Aerobic condition / are we doing too much speedwork?

[edd]

Very informative thread,

I’m going to read that again and try to digest all that was said.

I’d like to simplify some training theory for all us simple folk.

This applies to a variety of sports though I’m not sure if this is used in cycling.

A lot of the high level athletes such as foot ball players and snow skiers, that have to maintain a very competitive level of fitness nearly all year round, now train a four week cycle. Escalating their training over the first three weeks and then cutting back to 50% of the volume and / or intensity on the fourth week ( an active recovery week )

The key elements are progression and recovery. Progression of performance and not necessarily work load, though one suggests the other.

Training really hard does not make you better at what you do, regardless of your discipline. It is only a part of it.

Your body, your muscles, your mind and your ambition, need to make the adjustments. Maintaining and capitalizing on the recovery process is what training is all about.

I can hear you reading this and going “ yeah, yeah, we know !” .

Well here - know it again PROGRESSION AND RECOVERY

Some basic stats: Two weeks without aerobic training your competitive performance may drop by as much as 10%. Three days without training you maximal lactate levels, your sprint performance may drop by as much as 5%

Keeping the mind involved is really important. I always like to build a training programme from the outside in, Take the widest spectrum of an event and train both extremes, measuring and marking shown improvements and gradually modifying the work towards the middle being the activity which exactly matches the event.

Logic dictates that real world training is a little more elaborate but you get my drift.

Training at different intensities also causes differing training effects in the body. Long low intensity training is very necessary though it will never make you competitive. It will however effect your ability to access fat stores at higher and higher intensities and improve your muscle fuel stores. Doing strength endurance training of your core and upper body may never make you competitive. But it very well may prevent upper body fatigue and lower back problems during a ride.

I believe you need to do it all, but at the same time you need to get the mix right.

Edd.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Daniel.lloyd
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?

Daniel,
i fully agree with you except for two points, in no particular order
1) apart from pro's and possibly the unemployed, who has the time to complete up to 7hrs a day for 3 weeks?

2) although the average power of racing is pretty low, there's still very large amounts of work above LT, at TT power, and at intensities approaching MAP.

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!

this is primarily because they are not as 'fit' as their euro pro counterparts. i could train from now until next never, either at TT power or some other undetermined intensity and i'd never make it. thus, just because someone trains at a certain relative intensity, doesn't mean that they will become 'sucessful' or a euro pro or whatever

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'.

well, there are some good reason to do lots of volume, i've never not stated that. however, there's also number 1 point made above to think about. i'm imagining, that the *vast* majority of people reading this forum are either in education or work an 8 to 6 day, and probably can't squeeze in more than a small amount of training mid week.

ric

 

[edd]

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

........” 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.”

Just read the “Hadd” thread, really concise, excellent stuff.

Getting back to the original posting. Everybody is different, so the amount of any specific training component in any specific training period should be tailored to suite the strengths and weaknesses of the athlete.

Muscles are really very dumb. When it comes to teaching them to perform they learn very specific tasks that don’t translate to other activities that they may be recruited for. Not even the same activity with slightly different intensities

In my other life, decades ago, I was a construction foreman. We had a unique group of men in our employ at that time. I think they are all but extinct now. Anyway these blokes lived on alcohol, cigarettes, coffee and meat pies.

If you asked one of them to break into a run he would possibly drop dead of heart failure and equally if you asked them to lift something really heavy they were not strong enough. Yet these men would push heavy wheel barrows of rubble, bricks wet cement around a building site all day long, no problem.

I would get young bronzed triathletes looking for work and I would think “here is a winner”. The thing is these athletes didn’t make lunch break, most left before morning tea. The work was too hard, they couldn’t sustain the effort.

Obviously these young athletes did not do the very long and very slow work (training) the laborers did. Hence they were unable to do it.

I do not have the experience to compile a specific cycling programme for the likes of you in competitive cycling.

But I have a crystal clear image indelibly burned into my memory of one specific triathlete with heaps of fight and mountains of competitive spirit, who just could not believe these old, skinny, half drunk laborers could out perform him. And near the end of that day when three pm look like an eternity away and he finally gave up in absolute despair and quit. I consoled him with “These guys have been doing this for twenty years”.

