annual training hours

[kmavm]

A theory later proven to be wrong happens once in a while in scientifically proven facts as well.

This is where the whole misunderstanding starts.

There's no such thing as a "scientifically proven fact." The phrase is meaningless. Gravity is not a "scientifically proven fact." It is merely a theory with lots and lots of evidence. It can never be proven, though. A single observation (in this case, of two massive objects that do not experience gravitational attraction) could cause us to throw it away.

"Science" is not a collection of facts. It is a process for gathering evidence about the world. When theories that have lots of evidence behind them occasionally get disproven, it doesn't mean that science is broken. It's just part of the process.

What's so special about science, then? Well, as a practical matter it's proven to be the best source of evidence about the world that we have developed. Religion, philosophy, and folklore, whatever their merits, have all proven to be bad ways of constructing skyscrapers, putting people on the moon, building computer chips, and curing diseases. I see nothing inherently different about the problem of getting a given athlete to ride his/her bike fast; it is a completely practical problem, whose inputs and outputs are mostly measurable.

 

[frenchyge]

"... an athlete expecting to place in top twenty in the world has to perform over 1000 hours of training per year. Athletes to be entered in international meets ought to consider 800 hours, while national calibre athletes, require at least 600 hours of training. And finally, 400 hours of work may be planned if an adequate performance is designed in regional or state championships..." (Bompa, 1994)

Oh, come on. That may be a suitable litmus test to see if an athlete has the dedication to seriously work towards those levels, but we're not going to take that statement litterally, are we? I mean, surely there's more to being in the top 20 in the world than just training 1000 hours per year? And then, if we're going to consider genetics, program structure, motivation, mental toughness, etc., is the number really a requirement?

 

[RipVanCommittee]

A theory later proven to be wrong happens once in a while in scientifically proven facts as well.

You're completely right--just because something is 'belief based', doesn't make it wrong.

However, cycling--in particular among endurace sports, it seems, given it's adherence to 'tradition', seems to still be a bit of a haven for funny theories/beliefs. I obviously feel pretty strongly about this as I feel I lost some years of developement by training too much--obviously I ignored a lot of the signs. However, as someone with very modest natural ability, I simply have to be able to get more out of what I have than the other guy in order to be competetive, and, at least for me, getting rid of the volume was the way to do this...which is why the 'it takes X hours to do this' really gets to me.

A couple of this really big myths for which I've seen no evidence (all of these are tied into volume).
1)you need a long period of lower intensity riding (up to 3 months)to build your 'base' before progressing to shorter intensity intervals.

As Ric Stern so eloquently put in the 'gyming to improve power ' thread, the actual 'force' required to do a threshold effort is pretty minimal, and certainly doesn't require 3 months of L2 riding for which to 'prepare'. Also, the adaptations that happen at L2 are pretty minimal compared to training at higher levels.
2)warm-up..this is off track, somewhat, but the guy warming up and hour for his hour TT, and 30 minutes before his 2x20:00 is, IMHO, just wasting time and adding unneccessary volume and stress.

If you look at the time spend in zones for a rider doing over 600 hrs, my guess is that a large % of that time is spent in the L1 zone, basically not 'training', just making yourself tired.

For me, Kirk Willet's 'base training' article (sorry, I can't seem to paste a link in here??) seems to sum up my own thoughts on volume, and really provided a lot of the 'why' for me.

 

[SolarEnergy]

This is where the whole misunderstanding starts.

There's no such thing as a "scientifically proven fact." The phrase is meaningless. Gravity is not a "scientifically proven fact." It is merely a theory with lots and lots of evidence. It can never be proven, though. A single observation (in this case, of two massive objects that do not experience gravitational attraction) could cause us to throw it away.

Well said.

"Science" is not a collection of facts. It is a process for gathering evidence about the world. When theories that have lots of evidence behind them occasionally get disproven, it doesn't mean that science is broken. It's just part of the process.

agreed. These things just happen.

What's so special about science, then? Well, as a practical matter it's proven to be the best source of evidence about the world that we have developed.

How could this be proven?

Never mind. I agree that some studies are great.

And also, I am sorry for making bad use of english scientific vocabulary.

You know, I am not against scientifically processed data. I just think that a significant amount of data is also gathered outside the labs.

 

[RipVanCommittee]

Oh, come on. That may be a suitable litmus test to see if an athlete has the dedication to seriously work towards those levels, but we're not going to take that statement litterally, are we?

