result of improved efficiency or increased VO2 max (therefore changes in power at VO2 max can occur independantly of changes in VO2 max). Remembering of course that there is little variability in efficiency between riders or in a rider over time (compared to variability in efficiency occuring in other sports such as running or swimming).
Perhaps I should of been more explicit, when I posted...
"Peak power refers to something completly different, the maximum power that can be produced and is usualy acheived after only a few seconds of 'sprinting' "
Mentioning that the peak power is simply the highest power measured during any given test or ride be that a sprint, TT or incremental test. Generaly, the highest peak powers are seen in sprints after a few seconds. The peak power at the end of an incremental test is related to power at VO2 max; however as a rider can keep riding past the power at which VO2 max is acheived the peak power in an incremental test tends to be higher than the power at VO2 max. This difference is dependant upon the rider and the ramp of the test.
I hope this makes things clearer now; all of these terms have been defined by myself and others a number of times now. For the cyclist and coach, VO2 max and power at VO2 max simply define an intensity at which oxygen consumption is at its maximum. Therefore, and in answer to the original point by ' rkohler', you can exercise at intensities above VO2 max and the power at VO2 max.
I see no problems in using power at VO2 max and VO2 max interchangably (99.9% of the time) given that they both describe the same intensity even if it is described with different units. Perhaps you may wish to contribute to this thread... http://www.cyclingforums.com/t38627.html
It's a good point and well made - sorry guys.
And are we doing too much speedwork? That depends who 'we' are and what we're training for.
and, just to add to things and possibly confuse the issue, there's VO2 peak as well as VO2 max (not everyone reaches a max which has a specific definition). Moreover, there's also a protocol issue: while we assume and see a max (or sometimes peak) at the end of an incremental test to exhaustion, we can sometimes achieve an actual higher VO2 max (in mL/kg/min or L/min) under different conditions. There's one or more papers showing that with an all-out 5-min TT, a higher VO2 max can be reached (but power is lower).
Ric
Ric
Hi
I'm new to both this topic and also the entire forum but have been reading a lot over the past couple of days and it's all been very interesting.
I have a couple of questions for the experts on this board;
It is a well known 'method' amongst professional riders to use a three week grand tour as preparation for events that come not long after. This could be a one day road race or a Time Trial. Examples are Millar this year, Olano, Jalabert and Ullrich in late 90's (who all used Vuelta as prep for World TT Champs), and also riders such as Bettini who this year used the Tour de France as a steeping stone to great form at the summer Classics.
Throughout this thread it is mentioned that the best way to train for TT's is to train the LT and VO2 systems due to the scientific studies that currently exist, but it would seem to me that although a Grand Tour undoubtedly trains every single one of the various training systems, the main thing that stands out over everything else is the sheer volume of work that is sustained every day, often at a fairly low intensity.
Would the experts on this forum be prepared to say that although no tests have been carried out on the effects of such races, it seems like it could me more effective that simply staying at home and specifically training for a TT? Could there be something that happens to your body during periods of extreme volume that science has yet to discover but which yields amazing results?
I was speaking with Chris Boardman earlier this year, and he mentioned that the best form he ever had came after the TdF in 96, and neither he or Peter Keen could ever replicate it again in training, nor scientifically define exactly where this form came from as it went against what they both believed would be the best preparation for an event which was only just over 4 minutes in length (individual pursuit). Another classic example of this is Bradley MgGee at the Commonwealth games last year.
I myself have experience massive benifits from a high volume of work, both in racing and in training. For example, earlier this season I completed a total of 8 days of racing out of 9 (two separate stage races in France and Spain), and my best 'feeling' and result came on the last day, where I came 2nd. I also came out of this period with some amazing form, it felt like I was floating when I went out on the bike!
I know scientists like everything to be backed by tests etc, but sometimes theory doesn't work in practice.
I've also been thinking that home based riders (I'm English and thinking of Hutchinson and Dangerfield) must spend an enormous amount of times riding at TT pace and LT pace, and yet when they go abroad they achieve mediocre results. I know direct comparison is impossible due to genes etc, but I've known lots of riders who have been full time riders in England, who have then gone abroad and competed in high volume races and come back at a completely different level!
Also, the WCPP track riders (I'm thinking Endurance track racing, pursuit etc) have periods of their training in which they complete very high volumes at a very low intensity (based on power output) before then going onto the more specific stuff, and this is in world class and definitely not 'untrained' athletes'.
Thoughts?
Daniel Lloyd
I'm new to both this topic and also the entire forum but have been reading a lot over the past couple of days and it's all been very interesting.
I have a couple of questions for the experts on this board;
It is a well known 'method' amongst professional riders to use a three week grand tour as preparation for events that come not long after. This could be a one day road race or a Time Trial. Examples are Millar this year, Olano, Jalabert and Ullrich in late 90's (who all used Vuelta as prep for World TT Champs), and also riders such as Bettini who this year used the Tour de France as a steeping stone to great form at the summer Classics.
Throughout this thread it is mentioned that the best way to train for TT's is to train the LT and VO2 systems due to the scientific studies that currently exist, but it would seem to me that although a Grand Tour undoubtedly trains every single one of the various training systems, the main thing that stands out over everything else is the sheer volume of work that is sustained every day, often at a fairly low intensity.
Would the experts on this forum be prepared to say that although no tests have been carried out on the effects of such races, it seems like it could me more effective that simply staying at home and specifically training for a TT? Could there be something that happens to your body during periods of extreme volume that science has yet to discover but which yields amazing results?
I was speaking with Chris Boardman earlier this year, and he mentioned that the best form he ever had came after the TdF in 96, and neither he or Peter Keen could ever replicate it again in training, nor scientifically define exactly where this form came from as it went against what they both believed would be the best preparation for an event which was only just over 4 minutes in length (individual pursuit). Another classic example of this is Bradley MgGee at the Commonwealth games last year.
I myself have experience massive benifits from a high volume of work, both in racing and in training. For example, earlier this season I completed a total of 8 days of racing out of 9 (two separate stage races in France and Spain), and my best 'feeling' and result came on the last day, where I came 2nd. I also came out of this period with some amazing form, it felt like I was floating when I went out on the bike!
I know scientists like everything to be backed by tests etc, but sometimes theory doesn't work in practice.
I've also been thinking that home based riders (I'm English and thinking of Hutchinson and Dangerfield) must spend an enormous amount of times riding at TT pace and LT pace, and yet when they go abroad they achieve mediocre results. I know direct comparison is impossible due to genes etc, but I've known lots of riders who have been full time riders in England, who have then gone abroad and competed in high volume races and come back at a completely different level!
Also, the WCPP track riders (I'm thinking Endurance track racing, pursuit etc) have periods of their training in which they complete very high volumes at a very low intensity (based on power output) before then going onto the more specific stuff, and this is in world class and definitely not 'untrained' athletes'.
Thoughts?
Daniel Lloyd
Similar threads
