SST clarification

[ccrnnr9]

(I originally posted as a reply to another thread but then figured it was more appropriate here as a new thread)

I am new to the SST way of thinking so I want to ask some questions for clarification:

According to the FastCat Coaching website that someone linked to, SST is balancing intensity and endurance training with the goal to increase an athlete's FTP? According to that website, it defines the SST as being done between HL2 and L4. How can one translate into HR training (or is that even possible)?

Also, if my previous interpretation of SST is true, I am confused as to what is so different or groundbreaking about the whole concept. I was always under the assumption that this WAS the technique best used for building base. Is this new school of thought saying this should take place of the "preparation" phase that many people do in the winter that includes more time off the bike, training on the bike that is low intensity and longer duration, and cross training in other disciplines?

If someone could clear these questions up for me, I think I may have a better idea of what SST actually is.
Thanks,
Nick

 

[whoawhoa]

How can one translate into HR training (or is that even possible)?

Simply use heart rate zones. Better yet, go ride at a steady-hard pace. The shorter the ride, the harder you go, and vice versa.

Also, if my previous interpretation of SST is true, I am confused as to what is so different or groundbreaking about the whole concept.
Nick

Absolutely nothing. It's a lot like what lydiard suggested for years in running.

Most cyclists believe in a period of really easy riding, cross training, "base," whatever, which is a great way to waste valuable training time. Some others, including myself at one point, go the opposite way and look for magic bullets through hyper-precise intervals workouts.

 

[ccrnnr9]

Simply use heart rate zones. Better yet, go ride at a steady-hard pace. The shorter the ride, the harder you go, and vice versa.

My question then would be this: which zones should one aim for? There are typically 5 HR zones while with the limited power training knowledge I have, there are seven levels for power training. What zones should one aim for? Also, when referring to those zones, should one use the max HR school of thought, % of LT HR school of thought, or the Carmichael school of thought where one uses a % of an average HR on a 3-mile TT effort?

Absolutely nothing. It's a lot like what lydiard suggested for years in running.

Most cyclists believe in a period of really easy riding, cross training, "base," whatever, which is a great way to waste valuable training time. Some others, including myself at one point, go the opposite way and look for magic bullets through hyper-precise intervals workouts.

So you are saying you never put in these "base miles" during the winter or "off-season"? Also, does that mean you try not to do any cross training? I would assume that you still do take a few weeks of rest/recovery where there are no truly structured workouts on the bike. If not, how do you prevent burnout for the body?
~Nick

 

[whoawhoa]

My question then would be this: which zones should one aim for? There are typically 5 HR zones while with the limited power training knowledge I have, there are seven levels for power training. What zones should one aim for? Also, when referring to those zones, should one use the max HR school of thought, % of LT HR school of thought, or the Carmichael school of thought where one uses a % of an average HR on a 3-mile TT effort?

People on this forum typically refer to the Coggan power zones, use the heart rate zones that go along with them, based on % of 1-hr tt power or heart rate. Link here:http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp

So you are saying you never put in these "base miles" during the winter or "off-season"? Also, does that mean you try not to do any cross training? I would assume that you still do take a few weeks of rest/recovery where there are no truly structured workouts on the bike. If not, how do you prevent burnout for the body?
~Nick

I never restrict myself to a low intensity during any period. That doesn't mean I don't do longer l2 rides, though. And no, I don't do any cross training, in fact, I don't think "cross training" really exists for cycling. I do other sports/activities, I just don't call them "cross training" because I don't expect them to benefit my cycling.

And I do take a few weeks off at the end of the season, and a longer period where I do little structured training. I agree that physical and especially mental burnout are concerns.

 

[ccrnnr9]

People on this forum typically refer to the Coggan power zones, use the heart rate zones that go along with them, based on % of 1-hr tt power or heart rate. Link here:http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp

I will take a look at that. I just wanted to clarify on heart rate zones as I have no personal experience training with power and I only know the basics of training with power. Thanks!

I never restrict myself to a low intensity during any period. That doesn't mean I don't do longer l2 rides, though. And no, I don't do any cross training, in fact, I don't think "cross training" really exists for cycling. I do other sports/activities, I just don't call them "cross training" because I don't expect them to benefit my cycling.

And I do take a few weeks off at the end of the season, and a longer period where I do little structured training. I agree that physical and especially mental burnout are concerns.