If you think you are doing too much speed work, you probably are. What about periodization, four and twelve week blocks. Build your endurance while maintaining your speed work, then build your speed work while maintaining your endurance.

 

[Roadie_scum]

Originally posted by ricstern
this is primarily because they are not as 'fit' as their euro pro counterparts. i could train from now until next never, either at TT power or some other undetermined intensity and i'd never make it. thus, just because someone trains at a certain relative intensity, doesn't mean that they will become 'sucessful' or a euro pro or whatever

OK, but the question is, why aren't they as fit, if they are training to scientifically verified methods? Why is it that riders perform better after racing in Europe than after training 'scientifically' at home? I think it is largely because of the gestational stage of the literature, and the lack of rigour in the coaching community. There seems to be a dichotomy between coaches who reject scientific training principles, and those who put them above all else. In fact, if you train like they did in a study, you will probably get the effect got in the study (plus or minus some std deviation and your individual traits). This does not mean it is irrational to train in other ways - non-empirical observation is important in the real world, and the 'grand tour' or 'lotsa racing' forms of training may work for some people some of the time - it also happens to be very hard to empirically test anything about this training load. The environment is uncontollable, there are too many outside factors. That said, there is a lot of interesting research to with athletes completing tours coming out of Spain, and the field seems to be moving forward.

I think the 'scientific' coaches may need to be more rigourous in interpreting the studies and the limits of the current literature, and the 'non-scientific' coaches need to understand that many of their complaints with scientific method come from its misapplication, not inherent failings.

well, there are some good reason to do lots of volume, i've never not stated that. however, there's also number 1 point made above to think about. i'm imagining, that the *vast* majority of people reading this forum are either in education or work an 8 to 6 day, and probably can't squeeze in more than a small amount of training mid week.
ric [/B]

This all seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur when you consider the amount of abstraction and the concentration on 'ideal' preparation in most of the debates on this forum. Could you please explain your view of the benefits of high volume, and what an ideal preparation for a full-time elite cyclist aiming to complete a full season of road racing (including tours, time trials and one day races - as happens in real life), would be? What principles would you structure the training around, and how would you incorporate the benefits of the 'grand tour' effect? (In general terms of course - I'm not asking for a training program).

 

[edd]

When someone comes along with better science, the science changes. And while a lot of base stuff needs to be done to improve the “aerobic contribution” ( read the Hagg thing ).

To improve you have to work really hard.

You can not beat competition for that.

Also something else should be considered

“specificity”.

Thing is if your training is completely unstructured you may very well end up exhausted and or with ****ling injuries right at the time when you need to be your fittest. If on the other hand, you've got this thing figured and these events are perfect preparation for you, then what you got is better science.

 

[Roadie_scum]

Originally posted by edd
When someone comes along with better science, the science changes. And while a lot of base stuff needs to be done to improve the “aerobic contribution” ( read the Hagg thing ).

To improve you have to work really hard.

You can not beat competition for that.

Also something else should be considered

“specificity”.

Thing is if your training is completely unstructured you may very well end up exhausted and or with ****ling injuries right at the time when you need to be your fittest. If on the other hand, you've got this thing figured and these events are perfect preparation for you, then what you got is better science.

Agree absolutely. I'm not advocating unstructured/unscientific training, I'm just saying you need to interpret the studies correctly, use personal experience, and then test your own observations empirically where finances and possibility allow.

The Hagg thing, by the way, I think provides a much more intelligent way to train than intensity year round for those of us focusing on specific events (maybe needs more adjustment if you need to race a full season well). Basically I think the idea of raising LT therein should also raise steady state threshold power, and should be a sustainable training gain. I think (and this is not scientific and could be wrond) that shorter intense intervals to raise VO2max and steady state threshold lead to a peak which is unsustainable in the long term. You can't go hard all year - you get sick, or you just lose your peak.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
OK, but the question is, why aren't they as fit, if they are training to scientifically verified methods?

because not everyone is equal. not everyone is as trainable. not everyone wants to be a pro. why would you expect everyone to be as good?

Why is it that riders perform better after racing in Europe than after training 'scientifically' at home?

perhaps they don't train scientifically at home. perhaps they aren't training hard enough (this is probably the biggest 'mistake' i see people making).

conversely, i know people that have gone to or live in europe and they're not pros. what happened to the many thousands who race in europe who don't improve enough to be pros?

