Strategic planning, VO2Max and genetics

[Risto Varanka]

A friend of mine commented that one should train now for the races one intends to win 3 years from
now. Developing athletic potential in the long term can be called strategic planning, and it
involves setting goals, measuring progress, deciding what to concentrate on each season, and so on.
Some specific issues that came into my mind...

I participated in my first ever race a month ago. Last Fall I started to train more seriously and
systematically. Currently I train about 5 days a week: 3 hard days, 2 easy days and 2 rest days,
basically. This year I'm planning to do 4000 km on the bike, with a few months off the bike in the
winter. This training level still leaves me with time and energy for some other activities )

Last December I took a fitness test: maximal oxygen intake (VO2Max) at 64, lactase threshold (LTHR)
87%. LTHR seems ok to me, though during a few years's training I could probably improve it to 90% or
better, considering 92% is about the maximum for humans. (Can everybody reach that?) For VO2Max, 70
and over should be ok for racing, so I need to improve. In college I used to run the Cooper's test
just under 2800 m, which would give me a VO2Max of just over 50 (
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/gentest.htm ). I'm 10 years older now (close to 30), and also 10
years ago I didn't really train at all. Since years of training should be able to increase the
VO2Max only by about 15-25%, this would mean that I am very close to my genetic maximum for VO2Max
:-( However, my training level seems to be quite low when one considers reaching the genetic
maximum...

How can I estimate how much I can improve, and how much time and effort it will take? Can I reach a
VO2Max of 70 or 75? Should I concentrate on improving my VO2Max, or rather LTHR? Or is it better to
just improve endurance, some other aspect of fitness, or concentrate on developing my vehicles - a
full fairing could give me a 30% *speed* increase...

How is "aerobic capacity" distinguished from VO2Max? Books like Smart Cycling recommend riding at
80-85% of maximum heart rate for developing aerobic capacity.

How do I know that it is time to shift my training priorities? Smart Cycling had a few pages of
stuff relating to planning the macrocycles, but how do I know for example that I'm fit enough to
start concentrating my efforts on anaerobic training?

I don't have very specific goals yet - currently I want to develop an all-around ability, probably I
should concentrate on my weaknesses. For recumbent racers, there seem to be nice track and ultra
events in Europe, but fewer road races. My training so far has been best aimed at 1 hour time
trials, but I did surprisingly well on the sprint in this year's event.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Dashi Toshii]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't have very specific goals yet - currently I want to develop an all-around ability, probably
> I should concentrate on my weaknesses. For recumbent racers, there seem to be nice track and ultra
> events in Europe, but fewer road races. My training so far has been best aimed at 1 hour time
> trials, but I did surprisingly well on the sprint in this year's event.

If you don't get any response here try: www.trainingbible.com

Dashii

 

[Warren]

Based on what you said...

Since you're new and you are patient about your goals, I'd suggest that you do not do any specific
anaerobic training until you've done at least a year of sub threshold (aerobic) training. Anerobic
training slightly inhibits your body's ability to change/develop/improve your aerobic ability. Even
after the first year you'll want to do amost no anaerobic training until you are near the time of
year that you'll be racing. I don't mean to say you should do anything that is anaerobic, just don't
do specific 4 minute intervals above threshold, etc. Developing a very good aerobic system will also
help you recover between efforts and between training days.

I wouldn't worry about what your VO2max is or might get to. Your level of 60 at age 30 isn't great
(yet) but don't let that decide how you will train because very little of racing is done at an
intensity near your VO2max. Your VO2max is more of a result of all your training, not a goal. Focus
mainly on improving your power (watts) output below your LT because this should be where the
majority of your racing (for events longer than a few minutes) will be.

Go get tested to find out what your LTHR really is. Do not use MHR for determining your HR zones.
It's almost meaningless. Use your LTHR and don't get too caught up in how your LTHR compares to your
MHR. When you do the LT test it will measure your power output at different levels of lactic acid.
This is much more important than your % of MHR.

Aerobic capacity is how much work can you do while you are below your
LT. You can do intervals beginning at 6 minutes long, times 3 or 4, at 5-15 beats below your LTHR,
with 5 minutes rest between work intervals. As the weeks go by you can increase the length of
the intervals up to 20 or 25 minutes long, including some that will be done entirely on a hill.
Add about 5 bpm when you are on a hill. A common day plan from my coach for aerobic capacity is
warmup for 15-30', 3 x 10-15' on the flat, followed by 3 x 20-25' on the hills, at ranges 5-15
bpm below LTHR, cool down 20-30'.

