Running vs cycling training affect question

Longer rides are to train glycogen muscle stores. But there is no need to do a lot of longer rides.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roadie_scum
[B]Yeah, you interpreted me right. It was and is my understanding that increases in VO2max become exponentially less with time (even given continued good quality training). Not that it stops completely, but that the big gains are made quickly. Please correct me if I'm wrong. At what rate would you expect VO2max to increase in a relatively fit subject training ideally? Linearly? And how quickly would this rate of change decrease with time? Does the rate of improvement in VO2max reduce relative to the rate of improvement in LT, muscular capill, etc, over time? I would say probably yes. Would you disagree?
[/quote]

I'd vaguely misinterpreted you: the common suggestion is that VO2 max tends not to be trainable and plateaus after a fairly brief period of training, which is untrue.

The maximum sustainable effort that you can manage for (e.g.) a 1-hr all-out effort has an upper limit of ~ 90% VO2 max, i.e., VO2 max is the rate limiting mechanism (in aerobic exercise). The ability to sustain a high percentage of VO2 max is common to most *trained* riders (i.e. you don't need to be an elite pro to ride for an hour at ~90 Vo2 max). Thus, during aerobic exercise if you're improving (which hopefully you do) then VO2 max and sustainable power are increasing.

Of course, not all trained riders currently can ride at 90 % VO2 max, some maybe a little below this, so it's possible that you can increase the percentage that you can sustain without an increase in VO2 max.

Additionally, it's imperative to note that these percentage are actual VO2 measurements (of expired respiratory gases) and not power output percentages. These would (possibly) be lower depending on the protocol used to ascertain VO2 max. For e.g. most people use an incremental test to exhaustion (often of 20 to 30 W/min) and with such a protocol 1-hr TT power is likely to be ~ 72 - 77% of the power figure (which would elicit a VO2 of ~ 90 % of VO2 max).

However, as you get fitter (like many things in life) it becomes harder to increase your fitness, the rate of increase in VO2 max or LT or whatever will slow as you get fitter (i.e. your biggest gains are made when you move from sedentary to exercise).

The rate of increase in VO2 max with training will be dependent upon the training prescribed, the fitness level of the person, and their trainability

Quoted post said:

Now the second thing is, predictor of what performance? One study I've seen suggests VO2max is not as well correlated to endurance performance as time to exhaustion at VO2max(power) in the context of an endurance team MTB event (repeated loads of ~20 minutes).

Quoted post said:

I also know Russel Van Hout (89) and Will Walker (92) are not winning the tour yet, despite excellent lab figures for VO2.

Quoted post said:

Most lab work/studies I've seen seem to involve taking a certain workload and measuring time to complete, or measuring energy output in a certain time. This is a very different workload to winning a bike race (though somewhat similar to a time trial I'll grant you). Generally the time taken <1 hour, almost always <2 hours, and the work rate is either constant or increasing over time.

Quoted post said:

Now, my research method here is greatly flawed, but someone might want to do this properly (I might do it one day when I get time and let you guys know - mathematical analysis and all that). When I look at the pro websites and magazine articles etc, they often include VO2max figures. I can't see a correlation between these and anything. Not UCI rankings, not performance in any particular type of race - flat or hilly/one day or stage/short or long. Now, they are all very gifted athletes with high VO2's relative to the rest of the population, but at that level it doesn't seem to be predictive - maybe it is necessary to have a high VO2 to perform at a high level, but not sufficient (note particularly the juniors example).

Quoted post said:

Finally, do you disagree that muscular capillarisation is a better predictor than VO2 and a factor that changes more over time? This probably relates well to LT I suppose, but is less well correlated to VO2? I'd be interested in your thoughts. [/B]

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
I What reasons do you think there are for doing longer rides? I've seen you advocating training around LT and at steady state threshold a lot, as well as VO2max intervals to get improvements in LT and VO2max. Makes sense. So who should do long rides, what fitness component is being targeted , and when is it important? Coincidentally, this appears to be the crux of the debate on this particular thread.

It's very difficult to gain much from being told someone (who) might gain something (what) from long rides, in certain circumstances (which ones?).

