I don't focus on base at all in the winter. I find endurance easier to build and the spring weather motivates me to ride and rise a lot. The cold, dark days are for shorter harder workouts.

Yeah im relatively new to this. i know base is good for running, why wouldnt we apply the same concept to biking? or is that not the normal, different systems being used?

an oldie but goodie (?).

http://biketechreview.com/...ase-a-new-definition

---

http://www.pbmcoaching.com
USA Triathlon Level 3 Elite Coach
USA Cycling Level 1 Elite Coach

My week currently consists of 3 2x20 tempo workouts, 2 2x30 tempo workouts, and a 2.5 hour endurance ride. It use to be 4 2x20 tempo workouts, but I'm dropping one now that I can start back running somewhat after my ankle sprain back in September.

Base is going to look alot different between an early season IM goal, an olympic distance triathlete, and a cyclist-only guy like myself.

I think 4 hour high-zone 2 rides have a place in each of those plans, but their context and frequency will look much different.

-Physiojoe

---

-Physiojoe
Instagram: @thephysiojoe
Cycling coach, Elite racer on Wooster Bikewerks p/b Wootown Bagels

When did "base" and "ftp" become decoupled?

Do you work on some sort of extraordinary metabolism not found in creatures big and small on this planet?

---

The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important.

-Albert J. Nock

It seems there is a trend towards higher intensity workouts in the winter and away from traditional "base" training.Some feel that reversing the two can be even more helpful for long-course racing.

Personally, I am not convinced for a number of reasons:

• My "higher intensity" workouts would be pretty schitty in the winter, simply because I would not have the fitness required to execute them well. My power would be down and the idea of doing multiple intervals (or even extended intervals) w/o some base training just doesn't seem logical.
• Endurance fitness seems to stick around longer, while higher intensity fitness tends to fade more quickly. So doing a bunch of high intensity stuff in the winter to switch later to longer, lower intensity stuff would mean much of that hard work disappears.
• The broader my base, the better I can endure longer periods of lowered training (illness, travel, general life issues). There have been years where I have had to bypass a "base" period and jumped right into higher intensity stuff. I could get "fit" pretty quickly, but it was always a struggle to maintain it. If I took any time off, it seemed to disappear very quickly. I used to refer to this as "surface fitness". I could race and do OK, but w/o the necessary foundation, the fitness just wasn't "deep".

That said, I think it is something that each person needs to evaluate on their own. I've done enough years on the bike where I feel very confident that the traditional winter base training, later-season intensity stuff works best for me.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

I think that a majority of cyclists have a difficult time riding for hours while on a trainer, so the higher intensity, shorter duration stuff works best for me during the late fall, winter, and early spring months when its difficult to get outside.

Yes, this is a good point. I would also point out that "base" is not a physiological adaptation. People continue to talk about building "base" like it is some type of specific adaptation.

I think Steven Sieler did the best job of explaining all of this. Google Sieler and Understanding Intervals. Good stuff.

Base training is bull shit. Everything you do all year round contributes to your base. unless you take an extended break you still have your base.

The questions you need to ask revolve around specificity of training, not base training.

Power13: What you describe is specificity and you need to determine if you race short or long course for you most important races. That should dictate a lot of what you do in the winter.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I should have added that I normally take an extended break in the late Fall / early winter....Chicago weather sucks and keeping motivation to train 365 is not worth it for me. So that is why I said doing any kind of "intensity" during the winter months is simply not worth the effort....for me.

I'll also add that my experience above is based more on my time as a cyclist, not as a triathlete.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Your response to Power13 has me wondering, DD, if you were going Long course, what would your focus on over the winter look like?

I was intending to do a long block of tempo (4x20m, 3x40m) finishing up with 3 weeks of vo2 max work, but I'm curious what your thoughts on it are. Would you go for shorter, more intense sessions in the hour / hour and a half range, and then build specific fitness over the early spring build period, or go for more of the endurance during the winter?