Alot of the training can be done on your XC skis assuming you are not one of the 10 people in
Finland who doesn't ski.

-WG

 

[Andy Coggan]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> all. Since years of training should be able to increase the VO2Max only by about 15-25%

Where do you get this idea? Most training studies of young subjects show 15-25% increases in just
3 months, although increases of 30-45% have been obtained. There are case reports in the
literature of perfectly average subjects increasing their VO2max by ~60% over a couple of
years...and I know a triathlete (now PhD exercise physiologist) who had a VO2max in the mid-60's
when training heavily, but a VO2max of in the mid-40's after several years of complete inactivity
(but w/o any weight gain).

> How can I estimate how much I can improve,

No way at present.

> and how much time and effort it will take?

Depends on your trainability...but the only to find out is to try.

> Can I reach a VO2Max of 70 or 75?

It's possible (see above), although perhaps not likely.

> Should I concentrate on improving my VO2Max, or rather LTHR? Or is it better to just improve
> endurance, some other aspect of fitness

That would depend in part on what your goals are...but since you don't really know, it's hard to
give any firm advice.

> How is "aerobic capacity" distinguished from VO2Max? Books like Smart Cycling recommend riding at
> 80-85% of maximum heart rate for developing aerobic capacity.

"Maximal aerobic capacity" is generally synonymous with VO2max...I don't know precisely what Arnie
Baker means when he says just "aerobic capacity", but it sounds like he means LT.

> How do I know that it is time to shift my training priorities? Smart Cycling had a few pages of
> stuff relating to planning the macrocycles, but how do I know for example that I'm fit enough to
> start concentrating my efforts on anaerobic training?

Depends on your seasonal goals, etc....but after some period of time you'll have to add in higher
intensity training to achieve further improvements.

> I don't have very specific goals yet

This makes it very hard to develop a structured training program...

> My training so far has been best aimed at 1 hour time trials, but I did surprisingly well on the
> sprint in this year's event.

If you've got power data, you can evaluate your relative abilities based on your "power profile":

http://www.cyclingpeaks.com/powerprofiling.htm

Andy Coggan

 

[Risto Varanka]

Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
: <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...

:> all. Since years of training should be able to increase the VO2Max only by about 15-25%

: Where do you get this idea? Most training studies of young subjects show 15-25% increases in just
: 3 months, although increases of 30-45% have been obtained. There are case reports in the
: literature of perfectly average subjects increasing their VO2max by ~60% over a couple of
: years...and I know

Maybe I misinterpreted it... thanks for giving the hope back! =)

:> and how much time and effort it will take?

: Depends on your trainability...but the only to find out is to try.

Maybe extrapolation, if I improve this much in 3 months maybe I can improve almost as much in
the next 3...

Another question is how do I know I can't improve anymore, perhaps I just haven't found the training
method that would still be effective.

:> Should I concentrate on improving my VO2Max, or rather LTHR? Or is it better to just improve
:> endurance, some other aspect of fitness

: That would depend in part on what your goals are...but since you don't really know, it's hard to
: give any firm advice.

I get it... work on the goals...

: If you've got power data, you can evaluate your relative abilities based on your "power profile":

: http://www.cyclingpeaks.com/powerprofiling.htm

I can get it with gym bikes, maybe good enough for doing the profiling. Another issue is whether the
recumbent platform compares similarly to upright in both 5 s and 20 min effort.

Would it be possible to provide the tables in text or html format? In case one doesn't have Excel...

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Risto Varanka]

warren <[email protected]> wrote:

: Since you're new and you are patient about your goals, I'd suggest that you do not do any specific
: anaerobic training until you've done at least a year of sub threshold (aerobic) training. Anerobic
: training slightly inhibits your body's ability to change/develop/improve your aerobic ability.

And vice versa, I think? The practical long-term conclusion would be that one should concentrate on
development areas in either each month, but not many areas from both category...

I do my planning primarily on a monthly basis. I select one type of exercise (eg. one heart
rate/effort zone out of the six) as the primary one, and do that 1-2 times per week. Usually there's
some other type(s) of exercise that I consider important for the month as well...

