Sweet Spot Trainning and the long run.

[kclw]

I know that a program that emphasis sweet spot trainning can show some amazing fitness gain with relatively minimal trainning. My concern is will it result in continued fitness gains in the long run?

Most people know it take 10 years of dedicated trainning to reach you potential as a cyclist. During that time a lot of physical changes happen (increased heart size in men for example), a lot of these physcial changes are thought to happen durring the base period. Does a Sweet Spot program induce these changes? Will a rider that focuses on that style of trainning experience improvement year after year?

 

[BlueJersey]

Someone asked the similar question over at the Power Training sub forum. No, you will eventually reach your pleatue. You should plan your training plan at least including some FT and above workout such as doing hill repeats at a higher intensity. Even with my tempo workout I made sure I spend some time at my FT and up due to wind and hill elements on my training course.

I know that a program that emphasis sweet spot trainning can show some amazing fitness gain with relatively minimal trainning. My concern is will it result in continued fitness gains in the long run?

Most people know it take 10 years of dedicated trainning to reach you potential as a cyclist. During that time a lot of physical changes happen (increased heart size in men for example), a lot of these physcial changes are thought to happen durring the base period. Does a Sweet Spot program induce these changes? Will a rider that focuses on that style of trainning experience improvement year after year?

 

[kclw]

Just to play devils advocate here. How do you know that? Is there any scientific studies to back that claim up? If not that does anybody know a top level cyclist who has done a complete developement solely on sweet spot trainning?

The reason I am asking this is over the past couple of years I have seen several athletes make incredible gains in a single season by focusing on sweet spot. I then watched those athletes stagnet in their developement. Where as the athletes I know who are doing a more traditional approach have improved slower initialially but over taken the others later. A trend, maybe and that is a big maybe, but I would like to see some studies on the long term effects of sweet spot trainning.

 

[whoawhoa]

I know that a program that emphasis sweet spot trainning can show some amazing fitness gain with relatively minimal trainning.

Uh, no.

Maybe a relatively new rider can see gains with "relatively minimal training", but the whole purpose of the "sweet spot" theory (as I see it) is that it's the training intensity that allows the most work to be done. Much harder, and you can't stay there long, much easier, and you would have to ride 40 hours a week.

Anyway, to answer the rest of your question: I suspect that it's fairly hard to plateau on SST, as long as you include some v02max work to "raise the celing" as far as how high threshold can be pushed. It's also important, of course, to train other race-specific weaknesses.

 

[whoawhoa]

Where as the athletes I know who are doing a more traditional approach have improved slower initialially but over taken the others later.

What do you mean by "more traditional approach?"

 

[kclw]

Uh, no.

Maybe a relatively new rider can see gains with "relatively minimal training", but the whole purpose of the "sweet spot" theory (as I see it) is that it's the training intensity that allows the most work to be done. Much harder, and you can't stay there long, much easier, and you would have to ride 40 hours a week.

Anyway, to answer the rest of your question: I suspect that it's fairly hard to plateau on SST, as long as you include some v02max work to "raise the celing" as far as how high threshold can be pushed. It's also important, of course, to train other race-specific weaknesses.

Let me clairify as to what I mean by relatively minimal trainning. I am talking about a peak trainning volume of 12hrs per week vs 20hrs. Compared to 20hrs per week 12hrs is minimal trainning, no matter how hard you go. As I have said I have seen athletes ride remarkibly fast (myself included) using sweet spot trainning. However, I have not observed the year to year progression that I see in other trainning methods. My sample size is way too small to make any conclusions, that is why I am asking the question.


A traditional approach would be high volume low intensity period followed by a high intensity low volume period. (This is oversimplifying it of course). The theory being that during the high volume period changes are made at cellular level that allow the athlete to achieve a high peak. Each year of "base" trainning raises the athletes potential peak.

 

[dm69]

Cyclists need to periodize different segments of training. You cannot expect to get long term improvemnts if all you do is one type of training. Some weeks need to be aerobic base, some need to be vo2, some need to be LT some need to be max sprints, some need gym work and some need total rest. If all you do is FT work then of course you will plateau very quickly!

How is your body supposed to improve if you're doing the same stuff every week?