I agree that most "cross-training" does not directly benefit cycling but I will say that I think running, swimming, and other sports can have benefits for an athlete that could indirectly benefit a cyclist's health both mentally and physically. For me, I like to play indoor soccer and run especially when the temperatures get colder while still maintaining a cycling regimen (I just spend less days per week on the bike and more of the time on my trainer and rollers). Secondly, thanks for the clarification on whether or not you take weeks off. I think sometimes when people talk about SST there is confusion that SST means no rest/recovery/transition phase that I think is so important for athletes to maintain.
~Nick

 

[frenchyge]

Also, if my previous interpretation of SST is true, I am confused as to what is so different or groundbreaking about the whole concept. I was always under the assumption that this WAS the technique best used for building base.

I'm not sure it's truly groundbreaking, but it does differ from what many riders have been taught over the years, namely: months of long-slow-duration are required to build up an aerobic base, and then a feeling that one has to be busting their ass in order to improve power.

One truly novel concept about SST is the idea that one may improve their aerobic power to a greater extent through SST than through HIT because one can tolerate a much greater volume of SST, which more than makes up for the slightly lower training stimulus per unit time.

 

[BlueJersey]

And not everyone has more than 15 hours a week to train.

I'm not sure it's truly groundbreaking, but it does differ from what many riders have been taught over the years, namely: months of long-slow-duration are required to build up an aerobic base, and then a feeling that one has to be busting their ass in order to improve power.

One truly novel concept about SST is the idea that one may improve their aerobic power to a greater extent through SST than through HIT because one can tolerate a much greater volume of SST, which more than makes up for the slightly lower training stimulus per unit time.

 

[ccrnnr9]

One truly novel concept about SST is the idea that one may improve their aerobic power to a greater extent through SST than through HIT because one can tolerate a much greater volume of SST, which more than makes up for the slightly lower training stimulus per unit time.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I guess I have inadvertantly subscribed to the SST train of thought just because I had interpreted the other method incorrectly. Also, can someone give me the translation on HIT? I am still trying to get used to the abbreviations on this forum.
~Nick

 

[otb4evr]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I guess I have inadvertantly subscribed to the SST train of thought just because I had interpreted the other method incorrectly. Also, can someone give me the translation on HIT? I am still trying to get used to the abbreviations on this forum.
~Nick

HIT is High Intensity Training.

This is typically zone 4 or higher, but I have seen some people refer to it as zone 5 or higher.

For SST, I typically tell people to be just below the burn... Try to keep a constant effort, backing off a bit on the uphills and picking up a bit on the downhills.

With the proper effort, I find that I really have to start concentrating at about the 40 minute mark. I start getting an ache in my upper hamstring, very deep in the muscle, and my HR actually starts creeping up into zone 4.

If you are following HR training, make sure that it takes about 8 - 10 minutes to get into zone 3, otherwise you are going too hard. The HR should *creep* through zone 3 throughout the course of the interval; assuming the interval is long enough, and eventually peak in lower zone 4.

The average HR, however, should be dead center zone 3.

Start with 15 - 20 minutes and 40 - 45 minutes total work intervals with 5 minutes rest intervals and go from there...

Jim

 

[NomadVW]

The average HR, however, should be dead center zone 3.

Start with 15 - 20 minutes and 40 - 45 minutes total work intervals with 5 minutes rest intervals and go from there...

So... maybe I'm just giving it an old name. Isn't this just "Tempo Pace Riding"?

There's certainly a lot of discussion about this and I thought I'd join in the fray. I'm just curious why you would do SST, aside from avoiding the burn of Level 4 training. Seems a lot of people support SST over the traditional mega-miles base training because they feel like they're short on time. If you're that short on time, why not do bottom 5% of Level 4 for even less time than middle of Level 3?

Understandably, bottom of Level 4 is "in" the sweet spot, which moves us right into Threshold work again, which brings us right back to doing 2x or 3x20's through the winter with a mix of other threshold work, leaving us time to do standard endurance mileage in the "old way."

Lotsa ways to skin the cat, but end of the is less intensity means more time, whether it's Level 2 or Level 3.

 

[otb4evr]

So... maybe I'm just giving it an old name. Isn't this just "Tempo Pace Riding"?

If you want to call it that, sure... There is nothing magical about SST.

There's certainly a lot of discussion about this and I thought I'd join in the fray. I'm just curious why you would do SST, aside from avoiding the burn of Level 4 training. Seems a lot of people support SST over the traditional mega-miles base training because they feel like they're short on time. If you're that short on time, why not do bottom 5% of Level 4 for even less time than middle of Level 3?

SST/Upper Tempo allows one to do more volume at a level where you can do quite a bit of work during each session to build your FTP. Why not do the bottom of Level 4 for the same amount of time as you would Tempo/Level 3?

Understandably, bottom of Level 4 is "in" the sweet spot, which moves us right into Threshold work again, which brings us right back to doing 2x or 3x20's through the winter with a mix of other threshold work, leaving us time to do standard endurance mileage in the "old way."