I've done seasonal planning too, trying to follow concepts of buildup etc, but this year it's like
one month is anaerobic focus and then the next one is back to aerobic training again... I'm trying
to do all kinds of exercises. Now it seems it's not the best way to develop, but maybe it could be
useful in the way that I can see what I like, and establish goals better.

In any case, this year's primary goal is to do the 200 km ride, resulting in endurance work. Now I'm
comfortable doing 100 km training rides, so it seems I'm not that far from the goal.

Next year I could do a better planning of buildup, based on my experiences this year. And start
properly building that aerobic system, like for real, you know.

Could be a good idea to fit in quite a bit of touring and audax riding. If one wants to concentrate
on aerobic base, does it make sense to do long endurance rides? (Eg. Burke seems to think so -
mileage base comes first, and after that you start working on your LTHR.)

: Even after the first year you'll want to do amost no anaerobic training until you are near the
: time of year that you'll be racing. I don't mean to say you should do anything that is anaerobic,
: just don't do specific 4 minute intervals above threshold, etc. Developing a very good aerobic
: system will also help you recover between efforts and between training days.

Maybe I could have a special weekly "fast ride" in most of my training months. This could be a LTHR
workout, a fartlek with anaerobic parts, a sprint exercise, a time trial or something like that.
Going fast can add to the fun factor, which I should re-emphasize... This would encompass all
on-bike anaerobic training, even hill work and on-bike strenght exercises would have to fit in this
ride. You think this approach would be the best for the time being?

By the way - does strenght training, like going to the gym for months in the off season, make sense
before I have those 1-2 years of solid aerobic base? Considering that I probably have more than
enough muscle mass for aerobic work...

: I wouldn't worry about what your VO2max is or might get to. Your level of 60 at age 30 isn't great
: (yet) but don't let that decide how you will train because very little of racing is done at an
: intensity near your VO2max.

The idea was that if one is strong at 100% of VO2max, one is strong also at 50% of VO2max. As you
pointed out, this can be achieved with VO2lthr training...

: Go get tested to find out what your LTHR really is.

Do you think a time trial could be a good way? It is easily repeatable too, I read LTHR can change
in as little as 4 weeks. A time trial is also most platform specific.

The question is whether it should be 10 or 40 minutes But this might be related to getting a
more fine-grained and better concept of LT. It's not a breakpoint but a part of a curve... and
different durations/thresholds are important for different events.

: do the LT test it will measure your power output at different levels of lactic acid. This is much
: more important than your % of MHR.

Would be relatively expensive, haven't looked at it. Is directly measuring the acid-power connection
vital for planning training?

: Aerobic capacity is how much work can you do while you are below your
: LT. You can do intervals beginning at 6 minutes long, times 3 or 4, at 5-15 beats below your LTHR,
: with 5 minutes rest between work intervals. As the weeks go by you can increase the length of
: the intervals up to 20 or 25 minutes long, including some that will be done entirely on a
: hill. Add about 5 bpm when you are on a hill.

Towards the end of my LTHR month this spring, I did a continuous workout at 215W for 40 mins,
resulted in a pulse of 176... should be within 5 beats of my LTHR.

: A common day plan from my coach for aerobic capacity is warmup for 15-30', 3 x 10-15' on the flat,
: followed by 3 x 20-25' on the hills, at ranges 5-15 bpm below LTHR, cool down 20-30'.

A combination of LTHR and tempo riding Over 2 hours at minimum? That's long... for me

: Alot of the training can be done on your XC skis assuming you are not one of the 10 people in
: Finland who doesn't ski.

Never skied since '95 I planned to XC ski last winter, but I was lazy... I've come to
regret that

My favourite winter sport has been snowboarding (mostly carving on the piste) - seems good for
developing strenght and muscle endurance. Recently I've done lots more swimming though, might make
more sense if one wants to develop aerobic capacity.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> warren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : Since you're new and you are patient about your goals, I'd suggest that you do not do any
> : specific anaerobic training until you've done at least a year of sub threshold (aerobic)
> : training. Anerobic training slightly inhibits your body's ability to change/develop/improve your
> : aerobic ability.
>
> And vice versa, I think? The practical long-term conclusion would be that one should concentrate
> on development areas in either each month, but not many areas from both category...