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
Proud member of the GUCrew
Twitter: @tripigeon Blog: Ironpigeon.com
Thoughts on AG sponsorships / community involvement: http://bit.ly/1dQlVDy

I'd think about what is most needed to do an IM then i'd do the opposite more or less.

The devil is in the details and I may slice the cake 2 or 3 different ways depending upon the athlete.

It's all about specificity, do the least specific away from your event and the most specific as you get close to it.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Thanks! This really made it click for me. I've just signed up for my 2nd IM next year and this sums up how I will plan the next year of training now. I trained long and slow before my first IM in October and guess what? I "raced" longer and slower than I would have ever imagined based on my past race performances ( 19:2? 5K's, Olympic PR of 2:16ish, and 1:36 half marathon). Granted I went in with the goal of just finishing the race, high fiving every kid I passed, and thanking every volunteer. IM is a different beast totally.

Thanks for another simple, yet precise, nugget of info, desert dude.

----

---

"It's too dangerous and expensive to ride with d*ckheads" -tridork

Base starts after a break that takes place after your season finishes.

So if your last race is mid-Oct., I'd start base at the beginning of November.

I would not suggest doing that type of training load on the bike for a long period of time as you're likely going to ride yourself ragged and come race time be dead. Base should be focused more on increasing aerobic development than maximizing anaerobic abilities as those erode the aerobic base. Doing weekly 5x5min and 20 min TT tests should come later on in a build period, 4-6 weeks out from the main part of your season. You just can't sustain that sort of workload for very long before you crash headlong into a wall of diminishing returns before falling off a cliff of staleness and overreaching.

If you can't get out for significant bike volume (12+ hours) I'd focus more on working FTP from the underside with tempo, sweet spot, and threshold work: ~80-100% of FTP, especially in the range of 85-90% as that work is repeatable over multiple days throughout multiple weeks if your volume isn't too high

Not to challenge you directly, but to put this more into a context that might be useful:

The concept of base as a means to strengthen your aerobic foundation isn't b.s. That's always been the way it's been defined. It's the biggest block of the "triangle of fitness" we always see. It's just the way we put that definition into practice that's changed.

Now "base" doesn't mean getting out for 25-30 hours of distance rides every week. It means shoring up that aerobic fitness that was likely eroded through high intensity workouts and racing. The more time you have to train, the more endurance-type (z2) stuff you can get in. Conversely, the less time you have the higher-intensity/more bang-for-the-buck workouts you would do.

It still has to be understood, though, that a disproportionate amount of VO2 max work and all-out efforts is NOT sustainable over a long-term period and unless that aerobic foundation is repeatedly visited and touched up, that pyramid is going to fall over. This is applicable for everyone from the weekend warrior to the TdF vet.

What is this mythical "aerobic foundation" you speak of? If I read Desert Dude correctly, that would be the part he is calling BS on. Me too. Does not exist. There is only more or less specificity, and considerations regarding timelines of adaptation and how long before you begin to plateau using a particular training tool (i.e., VO2 max intervals). The pyramid concept is the wrong way to look at it and leads to misunderstanding. I am not saying that "steady" paced training is not important or that it should not make up the bulk of a person's mileage, it should, generally. But this is not due to building "base" or "aerobic foundation" but rather due to the time course of adaptation and plateau.

My plan is to take a few weeks off after cross season (dec) and get back on it after christmas. I do 8 weeks of base, building hours throughout that time, with one rest week of less hours. So first week will have about 12 hours, last will be up around 24. My max hr is about 188 and I do all this around 135-140 without exceeding 155-160 on hills. I train intensity after that

Actually, yes it is. As DD said you build base throughout the year.

We've had this discussion many times already. Periodization is from general to specific, not from slow to fast.

You've got it all wrong. By 'base' they mean 'pretend to train by spinning easy in front of a TV for a few hours'. I think they want to know exactly how long they should spend doing that per week.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

Pick up the December 2013 issue of Bicycling Magazine. There is an article in it titled "The Case for Base", which you might want to read. You certainly do not want to peak during the Winter months and have your base eroded away by Spring.

