Steady state vs intervals



Styler

New Member
Dec 1, 2003
17
0
0
i've been musing over the kind of training i should be doing allow me to ride at sustained pace for 30mins - 1hr - the thinking being i want to do some shorter time trials this year, plus put the pressure on in mid-week chaingangs.

from my fairly basic knowledge of training, i suspect most people would advise intervals over steady state training. am i right? and if so, it that merely because intervals will produce a bigger training effect for the same amount of time/effort involved?

i suppose it all boils down to the question - has steady state training been entirely superseeded by interval training?
 

BernardG

New Member
Feb 8, 2004
3
0
0
60
I think the interval training will give you that sudden burst of acceleration to enable your self to get back on a pack or leave one.
the attacks seem to be the hardest thing to cope with as i can stay with the bunch in the grade i race but the attacks & surges at the start of a race to sort a few weaker riders out are the hardest
 

ric_stern/RST

New Member
Nov 11, 2002
3,866
2
38
53
Hurstpierpoint
www.cyclecoach.com
Originally posted by Styler
i've been musing over the kind of training i should be doing allow me to ride at sustained pace for 30mins - 1hr - the thinking being i want to do some shorter time trials this year, plus put the pressure on in mid-week chaingangs.

from my fairly basic knowledge of training, i suspect most people would advise intervals over steady state training. am i right? and if so, it that merely because intervals will produce a bigger training effect for the same amount of time/effort involved?

i suppose it all boils down to the question - has steady state training been entirely superseeded by interval training?

i think part of the answer might be explained by what you mean by "steady state" and "intervals". by this i mean, that some of the intervals i prescribe are a constant workload (which could be described as a steady state), and all of the endurance work i prescribe would be non steady state.

ric
 

Styler

New Member
Dec 1, 2003
17
0
0
by steady state, i mean performing at a constant rate for an extended period of time - so when training for a 10mile time trial - doing 25-30 mins at tt pace.

it sounds like this was the way people used to train - by exactly replicating the pace and length of the thing they're training for.

what i'm asking is, is it more efficient to train for a 10 mile tt by doing, say, 4x 5min intervals? i suppose it won't be time-wise, as with rest, etc the amount of time required will be longer. but will the training effect be more pronounced?
 

2LAP

New Member
Feb 22, 2002
1,265
0
0
Originally posted by Styler
by steady state, i mean performing at a constant rate for an extended period of time - so when training for a 10mile time trial - doing 25-30 mins at tt pace.

it sounds like this was the way people used to train - by exactly replicating the pace and length of the thing they're training for.

what i'm asking is, is it more efficient to train for a 10 mile tt by doing, say, 4x 5min intervals? i suppose it won't be time-wise, as with rest, etc the amount of time required will be longer. but will the training effect be more pronounced?
Both of these sessions have a place in the program of an endurance rider; but they have different physiological effects. The longer session will increase LT while the shorter session will develop aerobic capacity.

I think that the way training has changed is away from long sessions like 4 hours in the saddle a number of times a week to more very specific sessions that work towards a goal!

The purpose of intervals is to allow you to complete more time at any given intensity by having intermittent rests rather than doing a single effort at the intensity.
 

2LAP

New Member
Feb 22, 2002
1,265
0
0
Originally posted by Styler
that makes sense. i guess i should read more!
Try looking at some of the older posts on the site. If you're into TT's then check out the posts by TTer.
 

jimh2

New Member
Feb 15, 2004
21
0
0
Some ateady state training is necessary for training to perform well in TT's. Here's why. In the TT you need to be both mentally and physically capable of handling the extended time you will be above your lactate threshold. Once you hit your TT HR (should be about 90% of max) you need to flat line that HR for as long as the TT, that's tough. By going the distance in a steady state workout you get that mental toughness. BUT DON't do the steady state at race pace HR. The steady stae should be done at lactate threshold or below roughly 4mml of lactate in the blood. Too much high lactate producing workouts will lead you into overtraining.
 

dot

New Member
Apr 28, 2003
268
0
16
48
Originally posted by 2LAP
Both of these sessions have a place in the program of an endurance rider; but they have different physiological effects. The longer session will increase LT while the shorter session will develop aerobic capacity.

I think that the way training has changed is away from long sessions like 4 hours in the saddle a number of times a week to more very specific sessions that work towards a goal!

The purpose of intervals is to allow you to complete more time at any given intensity by having intermittent rests rather than doing a single effort at the intensity.

Why you separate aerobic capacity from LT? LT is a value that shows how high is aerobic capacity.
steady state riding at 70-75% VO2max and intervals train the same in the same way but with different faces.
Long slow rides train heart size and do almost nothing for muscles' aerobic capacity.
 