I think the 'scientific' coaches may need to be more rigourous in interpreting the studies and the limits of the current literature, and the 'non-scientific' coaches need to understand that many of their complaints with scientific method come from its misapplication, not inherent failings.

definitely important. i see people who are supposedly interested in the science fail to understand it's application or what it actually means

This all seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur when you consider the amount of abstraction and the concentration on 'ideal' preparation in most of the debates on this forum. Could you please explain your view of the benefits of high volume, and what an ideal preparation for a full-time elite cyclist aiming to complete a full season of road racing (including tours, time trials and one day races - as happens in real life), would be? What principles would you structure the training around, and how would you incorporate the benefits of the 'grand tour' effect? (In general terms of course - I'm not asking for a training program).

simple answer is no, because this is one of the questions i ask when interviewing people for a position.

depending on the cyclist involved success will depend on their power (relative to mass/CdA) at LT, TT power, MAP, peak power or some combination thereof. thus, you'd be looking at some gains in one or more of these variables.

ric

 

[Roadie_scum]

Originally posted by ricstern
simple answer is no, because this is one of the questions i ask when interviewing people for a position.

depending on the cyclist involved success will depend on their power (relative to mass/CdA) at LT, TT power, MAP, peak power or some combination thereof. thus, you'd be looking at some gains in one or more of these variables.

ric [/B]

OK, I appreciate you don't want to give everything away - you are a professional coach and you need something to sell. But it seems a little unfair to spend all your time picking holes in what other people are saying without making clear what approach you would use, how it differs, and why you have chosen it. I think answering my question in general terms would (i) provide a more complete answer to the original question posed on this thread and (ii) help everyone in this science/experience debate understand better how you approach the application of science and the (I'm pretty sure) reasonable nature of your approach.

If you can't do that, I'd be interested to know what the worst and most humourous responses you've received when interviewing are.

 

[Roadie_scum]

Originally posted by ricstern
because not everyone is equal. not everyone is as trainable. not everyone wants to be a pro. why would you expect everyone to be as good?

perhaps they don't train scientifically at home. perhaps they aren't training hard enough (this is probably the biggest 'mistake' i see people making).

conversely, i know people that have gone to or live in europe and they're not pros. what happened to the many thousands who race in europe who don't improve enough to be pros?
ric

OK, I agree with basically everything you are saying here, but I think it still begs the question. Your rhetorical questions do succeed in belitlling me (congratulations), but they don't address the issue I brought up satisfactorily. Do you think it is possible there are some people who train hard, supervised by intelligent and scientifically qualified coaches, who still make enormous fitness gains when they spend more time racing and less completing their 'ideal' scientific training plan. Now, I'm not saying the science is wrong here, and the correct approach is unscientific training, but I think that there are things about racing (particularly - other types of training too) that make it very hard to test the physiology empirically - for practical and financial reasons, and because pro teams aren't going to want to give too much away to outsiders.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
OK, I appreciate you don't want to give everything away - you are a professional coach and you need something to sell. But it seems a little unfair to spend all your time picking holes in what other people are saying without making clear what approach you would use, how it differs, and why you have chosen it. I think answering my question in general terms would (i) provide a more complete answer to the original question posed on this thread and (ii) help everyone in this science/experience debate understand better how you approach the application of science and the (I'm pretty sure) reasonable nature of your approach.

If you can't do that, I'd be interested to know what the worst and most humourous responses you've received when interviewing are.

i don't 'pick holes'. i often just state what the majority of the scientific literature reports.

i've stated my approach in basic terms, that i'm aiming to increase a specific or a combination of those specific variables. pretty much increasing the power at those metrics is the majority of cycling performance (obviously, there's also tactics, aerodynamics, mass, and desire etc).

the majority of cycling performance is determined by power at LT (or TT power) and maximal aerobic power. thus, it makes sense to increase these as much as possible (this is like increasing the size of your engine), which i've previously stated in this and other threads. you also need to able to cover the distances that you race over.

i've no idea whether the people i've interviewed read this forum or others, but i don't think it's appropriate to mention what people have said for the amusement of others. i'm fairly confident that if you'd been for a job interview and said something 'funny' you wouldn't want it broadcasting on the net. i know i wouldn't.

ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
OK, I agree with basically everything you are saying here, but I think it still begs the question. Your rhetorical questions do succeed in belitlling me (congratulations), but they don't address the issue I brought up satisfactorily. Do you think it is possible there are some people who train hard, supervised by intelligent and scientifically qualified coaches, who still make enormous fitness gains when they spend more time racing and less completing their 'ideal' scientific training plan. Now, I'm not saying the science is wrong here, and the correct approach is unscientific training, but I think that there are things about racing (particularly - other types of training too) that make it very hard to test the physiology empirically - for practical and financial reasons, and because pro teams aren't going to want to give too much away to outsiders.

if i've "belittled" you that wasn't the intention. i was asking why you would expect such gains in people. i don't expect everyone to be a pro (or whatever), not everyone has such aspirations or the abilityto be that 'good', which is why i'm asking why you'd expect people to do so? i asked a question and offered an alternative view point.

i don't disagree that for some people racing is better than training

Ric

 

[Roadie_scum]

Originally posted by ricstern
if i've "belittled" you that wasn't the intention. i was asking why you would expect such gains in people. i don't expect everyone to be a pro (or whatever), not everyone has such aspirations or the abilityto be that 'good', which is why i'm asking why you'd expect people to do so? i asked a question and offered an alternative view point.

i don't disagree that for some people racing is better than training

Ric

Glad to hear it wasn't your intention. It seemed to me that you were intentionally taking a point I'd raised and perhaps not expressed perfectly to a reductio ad absurdum, rather than interpreting the point of what I was saying. I was probably wrong.

I don't expect that everyone who goes to europe turns pro. I'm sorry if I was ambiguous or inaccurate in my language. I think that if we assume a level of intelligence on all sides of the debate (unless explicitly lacking) we will all get further.

My point was about the exceptional nature of certain kinds of racing and extreme overreaching in training. And also that the exceptional efforts required, and the logistical and other difficulties in reproducing these efforts in a controlled setting, mean that the literature in this area is incomplete. It followed on from the issues brought up by Daniel Lloyd a few posts ago about grand tour's and Boardman's preparation for his track events.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
I don't expect that everyone who goes to europe turns pro. I'm sorry if I was ambiguous or inaccurate in my language. I think that if we assume a level of intelligence on all sides of the debate (unless explicitly lacking) we will all get further.

my 'alternative' viewpoint is that yes, there maybe a higher absolute number of pros in europe, but what is the relative % of them. For example, when i raced in France, in the department (county/state) i raced in (Brittany) there was i believe something like 14,000 licence holders -- which at the time was more licence holders than the entire UK. Because there's only a few hundred pros, it must also mean that there's a lot of riders who aren't 'succesful'.

My point was about the exceptional nature of certain kinds of racing and extreme overreaching in training. And also that the exceptional efforts required, and the logistical and other difficulties in reproducing these efforts in a controlled setting, mean that the literature in this area is incomplete. It followed on from the issues brought up by Daniel Lloyd a few posts ago about grand tour's and Boardman's preparation for his track events.

i'm pretty sure i agreed with DL, and i'd suggest that basic physiological principles are covered by grand tours (or whatever race), i.e., they do endurance, LT, VO2 max, work etc. i also said that i doubt that many people who read this forum are going to do grand tours. i'd imagine that most people are maybe limited to 10-hrs a week at most.

there are quite a few studies looking riders from grand tours now.

ric

 

[edd]

okay you guys, we know you know, and we know you know better. I come here mainly to read and learn. I often say stuff not because I want to buy into an ongoing debate, but to offer a simple layman perspective to others who are reading this stuff.

I’m a strength coach, I do a lot of indoor cycling, great for aerobic base, strength and sprint work, absolutely useless for all the important stuff.
you have to get out on the road, the track, the what ever, and do the SPECIFIC. ie: competition

But, the volume of work you do, is very interesting to me and everyone else, because, managing the “benefit from recovery” is what all good training is about.

There is a very interesting study by Fleck and Krammer on single set resistance (weight training) which basically found short intense stimulation was as as effective as more traditional multi set training.
What has this got to do with cycle training and this thread you may ask ?
The original question : are we doing too much speed work ?