Here is a 12-Week Winter Training Program that will yield great result: http://www.training4cyclists.com/...rogram-testimonials/

And what is in this great 12 week program?

Wait, now you've confused me. Ok not really but I want to make a point.

You say that aerobic fitness erodes through high intensity workouts and racing. Then why would I want to race or do high intensity stuff to get faster if it's going to make me slower?

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

That's a silly question and is twisting what I said.

I specifically said you cannot do a disproportionate amount of racing or high intensity stuff because it erodes that aerobic foundation.

The bigger that foundation, the more efforts you can do before getting stale/plateauing .

A first year Cat 5 rider can only do x% of intensity in workouts (short term) and in a season (long term) compared to a Cat 1 rider because he/she does not have that aerobic base. To improve both long and short term mandates a return to aerobic development.

You go hard all the time you'll do yourself in. Why? Because the intensity erodes aerobic fitness. This is not a difficult concept.

You're not reading him or I correctly. I'm not talking about "base fitness" (something which life-long activity affects), I'm talking about the traditional "base training".

And no, it's not purely about general vs. specificity, especially when it comes to bike racing. You cannot sustain high-end level efforts throughout a race season. You can't, I can't, Chris Froome can't. You can tailor specific workouts for specific situations in cycling (threshold, VO2 max, etc), but you cannot maintain your highest level year-round. That's not even in question, right?

I'm not using the pyramid concept as a manner of training (like I said, for those with less time a higher percentage of intensity would be a better bang for the buck). I used it to illustrate what the concept of a base is. Whether or not you like it, it's still relevant. I have years of riding experience so I can not ride at all for a few years, then ride for a month or two and be at a pretty high level .That's because I have a pretty big base to draw from. And due to that, I can handle more intensity for longer and likely maintain a higher peak for longer than someone that doesn't have that experience.

An aerobic foundation is just that, the foundation from which you're building all of the higher-end work. The bigger that foundation, the more intensity you can handle for longer, meaning the higher your fitness can likely go. It's not mythical in the least. Take a new rider and an old rider. Who can handle more intensity for longer?

Aerobic foundation.

Actually, no it's not. I never said a thing about slow to fast being periodization. I said the concept of base is not b.s. in the least.

And I'll cite just about any elite runner or cyclist on the planet to prove that point. They all do a base/build/peak season. And no, they don't "build base" throughout the year. They have to return to base after a peak. Why? Because they have to return to that aerobic foundation that's been eroded throughout the high intensity efforts necessary to bring them to that peak.

See, this is the old-school training concept of base I was talking about.

I disagree with this approach and think it's a waste of time to lock yourself into fairly arbitrary hrs (because 140 on day 1 is not going to be anywhere near the same effort level as day 7 or day 30 or whatever when you're overreaching).

What pros do as scientific proof. Yeah good luck with that.

I think you are twisting what you said. You said specifically: "it means shoring up that aerobic fitness that was likely eroded through high intensity workouts and racing."

I'm not saying go hard all the time, I'm saying that going hard & racing does not erode your base, it adds to it. You are wrong in your statement specifically in reference to what you wrote above and I quoted 2x.

You are also dead wrong when you write this: "Because the intensity erodes aerobic fitness."

Which was why I tried to make the point why do intervals if it erodes aerobic fitness. That's crap and old school thinking.

Of course the more work you've done, the higher your CTL, the more intervals you can do. You have a bigger base, but doing intervals adds to that base, it does not erode your aerobic fitness it does not not subtract from it. This specifically is where you are wrong.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I love silly little quips like this that don't address anything relevant.

As long as you get a post in, though. Right , Francois?

No. You cut and pasted a snippet of my post and then asked a stupid question about not doing intensity.

No, I am not wrong because you're talking about the cumulative, long-term effects of fitness whereas I'm talking about the specific element of seasonal fitness.

You peak in May. You're not as fast in July as you are in May, and possibly not as fast as you were in April. Now if all of that intensity and racing added to your "base", why aren't you faster in June or July?

Because you've ate away at that aerobic fitness. You go back, rebuild it, and come back in October or the next season with a higher peak.