2LAP

New Member
Feb 22, 2002
1,265
0
0
Originally posted by dot
Why you separate aerobic capacity from LT? LT is a value that shows how high is aerobic capacity.
Technicaly, VO2 max not LT is the aerobic capacicty as this is the maximum rate at which oxygen can be used by the body. LT would determine the % of VO2 max that can be maintained for any given length of time. Most TT's would be ridden above LT and the shorter the TT the higher % of VO2 max that can be maintained.
 

dot

New Member
Apr 28, 2003
268
0
16
48
Originally posted by 2LAP
Technicaly, VO2 max not LT is the aerobic capacicty as this is the maximum rate at which oxygen can be used by the body. LT would determine the % of VO2 max that can be maintained for any given length of time. Most TT's would be ridden above LT and the shorter the TT the higher % of VO2 max that can be maintained.

Oooh. These sucking terms... I mean aerobic capacity is the how much O2 and at what level someone can work at steady pace.
VO2max is just potential value.
 

ric_stern/RST

New Member
Nov 11, 2002
3,866
2
38
53
Hurstpierpoint
www.cyclecoach.com
Originally posted by dot
Oooh. These sucking terms... I mean aerobic capacity is the how much O2 and at what level someone can work at steady pace.
VO2max is just potential value.

wouldn't MLSS be the highest sustainable steady state pace (by definition)...?

VO2 max, is the rate limiting mechanism in aerobic power.

ric
 

dot

New Member
Apr 28, 2003
268
0
16
48
Originally posted by ricstern
wouldn't MLSS be the highest sustainable steady state pace (by definition)...?

VO2 max, is the rate limiting mechanism in aerobic power.

ric

Yes, MLSS. VO2max just a limit. Real aerobic capactity is MLSS.
Over MLSS there is anaerobic capacity :)
 

2LAP

New Member
Feb 22, 2002
1,265
0
0
Hay Dot, language barrior problem again!!!!

VO2 max = aerobic capacity/maximal aerobic capacity.

LT, MLSS, etc. are 'submaximal intensities' as they occur below the power output at VO2 max. Best to use %VO2 or VO2 value when describing submaximal intensities rather than 'aerobic capacity'. Activities above MLSS are still described as aerobic (even though there is a large anaerobic component).

Intervals can be done at a variety of intensities and durations, so its perhaps best that you state the intensity and duration when describing intervals.
 

dot

New Member
Apr 28, 2003
268
0
16
48
Originally posted by 2LAP
Hay Dot, language barrior problem again!!!!

VO2 max = aerobic capacity/maximal aerobic capacity.

LT, MLSS, etc. are 'submaximal intensities' as they occur below the power output at VO2 max. Best to use %VO2 or VO2 value when describing submaximal intensities rather than 'aerobic capacity'. Activities above MLSS are still described as aerobic (even though there is a large anaerobic component).

Intervals can be done at a variety of intensities and durations, so its perhaps best that you state the intensity and duration when describing intervals.

Maybe. I don't think in these terms. I think in terms of how this type of training changes some parts of my body. All these capacities are virtual values. That's why I don't like terms "aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity, LT training".
 

2LAP

New Member
Feb 22, 2002
1,265
0
0
Originally posted by dot
Maybe. I don't think in these terms. I think in terms of how this type of training changes some parts of my body. All these capacities are virtual values. That's why I don't like terms "aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity, LT training".
I know exactly what you mean and lots of coaches think like this or use the terms quite loosely. There is no problem in this until discussions get a bit technical or people start loosing the thread.

The main problem is that things like anaerobic capacity, aerobic capacity and LT have specific definitions; however it is perfectly valid to say things like 'aerobic capacity training', 'LT training', etc.
 

dot

New Member
Apr 28, 2003
268
0
16
48
Originally posted by 2LAP
I know exactly what you mean and lots of coaches think like this or use the terms quite loosely. There is no problem in this until discussions get a bit technical or people start loosing the thread.

The main problem is that things like anaerobic capacity, aerobic capacity and LT have specific definitions; however it is perfectly valid to say things like 'aerobic capacity training', 'LT training', etc.

That's why I don't like these terms:

Someone told to train his "aerobic capacity" at prescribed intensity and volume. And at this place people struggles with questions: "why this intensity and volume?". Understanding training in terms of stroke volume, capillarization, muscle endurance, max. muscle power, fiber types and fibers type exchange but not "(an)aerobic capacity, LT training" helps to build flexible program. I see people struggling with Dave Morris programs. Now they're precribed to ride incredible endurance hours per week but weather is too bad. How to change training in proper way? They don't know. Doing "LT training" or VO2max intervals people don't understand what happened with their bodies. So I think this naming pattern is misleading.
 

2LAP

New Member
Feb 22, 2002
1,265
0
0
Originally posted by dot
That's why I don't like these terms:

Someone told to train his "aerobic capacity" at prescribed intensity and volume. And at this place people struggles with questions: "why this intensity and volume?". Understanding training in terms of stroke volume, capillarization, muscle endurance, max. muscle power, fiber types and fibers type exchange but not "(an)aerobic capacity, LT training" helps to build flexible program. I see people struggling with Dave Morris programs. Now they're precribed to ride incredible endurance hours per week but weather is too bad. How to change training in proper way? They don't know. Doing "LT training" or VO2max intervals people don't understand what happened with their bodies. So I think this naming pattern is misleading.
Perhaps we will agree to disagree.