When do you advocate long rides, and at what intensity?

there's several reasons i advocate longer rides (primary reason is to get used to it, if your races are long and/or for enjoyment)

i won't go into all the reasons, as i use this question (or part of) for interviewing people. don't wanna give all the answers away!

i generally advocate long rides at LT (zone 2 to 3) or just under (zone 2) for most people. see http://cyclecoach.com/articles?article=Power_Guidelines&ext=.htm for zone descriptions

who should do long rides? those who enjoy them, those who race long and those trying to create a negative energy balance. of course, long here is relative as there's a wide range of abilities in the readership here.

long rides don't need to exceed the *duration* of the race/target event, or always even meet it.

ric

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roadie_scum
These values can be improved quickly on the bike, with quite short sessions, but consider (especially 3):

1. At what stage in their training do the Kenyans do these low volumes? Immediately before they race? Like a taper?

From sources I read I conclude that they train 10 hrs/week almost all year round. They run in the mountains and do almost no intervals with intensity over LT. But their everyday morning session is at LT or just below. Evening training sessions are for recovery.

3. Muscular capillarisation is, for one, a better predictor of endurance cycling performance and that takes a lot of time to develop.

You forgot mitochondial density. Cappilarisation and mitochondrial density both define LT (most part of it). And heart size and strength define VO2max.

Thanks for a brilliant, precise and complete response. Just a couple of things...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ricstern
[B]

i'm not sure any could manage 20mins at VO2 max. Other than performance itself, excellent predictors of performance are power at LT and maximal aerobic power. in terms of actual on the road (or wherever) performance these power data would need to be relative to mass (for climbing), CdA (for TT or flat work) and or a combination of the two. for example, with the climbing scenario it makes sense that if rider A produces 400 W up a long climb and rider B produces 320 W, that rider A will be first. However, if we know that rider A is 95 kg and rider B is 65 kg, we know that B will beat A (A has a P/m ratio of 4.2 W/kg and has ratio of 4.9 W/kg)

it's far more important to know what their power is VO2 max/MAP/LT and their mass and CdA rather than their VO2 in L/min or mL/kg/min. there may also be problems with the reported data
[/quote]

Firstly, sorry to give the impression ppl were at VO2max(power) for 20 minutes. Actually the figures were somewhere in the range of 8-12. It was the event for which performance was predicted that was 20 mins (repeated lots of times - I think we'd all be familiar with ultra-endurance team XC racing format).

I have more to add about this stuff, but I need to think some more, and perhaps look up some stuff.

Quoted post said:

Phew, that was a long post!
Ric [/B]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dot
[B]

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
From sources I read I conclude that they train 10 hrs/week almost all year round. They run in the mountains and do almost no intervals with intensity over LT. But their everyday morning session is at LT or just below. Evening training sessions are for recovery.

Quoted post said:

[/B]
You forgot mitochondial density. Cappilarisation and mitochondrial density both define LT (most part of it). And heart size and strength define VO2max. [/B]

Interesting. What sort of sources?

Track and field athletics conference reports. Sorry, they are not in english.

This sounds like very specific training targeted at LT. They probably have genetically high LT/VO2's also. There's not any need to sprint, go at 4 minute pace, etc, for these guys, so the specificity of overload gained in training is very high compared to with a roadie. And the mountains? Firstly, training at altitude they'd have a hard time running intervals. Secondly, living at altitude might have a bit to do with the ability to obtain high VO2/LT values, especially combined with genetic proclivity. How do you think it affects their training?

Yes. They live high, higher than 2000 meters.

I didn't forget mitochondrial density, I just haven't seen much about it's predictive value. Please direct me to a good source of info if you have one. Also, capillarisation develops more than mito density over a long period of time.

No source here.

The concepts that LT is C+MD, and Heart(Size+Strength)=VO2max is a pretty gross simplification in both cases. There's a lot more going on in both cases.

I agree.

I didn't forget mitochondrial density, I just haven't seen much about it's predictive value. Please direct me to a good source of info if you have one. Also, capillarisation develops more than mito density over a long period of time.

I just found one link:

http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=1flpwmwxlgpd5chyyjvw&referrer=parent&backto=issue,12,27;journal,73,102;linkingpublicationresults,id:100448,1