Like I said, if I were wrong we'd never peak. We'd just keep building and building and building. We don't.

What you are referring to is periodization.

To make this easier to understand and using what I believe to be your analogy, lets say for every 10min you spend riding/running at a low intensity you get $1. If you do intervals or a race you subtract $2 for every 10min. (the physiological response is exponential but for simplicity we'll go with a linear model). You've done 100 minutes of your base which = $10. You've done 20min of intervals which = -$4. Are you saying, which I think you are that your fitness level is not 10-4=6?

If so why not just stop at 6 and why the fuck would I even do intervals?

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

What I'm referring to is your erroneous notion that base is bullshit.

What I'm saying is that you reach a point where your body is no longer handling the intensity. This is obvious. You don't do VO2 max workouts for 12 weeks at a time because after 6-8 weeks you're not going to respond to them. It's the same concept.

The math is extraneous and arbitrary. Your fitness builds upon itself up to a point: a point/peak at which your body can no longer handle the intensity/volume. Do you add more intensity or volume because it's "adding to your base" or do you back it off and rebuild?

That rebuilding is rebuilding that aerobic foundation.

The reason you are not faster in July is bc you are training wrong. I have no problems having an early season peak for my athletes say in May, then giving them some recovery, then building them back up for a late season peak and having them faster in July then in May. Faster in August and September. October and November if they are still racing as well.

If you are having problems you are doing it wrong.

Do you not think long term cumulative effects of fitness can carry through the season? And I am talking about the specific element of seasonal fitness just so you are 100% clear on that.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Actually if you want you can go to pub med. I think you'll find studies where people are still responding to vo2 work at 8-11 weeks.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

No, I'm not training wrong in the least. It's a direct counter example to this notion you're positing that it all builds to base. No, it doesn't.

I bolded the relevant points in your post. You completely agree with what I'm saying.

The notion that base is b.s. is ridiculous and your own example proves that owing to the fact that you would back off and then rebuild. Precisely what I'm saying.

That's super. Then let me rephrase because my entire post depends on this very pivotal time frame. :

Many people are not going to respond to VO2 max workouts to the same degree after 6-8 weeks and after 8-11 weeks (thanks DD) may not respond at all.

When that point occurs, whether it be 6 weeks and 2 days or 11 weeks, 5 days and 13 hours, then a return to aerobic development must take place for further improvement to occur.

Continuing to push through will lead to overtraining.

Here is what you do not understand. Everything you do contributes to your fitness. Intervals, long easy rides, climbing. Everything. It isn't like you can seperate out intervals and put them in one bucket. It all contributes to your fitness. All of it. It's all helping your base get bigger and deeper. That's what I was referring to when I said the old school notion of base is bull shit.


I said this before and I'll say this again. You are doing it wrong. If you manipulate intensity, frequency, duration and volume. you can build up for a very long time, much longer then you've suggested. You can peak for a race, then you can continue building to get even faster.

Once you understand how these factors interact with each other manipulating your training load to be at the peak of your fitness then grow it even more becomes easier to do.

most people do not understand how they can do that.

I can make a 185 mile week harder or easier then a 250 mile week by manipulating those variables.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

My understanding seems to be fairly spot on.

I am not in any way, shape, or manner disagreeing with the concept of a baseline fitness level that is built through aerobic activity. I specifically used my own experience as an example to illustrate how one person's lifetime base can be so much higher than someone else's.

That "base" is NOT what the OP or myself or anyone other than you, really, are talking about. We're talking about a season's base period.

Okay, again, I am not doing anything wrong. I haven't even spoken of my training so you have nothing to base your assertions on. There's no need.

I gave an example to directly counter your notion that it all adds to base. YOU specifically agreed me about in your example of peaking, rebuilding, and peaking again.

If the concept of a seasonal or aerobic base were bullshit and all racing and intensity merely added to that base, you would NOT have to back off and rebuild.

So basically, and for the umpteenth time, you're wrong. You've even agreed with most everything else I've said. For some reason this last bit alludes you, however.