My plan this year will go 3 weeks easy, 3 weeks LONG SLOW DIST, 3 weeks vo2(with SE), 3 weeks FT(with SE), 3 weeks MIX (everything), 4 weeks preperation for the season which will involve sprints, handling, climibing etc.

I will race through the whole training phase of 19 weeks and after I finish my preperation phase its basically race and recovery repeated until the end of the season with specific training thrown in to prepare for the races.

This gives me a great mix and the only thing I am doing consistently is racing which is THE best training workout you can do.

Next year I will do the same with some more weight training instead of SE.

Following a plan like this allows your body to grow and adapt. Unlike a plan of 52 weeks straight of FT training, BASE training etc.

 

[dm69]

Uh, no.

Maybe a relatively new rider can see gains with "relatively minimal training", but the whole purpose of the "sweet spot" theory (as I see it) is that it's the training intensity that allows the most work to be done. Much harder, and you can't stay there long, much easier, and you would have to ride 40 hours a week.

Anyway, to answer the rest of your question: I suspect that it's fairly hard to plateau on SST, as long as you include some v02max work to "raise the celing" as far as how high threshold can be pushed. It's also important, of course, to train other race-specific weaknesses.

Whoa Whoa I think your missing the point of racing bikes its not about who has the highest FT and frankly I don't give a F*** what mine is . Simply focusing on FT all the time WILL lead to a plateau. You say "as long as you include vo2 to raise the ceiling" then you won't plateau at FT? Why should the focus simply be on FT anyways? Shouldn't the focus be on winning bike races I am sure people have won bike races and not had the biggest FT .

My advice: Don't worry so much about raising FT. Having a nice FT is good and you can brag about it to the power weenies in that other forum but if riding FT is all you know how to do don't expect to become a PRO.

 

[SolarEnergy]

Where as the athletes I know who are doing a more traditional approach have improved slower initialially but over taken the others later.

Can't disagree with this quasi no brainer.

And you're raising a good question too. Without choosing what you describe as being a traditional approach (which doesn't fit indoor training very well), I admit not wanting to rush the improvement early in the season.

 

[Roadie_scum]

Whoa Whoa I think your missing the point of racing bikes its not about who has the highest FT and frankly I don't give a F*** what mine is . Simply focusing on FT all the time WILL lead to a plateau. You say "as long as you include vo2 to raise the ceiling" then you won't plateau at FT? Why should the focus simply be on FT anyways? Shouldn't the focus be on winning bike races I am sure people have won bike races and not had the biggest FT .

My advice: Don't worry so much about raising FT. Having a nice FT is good and you can brag about it to the power weenies in that other forum but if riding FT is all you know how to do don't expect to become a PRO.

Kid, you got no idea.

 

[whoawhoa]

Let me clairify as to what I mean by relatively minimal trainning. I am talking about a peak trainning volume of 12hrs per week vs 20hrs. Compared to 20hrs per week 12hrs is minimal trainning, no matter how hard you go. As I have said I have seen athletes ride remarkibly fast (myself included) using sweet spot trainning. However, I have not observed the year to year progression that I see in other trainning methods. My sample size is way too small to make any conclusions, that is why I am asking the question.

As a really simple answer:

Rider A is doing 20 hrs per week all low intensity (e.g., low L2)
Rider B is doing 12 hours per week at moderate intensity (e.g., mid l3).

Rider B improves faster than rider A at first, because super-low intensity training just doesn't result in all that much adaptation. However, later in the season:

Rider A is doing 12 hrs/week with racing, l4 intervals, and longer l3 rides.
Rider B is still doing 12 hrs/week at mid l3.

Rider A is now the one training harder, and eventually overtakes rider B. So if Rider B wants to continue progressing, he needs to either move into more intensity like rider A has, or keep the intensity the same but bump to more hrs/week.

 

[SolarEnergy]

Most people know it take 10 years of dedicated trainning to reach you potential as a cyclist.

I think most can continue evolving after this 10year time frame, given that the choice of events is also evolving.

During that time a lot of physical changes happen (increased heart size in men for example), a lot of these physcial changes are thought to happen durring the base period.

I don't think that most of these changes are occuring during what you probably consider as being the base period(s).

A lot of changes are also a consequence of very intense training. And again, I'd recommend any rider to modulate their choice of events as they gain more experience.