I don't like to talk specific adaptions (e.g. mitochondia, capillarisation, etc.) for three reasons...
1) no adapations happen in isolation.
2) its difficult to know when an adaption is taking place or how best to induce it.
3) its difficult/impossible to measure the adaptations.
The problems of 1 to 3 don't occur when you work with VO2max, LT and other scientific measures of performance.

Infact I don't know any coaches or sport scientists that would advise people to do a form of training for a single physiological adapation, while ignoring the other adaptations that take place.

I don't know who Dave Morris is, but the people I work with (as a sport scientist or coach) are told what addaptations occur when they do different forms of training. Rather than doing 'LT training' I prescribe 'training to improve LT' (i.e. a longer term approach using a number of different sessions with a single goal in mind).

I'm affraid that the meaning of lots of the terms can't be disputed as they have specific definitions; but that has never stopped coaches or athletes making up words/terms/definitions in the past!
 

ric_stern/RST

New Member
Nov 11, 2002
3,866
2
38
53
Hurstpierpoint
www.cyclecoach.com
Originally posted by 2LAP
Perhaps we will agree to disagree.

I don't like to talk specific adaptions (e.g. mitochondia, capillarisation, etc.) for three reasons...
1) no adapations happen in isolation.
2) its difficult to know when an adaption is taking place or how best to induce it.
3) its difficult/impossible to measure the adaptations.
The problems of 1 to 3 don't occur when you work with VO2max, LT and other scientific measures of performance.

Infact I don't know any coaches or sport scientists that would advise people to do a form of training for a single physiological adapation, while ignoring the other adaptations that take place.

I don't know who Dave Morris is, but the people I work with (as a sport scientist or coach) are told what addaptations occur when they do different forms of training. Rather than doing 'LT training' I prescribe 'training to improve LT' (i.e. a longer term approach using a number of different sessions with a single goal in mind).

I'm affraid that the meaning of lots of the terms can't be disputed as they have specific definitions; but that has never stopped coaches or athletes making up words/terms/definitions in the past!

if i'm not mistaken (and i may well be!) Dave Morris is an Elite USA Coach, who has just bought out a book. i think this is the book that TTer has mentioned previously, in that it moves away from the commonly prescribed training of lots of volume (from traditional type coaching) to more like work that you (2Lap) and i would prescribe (e.g. more intensity, with back to back days of some hard graft) - at least i think that's the gist of the book, but hey i could be wrong and after cycling up some hills approaching 10 W/kg for ~ 30-secs, my brain may have gone on strike :eek:

anyway, just to add, i too wouldn't prescribe with a specifc physiological goal in mind (e.g. increased mitochondrial density) as it's highly unlikely anyone would bother to measure it (who wants a biopsy for fun!). i may well suggest that this is one means the adaptation may occur.

just want to also correct something i said earlier (i was so excited about going training my brain wasn't in gear!). earlier i said that MLSS was the highest aerobic level we could work at, and what i meant to say was that this is (likely) the highest physiological steady state marker. in fact we can and do work at higher intensities for sustained periods (e.g. up to ~ 1hr). During such TTs we wouldn't be in a steady state (i.e. [Hla] and VO2 would drift upwards even with a constant workload because of the intensity) and for e.g. the last lab TT i rode (1-hr) at a constant workload with my lactate and Vo2 measured every 5 mins, my lactate rose for 2.5 mmol/L to ~ 7 mmol/L

ric
 

2LAP

New Member
Feb 22, 2002
1,265
0
0
Originally posted by ricstern
if i'm not mistaken (and i may well be!) Dave Morris is an Elite USA Coach, who has just bought out a book. i think this is the book that TTer has mentioned previously, in that it moves away from the commonly prescribed training of lots of volume (from traditional type coaching) to more like work that you (2Lap) and i would prescribe (e.g. more intensity, with back to back days of some hard graft) - at least i think that's the gist of the book, but hey i could be wrong and after cycling up some hills approaching 10 W/kg for ~ 30-secs, my brain may have gone on strike :eek:

anyway, just to add, i too wouldn't prescribe with a specifc physiological goal in mind (e.g. increased mitochondrial density) as it's highly unlikely anyone would bother to measure it (who wants a biopsy for fun!). i may well suggest that this is one means the adaptation may occur.

just want to also correct something i said earlier (i was so excited about going training my brain wasn't in gear!). earlier i said that MLSS was the highest aerobic level we could work at, and what i meant to say was that this is (likely) the highest physiological steady state marker. in fact we can and do work at higher intensities for sustained periods (e.g. up to ~ 1hr). During such TTs we wouldn't be in a steady state (i.e. [Hla] and VO2 would drift upwards even with a constant workload because of the intensity) and for e.g. the last lab TT i rode (1-hr) at a constant workload with my lactate and Vo2 measured every 5 mins, my lactate rose for 2.5 mmol/L to ~ 7 mmol/L

ric
With you 100%.
 

Similar threads