No you'd be wrong with that too. Desert dude is providing all the answers to your comments already and clearly you aren't going to change your mind any time soon so I see no interest adding anything. As Brian said, you can go check pubmed or you can stick to your long entrenched beliefs.

Seriously it's all aerobic development. Vo2, threshold, L2, L3 riding. All of it.

most people want a period of base building where they go ride/run at low intensities bc training is hard. It's a lot of stress on people, both mentally and physically. That's the only reason to give someone base time, to allow them to recharge mentally.

you shouldn't ignore training any energy system, you change the %'s as the racing season demands and their testing dictates. If you did it right, you could have someone on a diet of 110 weeks of intervals and get improvement the entire time. But most people are going to crack mentally, not physically, hence why you change the variables.

Do you know how hard it is to induce physiological over training? Judging from your posts the answer is no. But in 17 years of coaching, I can not think of 1 instance where I was able to force someone into this point. I've gotten them into psychological over training before, but not physiological over training.

Continuing to push though will not lead to over training physiologically in 98% of all people.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Actually, no I don't think it's that hard to do at all for the right individual. I did it myself after about four years of riding using that old-school "base" method I've spoken of earlier. Took me almost an entire year to get over that. Wasn't really that hard at all, just had to get out and ride 25-27 hours a week for a couple of months.

So you're hung up on my use of the word "aerobic development"? Would "lower-intensity aerobic development" be more fitting for you?

Regardless, it doesn't matter. What I've said is spot-on correct regarding a return to "lower-intensity aerobic development" being a necessity precisely because staleness/plateauing/then overtraining can and does and will continue to occur if forsaken.

Again, you agree with me. Go back and reread your posts.

I get it,. You don't have anything relative to say but you still want to say something. That's okay.

Hi Francois, how's your day going? Get in some exercise? Weather good?

Hope that helps...

Oh, and to finally tie this back in to the OP:

That's called base.

And it's not b.s.

Thanks guys, it's been fun.

Actually I did say something. I did clarify what Tudor bompa said about periodization and Brian told you to check the literature on pubmed but you don't seem to think it's worth it because of 'what the pros do'. So there really isn't much to discuss. For a teacher you take a very singular approach when it comes to learning about exercise science.

Here is the link that Mike Prevost was referring to if people were interested:

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

Also another link from another forum which people may be interested in:

http://www.letsrun.com/...ad.php?thread=458338

112 pages long, with a lot of BS in between but every 5-10 pages there are a few good points. IE timing and manipulation of intensity etc.

Maurice

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with you when you said that you need to return to base bc intervals and racing erode your aerobic fitness. (post #16, 17, 26, 28, 33, 35(where you get the literature wrong as well)).

In posts 25,26,27,41,44, I disagree with some other things you said.

I'm pretty sure, given I have all that disagreeing, that I'm not really agreeing with what you said.

I do partly agree with something you said in post 17 in abstract, although you've described the how to do it wrongly. So maybe we do agree, a very tiny bit, on a very tiny bit of what you've said.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I would venture to guess that the bolded portion is due strictly to the fact that you are a excellent coach and listen to your athletes, not because it isn't possible. You are a professional that has a lot of knowledge to offer individuals on this board, but over the last 4 years that I have hung around, the manner in which you present your knowledge has eroded, IMO. I believe that you are above that.

---

--------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for that. Hadn't really thought about how I put the info out. I do know I get tired of answering a lot of the same beliefs/theories/methodologies/questions over and over and over again. Maybe I'm more irritated when seeing some threads bc instead of posting the poster could use the search function and get the answer they seek. IDK the reason. Maybe instead of taking time to explain things in more detail, and often they are explained elsewhere on here in more detail, I may be even more blunt now then I was and type xyz answer then hit Post Reply.

Maybe these are some of the reasons why I'm spending less time on here and answering less often when I do spend time on here.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I'll go with Brian on that one. After a while you get really tired of opposing proven scientific methods, corroborated with many years of coaching with beliefs. And it's true for virtually any topic on this forum.
I've had a couple of people arguing that they know better when it comes to early cancer detection and evidence-based obesity interventions. You initially take time to answer and describe why, how etc.
and after a while, you think ok F it.
The poster Brian is answering was asking back in June 'ST, I've never done a triathlon, train me'...You'd think he wants to listen carefully to what Brian has to say.