I disagree. It is true that focussing on one aspect inhibits another just because of the difference
in time spent on one choice or another, but in the case of anaerobic training it slightly inhibits
the aerobic development beyond that. Also, you can train 2-5 different aspects during each week if
you train often and develop good recovery. You can have a point of emphasis each month like build
aerobic system, or prepare to race, and still do many types of training. This variety also helps
keep the training interesting.

> I've done seasonal planning too, trying to follow concepts of buildup etc, but this year it's like
> one month is anaerobic focus and then the next one is back to aerobic training again...

Don't do that.

> In any case, this year's primary goal is to do the 200 km ride, resulting in endurance work. Now
> I'm comfortable doing 100 km training rides, so it seems I'm not that far from the goal.

For the goal of a 200km ride you really don't need to do any specific training over LT. If you go
over LT during a ride it is okay, but don't waste your time and energy doing anaerobic intervals for
that goal unless you feel the need to go very fast up hills during the 200km ride.

> Could be a good idea to fit in quite a bit of touring and audax riding. If one wants to
> concentrate on aerobic base, does it make sense to do long endurance rides? (Eg. Burke seems to
> think so - mileage base comes first, and after that you start working on your LTHR.)

At different times of the year you will do more efforts for your LTHR. Maybe once every 2 weeks in
winter, 1-2 times per week during spring...

> By the way - does strenght training, like going to the gym for months in the off season, make
> sense before I have those 1-2 years of solid aerobic base? Considering that I probably have more
> than enough muscle mass for aerobic work...

If you can snowboard for 3+ hours you should be okay on leg strength for your cycling goals. Maybe
you can do the gym for your upper body.

> The idea was that if one is strong at 100% of VO2max, one is strong also at 50% of VO2max. As you
> pointed out, this can be achieved with VO2lthr training...

At those extremes you may not be good at both since they involve different parts of your physiology
and they are trained in different ways. For your goals it does not really matter how fast you can go
at 100% because you'll never need to ride at that intensity.
>
> : Go get tested to find out what your LTHR really is.
>
> Do you think a time trial could be a good way? It is easily repeatable too, I read LTHR can change
> in as little as 4 weeks. A time trial is also most platform specific.

For your goals, that's accurate enough.

> Towards the end of my LTHR month this spring, I did a continuous workout at 215W for 40 mins,
> resulted in a pulse of 176... should be within 5 beats of my LTHR.

If that was the average HR, yes.
>
> : A common day plan from my coach for aerobic capacity is warmup for 15-30', 3 x 10-15' on the
> : flat, followed by 3 x 20-25' on the hills, at ranges 5-15 bpm below LTHR, cool down 20-30'.
>
> A combination of LTHR and tempo riding Over 2 hours at minimum? That's long... for me

It illustrates combining two (actually 3) different types of training in one ride. Many days can
also be two completely different types since one type does not directly inhibit the other type in
terms of fatigue. For example, high rpm intervals near LT, followed by strength training.

> My favourite winter sport has been snowboarding (mostly carving on the piste) - seems good for
> developing strenght and muscle endurance. Recently I've done lots more swimming though, might make
> more sense if one wants to develop aerobic capacity.

The two sports done each week sounds good.

-WG

 

[Risto Varanka]

warren <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
><[email protected]> wrote:

>development beyond that. Also, you can train 2-5 different aspects during each week if you train
>often and develop good recovery. You can have a point of emphasis each month like build aerobic
>system, or prepare to race, and still do many types of training. This variety also helps keep the
>training interesting.

Motivation is important... Also I assume it's easier to recover from different types of
excercise. And you have too many aspects of fitness to maintain for all-out months to make sense,
most of the time?

>> I've done seasonal planning too, trying to follow concepts of buildup etc, but this year it's
>> like one month is anaerobic focus and then the next one is back to aerobic training again...
>
>Don't do that.

Hmm I'm starting to get the picture about anaerobic training. This is not emphasized too much,
with everyone quoting perfect training programmes (from middle of the racing season!), but Burke
mentions that competitive road racers might do just 6 weeks of anaerobic training in a year
(though I guess there's plenty of anaerobics in races on top of that). It's part of what I call
the pyramid principle: the endurance base is much larger and wider than the all-out sprint top,
and you build it first!