Does a Sweet Spot program induce these changes? Will a rider that focuses on that style of trainning experience improvement year after year?

The training type alone isn't responsible for inducing any change. The quantity of training plays a major role.

At one's first year of training, one may be able to build a 50tss/day CTL, made of 50% sweet spot (just an example). After 8 years, the same rider may build a 90tss/d CTL (same SST proportion).

On paper (in theory), the rider has improved his CTL without having changed the sweet sport training proportion.

Now you may wonder: yeah but does this CTL improvement will (or will not) translate into increased performances? Sure why not. During the first few years of his career, this rider probably took shorter events (10miles TT, 1day road race, crits...). 8 years after, our experimented rider is now taking stage races. Therefore, even after 8 years, the volume of sweet spot is still likely to increase his performance level, because more and more, the rider is taking up events that do require a high CTL.

 

[kclw]

I think most can continue evolving after this 10year time frame, given that the choice of events is also evolving.

I don't think that most of these changes are occuring during what you probably consider as being the base period(s).

A lot of changes are also a consequence of very intense training. And again, I'd recommend any rider to modulate their choice of events as they gain more experience.

The training type alone isn't responsible for inducing any change. The quantity of training plays a major role.

At one's first year of training, one may be able to build a 50tss/day CTL, made of 50% sweet spot (just an example). After 8 years, the same rider may build a 90tss/d CTL (same SST proportion).

On paper (in theory), the rider has improved his CTL without having changed the sweet sport training proportion.

Now you may wonder: yeah but does this CTL improvement will (or will not) translate into increased performances? Sure why not. During the first few years of his career, this rider probably took shorter events (10miles TT, 1day road race, crits...). 8 years after, our experimented rider is now taking stage races. Therefore, even after 8 years, the volume of sweet spot is still likely to increase his performance level, because more and more, the rider is taking up events that do require a high CTL.

I might agree with you but I am looking for evidence. Scientific studies would be perfered but I would settle for a couple of people who shown year after year improvement using a sweet spot training.

The two riders I am talking about are mountain bikers. Mountain bike coures once you hit the elite level tend to be fairly similar year to year.

 

[SolarEnergy]

I might agree with you but I am looking for evidence. Scientific studies would be perfered but I would settle for a couple of people who shown year after year improvement using a sweet spot training.

science won't help you (at least it won't answer your question directly).

The only scientific article that I can think of, would be the 7year study made on Lance Arstrong by Dr. Edward Coyle (1). I love this study, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that the findings of this study applies to all rider or all levels. And I don't remember having read any conclusion about particular training means in this paper.

The most obvious way that science can help you (as a self coached rider), is if you take the time (and spend the money) to start quantifying your training load properly. Only then can you fully benefit from the science that has been put in PMC (or any other means of quantifying the training load).

And in my humble opinion, then would you better understand that your question actually, is a no brainer. After so many years in one's career, it's not only *what* one does, but *how*, *when* and *how much*.

(Note : I don't expect you to understand every aspect of my answers as I feel you haven't got your initiation to power based training yet. We'll be more than happy to develop on any technical expression that is unknown to you at this time.)

(1) http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/conte...INDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

 

[kclw]

science won't help you (at least it won't answer your question directly).

The only scientific article that I can think of, would be the 7year study made on Lance Arstrong by Dr. Edward Coyle (1). I love this study, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that the findings of this study applies to all rider or all levels. And I don't remember having read any conclusion about particular training means in this paper.

The most obvious way that science can help you (as a self coached rider), is if you take the time (and spend the money) to start quantifying your training load properly. Only then can you fully benefit from the science that has been put in PMC (or any other means of quantifying the training load).

And in my humble opinion, then would you better understand that your question actually, is a no brainer. After so many years in one's career, it's not only *what* one does, but *how*, *when* and *how much*.

(Note : I don't expect you to understand every aspect of my answers as I feel you haven't got your initiation to power based training yet. We'll be more than happy to develop on any technical expression that is unknown to you at this time.)

(1) http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/2191?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Coyle&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

Carefull when you start to talking down to people. I am very confortable with my own coaching knowledge and experience. Under my coaching several riders have gone from nobody to current members of the Canadian National Team. I have a very good understanding of power trainning, maybe not the jargon that is used in this forum.