And the answer is “how much time to put in our weekly, monthly, annual training programme to each of our routines, ie: speed, strength, aerobic base, threshold intervals, core strength work, road work ?”

That’s not an answer it’s a question ???

Well sorry, but everyone is different and everyone needs to tailor their programme based on their measured gains. However, The implication of the Fleck and Krammer study is that muscle fibres require intensity not duration to stimulate a training effect while the aerobic pathways as we know require “the miles in them legs”

So do we suspect that “threshold work” requires frequency and not duration ? I don’t know, but I suspect yes

After reading this string I change my training to doing longer sustained aerobic base work. and doing intense 10 minute threshold blocks and 15 second sprint routines for much shorter duration but more often.

Why ? Because for me. my aerobic base is what really needs improving.

I’m not buying into why some riders are fitter then others doing different work or the same work and have the same training history. The answers obvious. Some are gifted others are burdened.

I know I’m a truly burdened old *******.

Please come at me with argument re fast twitch muscle fibres recruitment and lactic acid tolerance and maintainable lactic acid absorption rates.

 

[Roadie_scum]

Originally posted by ricstern
my 'alternative' viewpoint is that yes, there maybe a higher absolute number of pros in europe, but what is the relative % of them. For example, when i raced in France, in the department (county/state) i raced in (Brittany) there was i believe something like 14,000 licence holders -- which at the time was more licence holders than the entire UK. Because there's only a few hundred pros, it must also mean that there's a lot of riders who aren't 'succesful'.

Maybe, but also, since most pro and high level amateur racing is done in Europe, it is difficult to replicate the type of training you get from racing in those more competitive conditions... possibly?

i'm pretty sure i agreed with DL, and i'd suggest that basic physiological principles are covered by grand tours (or whatever race), i.e., they do endurance, LT, VO2 max, work etc. i also said that i doubt that many people who read this forum are going to do grand tours.

I agree absolutely that this is true, but I also think that this type of training from racing is often overlooked because it doesn't fit neatly into a box (LT, VO2, sprint effort, Lactate Tolerance, etc) - it doesn't specifically target an individual component of fitness, but works on them all. This is in stark contrast to many programs which individually target each energy system in separate sessions in the hope of 'specificity' - an important but often misapplied training concept. I'm not suggesting that physiology magically changes in GT's, just that it is harder to isolate variables and reproduce workloads from GT's, and this makes it easy to overlook them if the only training prescribed is clearly shown in studies to benefit a single component of fitness.

Not every type of training we do is going to replicate that done in a study with any accuracy - it's about working to the physiological model in a way that works for the athlete. It's also about personal experience in the application of scientific knowledge. Often research asks as many questions as it answers (thankfully, as it keeps science moving). This means that there may be two possible interpretations of the data, and the role of the coach, their intelligence and experience becomes very important.

i'd imagine that most people are maybe limited to 10-hrs a week at most.
[/quote/

And they probably don't get to ride many tours either... but I think most of us are still interested in how people go about doing this stuff.

there are quite a few studies looking riders from grand tours now.

Yes, but it's pretty hard for them to isolate individual improvements in specific fitness components, and what particular part of a tour and the efforts therein caused them. It's one thing to monitor an athletes recovery indicators or hormone levels, its another to isolate why a certain fitness component improved, or why for some riders tours give them their best form, and for others tours lead only to hunger flats and poor form. (Although the work that is starting to be done will no doubt help).

I think we are essentially adopting a similar perspective on most of this. Would you say that reproducing GT/other pro racing loads do provide a logistical challenge that makes empirical research in this area more difficult?

 

[edd]

Quote:

"but I also think that this type of training from racing is often overlooked because it doesn't fit neatly into a box (LT, VO2, sprint effort, Lactate Tolerance, etc) - it doesn't specifically target an individual component of fitness, but works on them all. This is in stark contrast to many programs which individually target each energy system in separate sessions in the hope of 'specificity' - an important but often misapplied training concept. I'm not suggesting that physiology magically changes in GT's, just that it is harder to isolate variables and reproduce workloads from GT's, and this makes it easy to overlook them if the only training prescribed is clearly shown in studies to benefit a single component of fitness."