Basically you are saying that one should shift to anaerobic training when one is done with aerobic
training: when there is little need and little possibility to improve in aerobics.

>> In any case, this year's primary goal is to do the 200 km ride, resulting in endurance work. Now
>> I'm comfortable doing 100 km training rides, so it seems I'm not that far from the goal.
>
>For the goal of a 200km ride you really don't need to do any specific training over LT. If you go
>over LT during a ride it is okay, but don't waste your time and energy doing anaerobic intervals
>for that goal unless you feel the need to go very fast up hills during the 200km ride.

I agree. If it was a competitive race of 200 km with drafting and the works, then one would need to
train anaerobics.

My minor goals include also doing something like 1 km sprints. I think 1 km and 200 km - both quite
different from one another - demarcate the area of cycling I might be most interested in... there's
lots of nice stuff in between. But I still need to search for my soul as a cyclist, so to say...

By the way, suppose I do years of serious training to be very good in the one kilo sprint... Can my
body still change so that I'll be the national champion in 24 hours when I hit 50 or so?

>At different times of the year you will do more efforts for your LTHR. Maybe once every 2 weeks in
>winter, 1-2 times per week during spring...

How does that fit with the idea of intensity building up towards the racing season?

>> Towards the end of my LTHR month this spring, I did a continuous workout at 215W for 40 mins,
>> resulted in a pulse of 176... should be within 5 beats of my LTHR.
>
>If that was the average HR, yes.

At 5 minutes it was 173 beats, at 10 minutes 175 and at 20 it leveled off to 176...

I count LTHR workouts as fast, hard riding. Now I'm not even sure if I should do too much of them
for the maximum benefit... Seems I derive nice improvement from long aerobic rides alone.

Usually my commutes come close to being LTHR training, so this year I de-emphasized this aspect. I
wanted to go for both increased endurance and higher (anaerobic) performance.

Only 2-3 months left to our season. Could devote one of them to endurance and up to 2 for LTHR and
anaerobic stuff. (Gotta try some anaerobics... :^) After that it's off season again and maintenance
of the fitness. This time I'll probably put less emphasis on resistance training, last season I did
it actively for 5 months or so...

Hmm it's not too easy to build a training programme after all - maybe I should take a look
at Friel

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Remove The Poli]

I don't quite get the rules for increasing aerobic capacity

Is 80% MHR really intense enough for that? I though you had to do higher.

I understand aerobic capacity to be reflected in the level of work
one can output over an extended period of time ( > 5-20 minutes?)

I though increase in aerobic capacity was obatined by doing intervals of several minutes at 90-95%
MHR, which I guess is anaerobic cause I can't sustain it for too long!

I'm 47, max I've seen recently is 203, and 80% ( ~160 BPM) seems pretty easy, and intuitively
doesn't seem "hard' enough to make me faster.

OPinions?

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, remove the polite word to reply
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't quite get the rules for increasing aerobic capacity
>
> Is 80% MHR really intense enough for that? I though you had to do higher.
>
> I understand aerobic capacity to be reflected in the level of work
> one can output over an extended period of time ( > 5-20 minutes?)
>
> I though increase in aerobic capacity was obatined by doing intervals of several minutes at 90-95%
> MHR, which I guess is anaerobic cause I can't sustain it for too long!
>
> I'm 47, max I've seen recently is 203, and 80% ( ~160 BPM) seems pretty easy, and intuitively
> doesn't seem "hard' enough to make me faster.
>
> OPinions?

Just one. In the last few weeks the relevance of basing your training on MHR has been discussed. I
suggest you do a search on MHR to get up to speed and you'll find most of your answers too.

-WG

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> warren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >development beyond that. Also, you can train 2-5 different aspects during each week if you train
> >often and develop good recovery. You can have a point of emphasis each month like build aerobic
> >system, or prepare to race, and still do many types of training. This variety also helps keep the
> >training interesting.
>
> Motivation is important... Also I assume it's easier to recover from different types of
> excercise. And you have too many aspects of fitness to maintain for all-out months to make sense,
> most of the time?

Yes to all of the above.
>
> >> I've done seasonal planning too, trying to follow concepts of buildup etc, but this year it's
> >> like one month is anaerobic focus and then the next one is back to aerobic training again...
> >
> >Don't do that.
>
> Hmm I'm starting to get the picture about anaerobic training. This is not emphasized too much,
> with everyone quoting perfect training programmes (from middle of the racing season!)