SST is not really Threshold work. You can start with 2x20 intervals, but try to extend the time that you can spend in low-level 4. I know of some people that are able to do 90+ minutes, at one time, in the 90 - 95% range. This is what people are speaking of when they mention SST. But you have to work up to that.

When all is said and done, it all depends on the individual. I am working with several people. They are all at different points of SST. The time/intensity is dependant upon their power profile, their goals, how many seasons they have been riding/racing, and their level of tolerance for sitting on the trainer...

Personally, I can knock out 60 - 75 minutes at 92% indoors, but I am leaning more toward the slow-twitch side of the power profile...

Lotsa ways to skin the cat, but end of the is less intensity means more time, whether it's Level 2 or Level 3.

Agreed...

Jim

 

[ccrnnr9]

I appreciate all the answers I am recieving, but I find that the more I read and learn, the more doors that opens and thus the more confused I get . When you are referring to zones, you are referring to HR zones, correct? When referring to power, one refers to it as levels, correct? All of this aside, if I were to begin doing SST training, I have the following questions:

1. For setting HR zones (as of now I do not have the funds to get into power training ), should the zones be based off of MHR, LTHR, etc? I want/need to know this first.

2. After reviewing the "old style" of training like what Friel and others advocate, there are a lot of endurance miles/base miles at low intensity and long duration, especially in the preparation and 3 base phases. If I wanted to design a training plan based on SST, do I replace those LSD rides with rides of shorter duration at zone4? If so, do you do any base miles at all with this program? Because if not, I can see how there would be less periodization so to say. Essentially all three base phases would be the same except each would add a little more strength work in. Essentially the SST workouts are muscular endurance workouts, correct?

3. I know what LT is, but is it possible to put a HR value on LT? In other words, is it possible to have a ballpark number that can tell you approximately where you are hitting your LT with regards to HR? If not, how is one to SS train without power and only an HR monitor?

4. Is there anything else I should know? ...
~Nick

 

[whoawhoa]

1. For setting HR zones (as of now I do not have the funds to get into power training ), should the zones be based off of MHR, LTHR, etc? I want/need to know this first.

The simplest thing to do would be to use the Coggan zones I linked earlier, with % of heart rate during a 1-hour time trial.

2. After reviewing the "old style" of training like what Friel and others advocate, there are a lot of endurance miles/base miles at low intensity and long duration, especially in the preparation and 3 base phases. If I wanted to design a training plan based on SST, do I replace those LSD rides with rides of shorter duration at zone4? If so, do you do any base miles at all with this program? Because if not, I can see how there would be less periodization so to say. Essentially all three base phases would be the same except each would add a little more strength work in. Essentially the SST workouts are muscular endurance workouts, correct?

I suggest you forget all, or at least most, "old style" periodization ideas and training terms.

 

[ccrnnr9]

I suggest you forget all, or at least most, "old style" periodization ideas and training terms.

Thanks for the reference. I understand what you are saying, yet I am still a bit confused with the idea of SST (as much as I like it) because people say that it may be best to forget "old style" periodization ideas, but I have yet to see a solid idea of how to replace it/modify it. I want to know if this means ditching periodization all together or does it mean to generally ditch LSD and replace that with SST training for what would have been the base periods. Then once in the "build" periods, do SST and add in strength, speed endurance, etc. to hone skills before peaking. Am I on the right track here? I know there is not one good way of doing things, but I do think some of these discrepancies can/should be cleared up.
~Nick

 

[otb4evr]

Thanks for the reference. I understand what you are saying, yet I am still a bit confused with the idea of SST (as much as I like it) because people say that it may be best to forget "old style" periodization ideas, but I have yet to see a solid idea of how to replace it/modify it. I want to know if this means ditching periodization all together or does it mean to generally ditch LSD and replace that with SST training for what would have been the base periods. Then once in the "build" periods, do SST and add in strength, speed endurance, etc. to hone skills before peaking. Am I on the right track here? I know there is not one good way of doing things, but I do think some of these discrepancies can/should be cleared up.
~Nick

Nick,

Everyone has an opinion on the proper way to train.

All of them are correct...for the individual.

You will have to find out what works best for you.

The way that I structure my base weeks is with SST 3 - 4 times a week and 1 - 2 LSD days. I typically get between 10 - 12 hours a week and the LSD rides are 3+ hour group rides...

Make sure you are getting some type of neuromuscular work in almost daily. This could be in the form of seated stomps, when you are indoors, or form sprints, when you are outside.

View this as a lifetime process and don't be afraid to change your training if you want to try something new...

Enjoy...