Please someone speak up if you think I’m wrong.....
No one, absolutely no one underestimates the training effect of actually competing, you talk 'specificity' well you don’t get more specific then competing.

The up side of isolating routines, is you can make measured gains in specific areas, ie; your aerobic contribution, your lactic acid tolerance.

It is impossible to be at your best 24.. 7.. 52 so you plan, you stick some preparatory events in and also concentrate on your weaknesses. These are not specific but they may give you measured gains. That may translate to improved performance in an event.

I do a pretty lame 92 k event every November I try to beat my previous years time each year. I totally blew it this year, that’s another thread.
Anyway I do these endurance squats with 85lb bar for two building to three minutes twice a week. I do this for my back, not my riding strength, though I hope there is some translation to my out-of-the-saddle hill performance. Back to the fact I totally blew it this year, I totaled myself on the first big hill an hour into the ride and had to ride in recovery mode to about twenty minutes. I just felt so strong and then suddenly like a big idiot.

I don’t have the opportunity or the legs or the youth to be out there competing. it shows!!

 

[edd]

Sorry about that , obviously haven't recovered emotionally,

There is a contradiction in this thread that needs to be cleared up

Point (1)

QUOTE: “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 lactate.”

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/capillaries etc..)

Point (2)

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

Two quotes from two different moderators. One of you is misinformed.

My understanding is:

Training at moderate intensity, around 70%, sustained unfluctuating for a respectable duration will:
a) improved aerobic function/mitochondrial density/capillaries etc..
b) build muscle based glycogen stores.
c) improve the bodies ability to access fat stores (lipolytic energy supply) at an elevated metabolic rate.

Training at high intensity, around 85-90%, for sets of 10 minute blocks:
a) improves our maximum sustainable lactate levels
b) improves neuromuscular efficiency and muscle fibre recruitment.
c) improves the bodies ability to deal with hormones associated with physical stress
d) improves the “fight in the dog” as well as “ the dog in the fight”

Training in GTs or any kind of competition improves:
a) your ability to put all the components together ( your smarts )
b) your smarts
c) your smarts

When I say improves, I mean mainly improves. There is no real cut off or switch on point. even at the most intense anaerobic activity lasting 10 seconds. There is still a 35% aerobic contribution and conversely at the most aerobic of all activities lasting 9 hours, there is still a 2% anaerobic contribution.

Am I wrong ?

Point (3)

QUOTE: “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??”

Key word “benefit” should be “improve” because when you train the whole body, the whole body is effected/benefited.

The system improvement will always be: the strongest part/portion/elements doing or trying to do the most work. Hence the improvement is proportioned towards the stronger elements of the entire body ( muscles/energy supply systems)

To train the weaker elements, you need to isolate them. Training your aerobic system at 70% MHR is attempting to isolate the system .

Am I wrong ?

 

[Roadie_scum]

Originally posted by edd

There is a contradiction in this thread that needs to be cleared up

Point (1)

QUOTE: “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 lactate.”

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/capillaries etc..)

OK, the analysis of what is going on with Hadd style training IS wrong. Training below lactate threshold, and therefore producing minimal or no lactate, does not 'improve the ability of the body to handle lactate'. How could it? There's almost none around. What it does is improve the efficiency of energy systems that do not produce lactate. Your anaerobic (lactate producing) systems are basically untouched, but the power your aerobic system can produce is raised significantly, and the efficiency for the same workload is thus increased also.

This slightly erroneous explanation doesn't mean that the training at low intensities isn't valuable.

Point (2)

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

Two quotes from two different moderators. One of you is misinformed.
Am I wrong ?

I think they can both be right. It is easy to say 'x study showed the greatest increase in y endurance fitness marker [eg mitochondrial density] occured at some sort of high relative intensidy, therefore everyone who wants to improve this should train at that intensity'. This ignores the fact that most (I know Mr Moderator - not all) studies take place over a course of weeks or months, not years. If we go out and train at these intensities year round, we might (i) burn out physically (ii) burn out mentally (iii) take up golf.

Taking the result from this sort of study and saying that it shows the best way to improve a certain fitness component can involve ignoring variously: the correct place of this kind of intensity in a periodised program; the limitations of the study temporally - maybe it's the best way to improve in 6 weeks, but it may not be the best way to reach our best over 9 months; the ability to recover from high intensity training when other training is being done specifically targeting other systems.