Mine was from 2 months ago, before the focus on competition.

> ...but Burke mentions that competitive road racers might do just 6 weeks of anaerobic training in
> a year (though I guess there's plenty of anaerobics in races on top of that).

If you are doing more than one peak you can do more weeks of intense anaerobic training but with a
rest period between peaks.

> Basically you are saying that one should shift to anaerobic training when one is done with aerobic
> training: when there is little need and little possibility to improve in aerobics.

That is what my coach tells me. Then we do training each week to try to maintain the aerobic fitness
but some is lost.

> My minor goals include also doing something like 1 km sprints. I think 1 km and 200 km - both
> quite different from one another - demarcate the area of cycling I might be most interested
> in... there's lots of nice stuff in between. But I still need to search for my soul as a
> cyclist, so to say...

Try it all, but know that the efforts and physiology involved are very different.

> By the way, suppose I do years of serious training to be very good in the one kilo sprint... Can
> my body still change so that I'll be the national champion in 24 hours when I hit 50 or so?

I doubt it because to be good in the 1k requires lots of fast twitch and anaerobic capacity but the
200k requires lots of slow twitch. You can maximize the efficiency of the fibers you are born with
but you can't change your fiber ratio from 60% fast twitch to 60% slow twitch.

> >At different times of the year you will do more efforts for your LTHR. Maybe once every 2 weeks
> >in winter, 1-2 times per week during spring...
>
> How does that fit with the idea of intensity building up towards the racing season?

It depends on how much time you have to train and when the races are that you care most about, but I
think of "Spring" as being before the racing season. Musseuw would say Spring IS racing season.

> Only 2-3 months left to our season. Could devote one of them to endurance and up to 2 for LTHR and
> anaerobic stuff. (Gotta try some anaerobics... :^) After that it's off season again and
> maintenance of the fitness. This time I'll probably put less emphasis on resistance training, last
> season I did it actively for 5 months or so...

Go skiing!

-WG

 

[Risto Varanka]

warren <[email protected]> wrote:
:> My minor goals include also doing something like 1 km sprints. I think 1 km and 200 km - both
:> quite different from one another - demarcate the area of cycling I might be most interested
:> in... there's lots of nice stuff in between. But I still need to search for my soul as a
:> cyclist, so to say...

: Try it all, but know that the efforts and physiology involved are very different.

I'm reorganizing my training programme and thinking about the next year already. I think maybe I'd
like to concentrate on the 1 hour time trial in the long run. Endurance riding - practical ability
to have great fun in touring or day rides - and 1 kilo sprint - for some fast fun on a bike/trike -
could be the other cornerstones, but maybe both less important.

Next season will see huge amounts of tempo and LTHR workouts

:> By the way, suppose I do years of serious training to be very good in the one kilo sprint... Can
:> my body still change so that I'll be the national champion in 24 hours when I hit 50 or so?

: I doubt it because to be good in the 1k requires lots of fast twitch and anaerobic capacity but
: the 200k requires lots of slow twitch. You can maximize the efficiency of the fibers you are born
: with but you can't change your fiber ratio from 60% fast twitch to 60% slow twitch.

Well, at least I can't screw up by concentrating too much in one category. Dunno about muscle cells,
never went to biopsy. My body seems capable of both power and endurance but I always liked the
latter more...

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Lewdvig]

I have the same problem. My working hard HR is way higher than 80%

I figure its a result of weak legs, lots of fat, and inefficient style.

I will let you know what I uncover once I fix those things.

:^)

"remove the polite word to reply" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't quite get the rules for increasing aerobic capacity
>
> Is 80% MHR really intense enough for that? I though you had to do higher.
>
> I understand aerobic capacity to be reflected in the level of work
> one can output over an extended period of time ( > 5-20 minutes?)
>
> I though increase in aerobic capacity was obatined by doing intervals of several minutes at 90-95%
> MHR, which I guess is anaerobic cause I can't sustain it for too long!
>
> I'm 47, max I've seen recently is 203, and 80% ( ~160 BPM) seems pretty easy, and intuitively
> doesn't seem "hard' enough to make me faster.
>
> OPinions?