Well, bear in mind, there are a LOT of idiots out there (read-ME), who will read something like "Cat 2 600-800 hours" and think "OK, I'm a Cat 3 and wanna be a Cat 2, that's how much I'll train...."

I find that funny, because after upgrading from the 3's (after cutting my volume), the first thing I did the following winter to prepare for my first year as a Cat 2 was to cut my volume even more!).

That's why I think those sort of statements are dangerous.

 

[SolarEnergy]

Well, bear in mind, there are a LOT of idiots out there (read-ME), who will read something like "Cat 2 600-800 hours" and think "OK, I'm a Cat 3 and wanna be a Cat 2, that's how much I'll train...."

I find that funny, because after upgrading from the 3's (after cutting my volume), the first thing I did the following winter to prepare for my first year as a Cat 2 was to cut my volume even more!).

That's why I think those sort of statements are dangerous.

Glad for you. Really.

You were smart enough to test something and then reajust. I see what you mean. Why waisting time training too much, having to argue with the girlfriend cause you ride too much, if it makes you slower.

That's your belief mate, and I believe it too.

 

[Squint]

When you through in a day each of 2X15:00-20:00, 7x4:00, 12x :30 second and 2 hrs, all done at maximum relative intensities (i.e., the max intensity for the duration of the set of intervals), Along with 1 or 2 easy fun rides of 30-50 minutes, I've put in a 5-7 hour week.

Let me get this straight...

You're doing 2x(15-20), 7x4, and 12x0:30 all in one ride? How many times a week?

 

[SolarEnergy]

Oh, come on. That may be a suitable litmus test to see if an athlete has the dedication to seriously work towards those levels, but we're not going to take that statement litterally, are we?

Should we take it litterally or not. This statement is pretty general. It's not aimed at a sport in particular.

But long term planning, or macrostructure like some call it, involves taking a decision about number of training hours, right at the begining of the year.

On what basis should this decision be taken?

What suprises me, is that Bompa's hours/year general prescription seems to be holding the road relatively well, and yet, very few seem to be happy with it.

~ 8hr / week, to aim at doing well, or winning state championship, doesn't sound to me like the end of the world at all.

How many hours do you train per year? What are your goals?

I mean, surely there's more to being in the top 20 in the world than just training 1000 hours per year? And then, if we're going to consider genetics, program structure, motivation, mental toughness, etc., is the number really a requirement?

Don't know if the number is really a requirement here frenchy, but that was the OP original question though.

 

[Spunout]

Let me get this straight...

You're doing 2x(15-20), 7x4, and 12x0:30 all in one ride? How many times a week?

I'll jump in and say that the intensity days above are on separate days. This is a great all-rounder training plan covering most major systems.

Off MOnday
30s AC ints Tuesday
20m FT ints Wednesday
E Thursday
Legspeed Friday
4min VO2 Max Saturday
E Sunday

For the hours I would suggest 0:1:2:3:1:2:3 M-S.

 

[kmavm]

I obviously feel pretty strongly about this as I feel I lost some years of developement by training too much--obviously I ignored a lot of the signs. However, as someone with very modest natural ability, I simply have to be able to get more out of what I have than the other guy in order to be competetive, and, at least for me, getting rid of the volume was the way to do this.

Interesting. I'm in nearly exactly the same boat as you: limited genetic gifts; recovering from wasting three years thanks to Friel; and I've recently (lasts 9 months or so) discovered the extreme power of intensity. However, I have stopped making progress in the last two months or so. Maybe a volume cut is in order; when I think about riding six or seven hours a week, it makes me so ANXIOUS that my adherence to my 12+hour/wk schedule must be somewhat belief-based.

From a TSS perspective, this makes a certain amount of sense, too. I've gone from 500-700 TSS/wk to 800-1000TSS/wk, and seen no gain. Logic suggests I should go back to my lower volume, where I was making progress, but it's hard emotionally to do that, since volume itself feels like "progress." Ahh, the perils of neurosis and self-coaching...

 

[SolarEnergy]

interesting kmavm.

Though I can confirm that prescribing proper TSS, hours, and intensity distribution per year, month, and weeks, is a tough process even for coaches.

That's trial and error. So the logical thing to do, is to start by less, and then increase.