I question the idea that basing improvement upon work load alone. This isn't rocket science that I am talking about either. If you do consecutive 30hr week at a low intensity your work load is going to be massive, but unless you do a fair bit of high intensity work you will not be able to hold on when it gets hard.

Maybe I can simplify things for you:

-one arguments for a large Base period is certain physical changes are made, ie improved heart stroke volume, increase miticondria (sp?), ect...
-these changes are what make a rider progress from year to year.

Now my question: is there any evidence that a high workload at a low volume will induce the same changes. Do you have any experience with this (yes or no)?
BTW read that paper quite a while ago. It is interesting but a single subject is definately not enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from.

 

[whoawhoa]

-one arguments for a large Base period is certain physical changes are made, ie improved heart stroke volume, increase miticondria (sp?), ect...

You might find table 2 on this page interesting: http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp

 

[Roadie_scum]

Maybe I can simplify things for you:

-one arguments for a large Base period is certain physical changes are made, ie improved heart stroke volume, increase miticondria (sp?), ect...
-these changes are what make a rider progress from year to year.

Now my question: is there any evidence that a high workload at a low volume will induce the same changes. Do you have any experience with this (yes or no)?

I know there is evidence that low volume high intensity training induces changes in stroke volume and mitochondrial density. Let's take it back a step. Do you have evidence that high volume low intensity exercise induces these changes?

 

[kclw]

I know there is evidence that low volume high intensity training induces changes in stroke volume and mitochondrial density. Let's take it back a step. Do you have evidence that high volume low intensity exercise induces these changes?

No I don't. That is why I put in bold letters in my orginal post that it is thought to induce those changes.

Any change of you sharing the evidence that you have? Really that is all I want. Here is the reason why.

In my own coaching I have been moving toward lower volume higher intensity. I do worry that lowering the volume may reduce the rate of year to year improvement. All I want is some evidence that this worry is not justified.

 

[Roadie_scum]

No I don't. That is why I put in bold letters in my orginal post that it is thought to induce those changes.

Any change of you sharing the evidence that you have? Really that is all I want. Here is the reason why.

In my own coaching I have been moving toward lower volume higher intensity. I do worry that lowering the volume may reduce the rate of year to year improvement. All I want is some evidence that this worry is not justified.

Where have you looked for evidence?

 

[SolarEnergy]

Carefull when you start to talking down to people.

It wasn't my purpose. Not at all. I'm using "no brainer" because of the way your question is asked. I see nothing pegorative in this expression, though my english isn't perfect. Sorry. Should I be more careful in using it? (anyway...)

I am very confortable with my own coaching knowledge and experience.

I didn't know you were a coach.

Being a coach, you probably don't need to be explained that sweet spot is just an intensity of training. The appropriate dosage of it, following a progression, or a regression, or both (one after the other) is just as important.

I have a very good understanding of power trainning, maybe not the jargon that is used in this forum.

Cool that will simplify things a whole lot. If you're looking for scientific approach to your question, here...
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/performancemanagerscience.asp

The performance manager is inspired in part by a proven concept called TRIMP. So it's been a while since coaches have started to pay close attention to training workload (quantity of training).

If you do consecutive 30hr week at a low intensity your work load is going to be massive, but unless you do a fair bit of high intensity work you will not be able to hold on when it gets hard.

I agree.

Maybe I can simplify things for you:

please dum it down

-one arguments for a large Base period is certain physical changes are made, ie improved heart stroke volume, increase miticondria (sp?), ect...
-these changes are what make a rider progress from year to year.

Some of these changes are made by training at higher levels as well. And there's evidence available if I'm not mistaken. I don't have acces to my favorites right now, but just "google Pubmed" ( ).

Now my question: is there any evidence that a high workload at a low volume will induce the same changes. Do you have any experience with this (yes or no)?

If you mean high intensity I'd say yes to some extent. Although I'd expect substract utilization to be different as the intensity goes up (e.g. going from low level 2 to higher level 3). I don't know where science stands these days about the importance of teaching oxidative metabolism to use more and more fat. As a coach I play relatively safe by spending a fair amount of time at race pace for long distance athletes. But I'm opened at learning about new approaches.

As for my experience, well I think I have some (with this issue). And call it oversimplification, but as a guide line I like to base myself on racing requirements.