Jim

 

[whoawhoa]

Thanks for the reference. I understand what you are saying, yet I am still a bit confused with the idea of SST (as much as I like it) because people say that it may be best to forget "old style" periodization ideas, but I have yet to see a solid idea of how to replace it/modify it. I want to know if this means ditching periodization all together or does it mean to generally ditch LSD and replace that with SST training for what would have been the base periods. Then once in the "build" periods, do SST and add in strength, speed endurance, etc. to hone skills before peaking. Am I on the right track here? I know there is not one good way of doing things, but I do think some of these discrepancies can/should be cleared up.
~Nick

I think you're focusing on microstructure too much, as do all the hyper-periodized plans. I prefer to structure my season like this:

1. Raise FTP year round (training year) through a combination of SST, long l2 rides, l4 intervals, whatever: it's all a trade off.

2. Work on event specific abilities in the last several weeks before that event (e.g., sprints and short intervals for crits, tt bike l4 intervals for time trials).

 

[ccrnnr9]

I think you're focusing on microstructure too much, as do all the hyper-periodized plans. I prefer to structure my season like this:

1. Raise FTP year round (training year) through a combination of SST, long l2 rides, l4 intervals, whatever: it's all a trade off.

2. Work on event specific abilities in the last several weeks before that event (e.g., sprints and short intervals for crits, tt bike l4 intervals for time trials).

Great! I appreciate the input from you guys (especially whoawhoa and otb4evr!). My main reason for asking for clarification is that although I am currently a level 3 coach through USA Cycling, I plan to attend one of the level 2 conferences as well as a power based training conference in 2007. For this reason I want to have a lot of the basics down, as well as be familiar with several different forms of training. After reading the article authored by Coggan that was referenced, I understand that the major detriment for training with HR is that there are so many factors that affect it that it is hard to put an accurate range on different zones for training in. That being said, I used a near 1 hour TT effort average HR that I already logged and came up with the zones. The zones look pretty accurate except that zone 4 is a very wide range from 173-191. I am assuming that for SST training I will want to be at the very bottom of zone 4.
~Nick

 

[frenchyge]

I appreciate all the answers I am recieving, but I find that the more I read and learn, the more doors that opens and thus the more confused I get . When you are referring to zones, you are referring to HR zones, correct? When referring to power, one refers to it as levels, correct?

No, that's not correct. Each training schema (framework, plan) consists of a reference point (eg. FTP, 1hr TT HR, 8min field test HR, Avg Hr of last 20min of 30min TT, Max HR, Max Aerobic Power, Lactate Threshold from a test, etc.) and some means of dividing the intensities along the scale. The authors of some schema choose to call the divisions in the spectrum 'zones', while others choose 'levels' (Andy Coggan, for instance) as a name, but they could just as easily be called 'steps', 'intensities', or anything else. Some schema have 7 divisions, others may have 6, 5, etc. depending on the wishes of the author.

The schema that I've encountered all tend to be very similar, once you consider that they are all based from a different reference point. In particular, they all seem to describe a few divisions of exclusively aerobic work, below some threshold where anaerobic energy starts to come into play, and then a couple more levels above this threshold where energy is produced both aerobically, and anaerobically. Which schema one uses is primarily a function of convenience.

Dr. Coggan's schema is used by many of the frequent posters here, and since he was nice enough to include divisions based on power, HR, and RPE scale, it seems to be convenient for relating between posters using different methods of measuring their intensity. Here is a link describing another schema used by coach Ric Stern, the moderator and sponsor of these forums. http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern

 

[Alex Simmons]

Dr. Coggan's schema is used by many of the frequent posters here, and since he was nice enough to include divisions based on power, HR, and RPE scale, it seems to be convenient for relating between posters using different methods of measuring their intensity. Here is a link describing another schema used by coach Ric Stern, the moderator and sponsor of these forums. http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern

Indeed, while I personally have training set with Ric's "zones" as the indicator of intensity, I will typically converse with others using Andy's "levels". Except Ric of course

Ric's are structured differently to Andy's in that Ric's "zones" overlap somewhat at each end of the range, which is a good way of emphasising that no zone/level (whatever) is discrete in its physiological impact. Andy would say the same thing. The levels are descriptive only.

Another example is the use of Critical Power to define training intensities: CP60 (60 min maximal power), CP20 (20 min power), CP 0.5 (30 sec power) CP120 etc.

 

[frenchyge]

Another example is the use of Critical Power to define training intensities: CP60 (60 min maximal power), CP20 (20 min power), CP 0.5 (30 sec power) CP120 etc.

Heh, there's another good example of how an author's system creates opportunities for confusion (ie, mashing 'critical power' with the maximal powers at various durations).