 

[frenchyge]

Don't know if the number is really a requirement here frenchy, but that was the OP original question though.

Sorry Solar. After thinking about it a little bit I realized that I may have been too hasty jumping on you like that without understanding what you were trying to say with that quote. It does give the OP some numbers to look at, as you said.

As I mentioned, I think those numbers could serve as a good reality check for an athlete, to prevent setting goals that far exceed the amount of resources available, but I'm not sure they're useful beyond that. During this season, I certainly hope to beat some people that train more than I do, and I expect that I'll be beaten by some who train less. The bottom line is that it's performance, rather than training quantity, that matters most in determining the level that an athlete is able to compete.

As far as annual hours go, I don't really think that's a very good metric for training anyway, and I wouldn't make a blanket statement like Bompa's. 400 hours could mean 8hr/wk all year, or it could mean 16hr/wk for the 6 months from Feb - July. Personally, I'd expect that a person could be prepared to compete at a much higher level in the second case. I train for 8-10 hr/wk right now, and I probably won't be able to increase that during the competition period because that's all I have to work with. I won't train that way all year 'round since my last race is in Aug, so I really don't know where I'll end up in terms of annual hours. I guess my annual planning just isn't that good.

 

[RipVanCommittee]

Let me get this straight...

You're doing 2x(15-20), 7x4, and 12x0:30 all in one ride? How many times a week?

No, that IS my week! Along with a. 2 hr ride at .85 or so of my FTP.

That's kinda my point, though...I'm not sure much more intensity than that in a single week is going to be very productive, and additional time means gargbage miles.

 

[RipVanCommittee]

when I think about riding six or seven hours a week, it makes me so ANXIOUS that my adherence to my 12+hour/wk schedule must be somewhat belief-based.

I'd say that if you're riding 12 hours a week, take a look (if you're using some training software that allows this), and see how much you're actually 'training'?? Looking at AC's chart of the adaptations that occur at different training levels, nothing really happens in L1... I really think that reducing that, and L2 to some extent, ends up being key, as the endurance part is much easier to train than speed.

From a TSS perspective, this makes a certain amount of sense, too. I've gone from 500-700 TSS/wk to 800-1000TSS/wk, and seen no gain. Logic suggests I should go back to my lower volume, where I was making progress, but it's hard emotionally to do that, since volume itself feels like "progress." Ahh, the perils of neurosis and self-coaching...

Wow, I'm constantly amazed at the TSS numbers of others!! FWIW, I'm consistently in the 380-480 range, and have been able to consistently improve since I started training (Oct 1). As an aside, in February, I went on a vacation/excuse to ride a lot, and wanted to a)through in some long endurance rides to prepare a little for the demands of some long races in March, and b)see how my body would react to dramatically increased volume.

My general conclusion is that 1)I was able to hande a doubling of volume w/o any problem (a 12 minute test at the end of the week was in line with what I was able to do at the beginning of the trip), and 2)I probably didn't need to do this much!

It seems to me that if you're doing a 4 hr race with an average of 3.7W/KG (this was my race last Sunday), the best preparation is having as high a W/KJ at 'threshold' as possible, not doing a lot of 4 hr. rides.

 

[acoggan]

While there may be some disagreement about what is 'optimal' (I think AC for one believes it's more that this

That depends on 1) what you mean by "optimal", and 2) the individual's capacity to absorb/benefit from training.

 

[SolarEnergy]

Sorry Solar. After thinking about it a little bit I realized that I may have been too hasty jumping on you like that without understanding what you were trying to say with that quote. It does give the OP some numbers to look at, as you said.

As I mentioned, I think those numbers could serve as a good reality check for an athlete, to prevent setting goals that far exceed the amount of resources available, but I'm not sure they're useful beyond that. During this season, I certainly hope to beat some people that train more than I do, and I expect that I'll be beaten by some who train less. The bottom line is that it's performance, rather than training quantity, that matters most in determining the level that an athlete is able to compete.

As far as annual hours go, I don't really think that's a very good metric for training anyway, and I wouldn't make a blanket statement like Bompa's. 400 hours could mean 8hr/wk all year, or it could mean 16hr/wk for the 6 months from Feb - July. Personally, I'd expect that a person could be prepared to compete at a much higher level in the second case. I train for 8-10 hr/wk right now, and I probably won't be able to increase that during the competition period because that's all I have to work with. I won't train that way all year 'round since my last race is in Aug, so I really don't know where I'll end up in terms of annual hours. I guess my annual planning just isn't that good.