I suggest that high intensity training definitely brings the best results where you only have 3 or 4 months before competition/targeted event, but that many of us want to ride for more than 3 months at a time, and want to target events 6 months or even years later. In these cases, I think raising LT via Hadd style training except in the 3 months prior to peak leads to an ability to do greater volume for longer, with less recovery, than higher intensity training. It also provides the most long term fitness gains - intervals are a great tool to get all the muscles firing, and improve quickly, but I think doing too many intense intervals can bring you up to a peak too quickly, and then when you get too fatigued to keep doing them you go backwards very fast.

Essentially I am saying both intervals/intensity and lower intensity long rides have their place in a properly put together program, but we need to be careful about generalising about what is 'best' based on short term studies. My hypothesis would be that focusing primarily on lower intensity endurance rides is appropriate outside competition time and build phase, and that high intensities do indeed bring the myriad benefits shown in the literature, but it is best to target these benefits to coincide with competition times.

Does anyone know a lot about studies on maintenance of fitness gains from different training intensities? I'd be interested in references if you have them to hand.

Also: consider this - most juniors (where I come from) do a lot of high intensity racing, and a relatively large volume because of this. They almost all have extremely well developed anaerobic systems (shown in testing - not just my speculation), and can race well on the track and be very competitive in criteriums. However, the transition to being competitive in adult length road races still takes a year at least (often much longer), and tends to involve a lot of endurance training. My theory: 1. If you do enough intensity, you eventually get most of the benefits of this type of training, and you have to do something else to keep improving. 2. The benefits of lower intensity endurance training are longer term, and therefore more difficult to measure and take more discipline to persevere with.

 

[edd]

There lots of studies out there if your willing to pay for them.

They have done muscle biopsies and pretty well proven that if you train at intense levels you will not improve your aerobic contributions as effectively as you might if you train at moderate intensity. ie: comparisons between marathon runners and 1500 metre runners. How this translates to improve performance in a cycling event, I don’t know.

In the scheme of things you got to go figure how much of this is really going to benefit you.

Talking power at pedal. Then there is a lot of cleaver coaches out there who know how to get sustained power. Improving your aerobic contribution is only going to be one card in a whole hand of cards.

The main thing I got from this thread. is the “Hagg” thing which opened my eyes to the significance of training a 400 metre runner to run mile runs.

It won’t help him/her run faster over 400 metres, you said that and I agree. But it will mean that at the end of a 400 metre run there will be less lactic acid in his/her system - which means we can get them to run fast now, when before they hit a anaerobic wall.

to QUOTE you: “OK, the analysis of what is going on with Hadd style training IS wrong. Training below lactate threshold, and therefore producing minimal or no lactate, does not 'improve the ability of the body to handle lactate'.”

Hagg did not say that. He said that the lactate is less, The aerobic contribution is improved. One produces less lactic acid.

You should talk to some rowers they all do a 5 to 8 minute event it is all about the lactic acid wall crashing in on you. Lactic acid overload will drop you like a snippers shot to the head.

Forget; lets tolerate this stuff. If we can reduce it, it’s got to be a thing to explore.

 

[Roadie_scum]

to QUOTE you: “OK, the analysis of what is going on with Hadd style training IS wrong. Training below lactate threshold, and therefore producing minimal or no lactate, does not 'improve the ability of the body to handle lactate'.”

Hagg did not say that. He said that the lactate is less, The aerobic contribution is improved. One produces less lactic acid.
[/B]

I know Hagg didn't say it! What I said was in response to the interpretation of Hagg I quoted above that line in my post, not what Hagg actually said. Hagg's on the money if you ask me. And yeah, that's what I thought re the muscle biopsies - but people on here seem to be big fans of intensity for everything.

Also, this whole GT training thing - when I call it non-specific, I'm talking in reference to the kind of form McGee and Boardman have had in endurance track events, not for road racing.

And finally (I just thought of this) - endurance training might help your body 'deal with lactic acid' in one way. If you train a lot aerobically you may increase your haemoglobin, and this is the body's most effective lactic acid buffer (much better than supplementing with phosphate or bicarb) - anyone know much about this effect and how to train it? Perhaps it is relevant to the GT into pursuit form phenomenon?