Agreed. And please don't be sorry. I know that I am barking a lot since the last couple of days. I think I'll get myself a bone to eat during lunch time

What's funny is that my primary intention in using Bompa's quote, is to highlight the fact that fewer hours (than many people would think), are actually prescribed by such an authority. I do train 6 hr / week currently, and that's just to stay in the middle of the pack during my 50k crits, as well as my 125k upbeat rides.

I am glad that there's a debate over this topic. My position is that if one aim at trying to do long term planning (periodized or not), a decision has to be made at the begining of the year. That's when Bompa's quote becomes useful. As a starting guide line.

 

[acoggan]

FWIW, all of my maximal power outputs, from 5 seconds to 60 minutes, have come after drastically reducing my volume--and I'm at an age (41) when I would be expecting at least some slight decline. Obviously, reducing the volume isn't the only factor, but I really think it's been one of the key elements.

Oops, I should have read further before responding...

One of the first lessons I learned when I started training with a power meter on my bike all the time (at age 40) was "train less, rest more". (I even included this in a Letterman-style top 10 list that I used to show at talks.) However, if you buy into the idea that our ability to recover/benefit from training diminishes as we get older, you shouldn't necessarily extrapolate your own observation that ~400 h/y is "optimal" to somebody who, say, is in their early- or mid-20s and is trying to get to the very top of their sport. (Kirk shouldn't do so either...although he does.)

 

[acoggan]

You write a book on Theory and methodology of training. No evidence is available as to the number of hours one should do per year. What do you do :
a) Make no mention, or no recommendation whatsoever about the number of hours, or any other aspect for which no studies have been done?
b) You write no book?
c) Everybody should be ok with 400 hr?
d) You gather as much ground data as possible?

I'd take option b.

Or here's an other one. Dr. Coggan's approach to "power based training". Is it all the way padded with some scientific evidence? Every tip? every algorythm?

Personnally, I won't mind if it's not.

I would say that there's at least some basis in the scientific literature for everything that I have contributed in this area. That doesn't mean that all of the algorithms, etc., have been formally tested in studies, but simply that they were developed/derived from first principles/knowledge of exercise physiology, not via an empirical approach.

 

[acoggan]

Solar-I think you're confusing evidence-based coaching with something that might be called "proof-based coaching." For example, I don't know of a study that has specifically tested 2x20 minute intervals, yet AC and other coaches/physiologists advocate these type of efforts (with respect to Andy, I don't think he's ever suggested others do them, merely noted that he does) because of other evidence. A "proof-based coach" would refuse to proscribe efforts like this because they haven't been subjected to a study.

Indeed, not only do I not suggest to others that they do them, I often go out of my way to tell people that they aren't magic, and that there are lots of other ways to accomplish the same effect.

Anyway, I think that your introduction of the notion of "proof-based coaching" into this discussion is very useful, because it provides me the opportunity to try to make a couple of additional points:

1) in general, I think that, all too often, coaches have too low of a standard of "proof", i.e., they are too often willing to accept an idea without critically examining it/the data supporting it, and

2) at the same time, coaching will always remain an art and not a science, as science really isn't capable of answering questions such as "what's the perfect interval training program for a TTer?", or "what's the perfect warm-up for a pursuiter?". Thus, those who look to science for the answer to such questions, and/or whine that such questions haven't been addressed to their satisfaction (i.e., for their particular sport/situation), are simply barking up the wrong tree.

So, if both #1 and #2 are correct, what is the answer? I think that it is an evidence-based approach, as is practiced in modern Western medicine..

 

[SolarEnergy]

I'd take option b.

Then it's a chance that Bompa didn't feel that way.

I would say that there's at least some basis in the scientific literature for everything that I have contributed in this area. That doesn't mean that all of the algorithms, etc., have been formally tested in studies, but simply that they were developed/derived from first principles/knowledge of exercise physiology, not via an empirical approach.

Fair enough. I understand the message you tried to pass, with Rushall's article.

If evidence-based data is available, then a good coach's responsability to be aware that it exists.

But I like to think that coaches are entitled to follow, and test their own beliefs as well. Should they be based on concrete knowledges, or suggested by other good coaches/authors, or even inspired by athletes.