Being passionate about our sport, and thriving to be the best coach you can be is a double edge sword at times. You really try to read as much as possible and stay on top of things, and at times when you
end up in a discussion like this one, you can get annoyed. Especially Brian, depending on his caffeine intake at that time of the day ;-)

Just keep in mind that you are a tremendous asset to those of use who want to learn as much as we can about our addiction. I also get what you are saying about just using the search function. But they can do that from Google. They/we come here to get "personalized attention". I say that somewhat in jest, but not really. Almost all the questions asked here are very personal to the one doing the ask'n!

---

--------------------------------------------------------

You and Brian are professionals. Now, go write that on your blackboard 100 times ;) Most of us do appreciate the time and effort that you and others put into educating those of us who have limited time to seek out the info. Why the hell else would we come here??

---

--------------------------------------------------------

Agreed, this is definetly old school. But I might disagree with what you said in that 140 on day 1 isn't the same as 140 on day x. The heart rate might stay the same, but the effort goes up because of the legnth of the ride. Day 1 is a 2hr ride, towards the end of base is a 3.5 or 4 hr ride. Also, keeping your heart rate at 140 does not mean that the watts exerted stays the same. On a day where you are tired watts might be 200, and on a good day they might be 220. Im not saying this is the way to do base, in fact im researching utilizing more intensity, but there were some flaws in your statement. I think

You're just grumpy because a certain someone has not paid for their coaching yet.

Desert Dude is right in his definition of base. Dr. Joe Friel even refers to base as the accumulation of fitness.

DD has gone off on a ridiculous tangent that doesn't address what the op was addressing.

As I have repeatedly stated a number of times, we are NOT talking about a "lifetime base" of aerobic activity.

We are talking about the concept of base training.

Per the op:

".just a thought on base training, when do you start?"

You guys really need to read more carefully.

To be clear, you've jumped into a coversation I was having with someone else and did nothing but throw out irrelevant tidbits.

The key issue was DD's assertion that base was b.s.

As I have painstakingly repeated a dozen times, it isn't because that aerobic development (excuse me, lower-intensity aerobic development so DD doesn't go off on semantics again) is absolutely not b.s. He even subscribes to the concept.

That is a base period as defined in the more traditional sense of base/build/peak. After you peak, you return to base. No b.s., no "unproven scientific methods", no ridiculous quips that you're dreaming up so you have something to reply to. The concept is the same, the application of base has changed a bit. I've also explained that repeatedly.

Cat 1 cyclist. Couch to sub 17 5k in two years in my late 20s after having never run a mile.

I've had elite coaches in both sports that I've learned a ton from. I've also raced at a decent enough level in cycling. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my butt.

No, I wouldn't. I've seen Brian's posts on a couple of different subjects and while I wouldn't for a second discount whatever success he's had with his athletes, I'm also sure I don't have a much trust in his ideas, methodologies, or the application of such. Others must surely do and that's fine. But no need to patronize me. I can read these forums as well as you and make my own decisions based on my own knowledge and experience.

I'm going to throw this out one more time in a last attempt to help you understand.

You said base was b.s.
I said it isn't.
You said everything adds to base.
I said it doesn't. If it did, you would build and build and build and you can't. YOU even gave an example of peaking, resting, and building back up. You proved my point.
You said racing and high intensity doesn't erode your aerobic fitness, yet again, YOU talk about a break and rebuilding.
I say it does because, gasp, after a peak you return to BASE to rebuild aerobic fitness.

So that's the issue and you agree with it in everything except name.

You can't continue on at a high-intensity. You must, must, MUST return to shore up that aerobic fitness that you've eroded with that high intensity work. That's "going to the well". That's "digging too deep". That's "burning your matches".

You want to go to the well, dig deeper, or burn more matches? Then you beef up that base with lower-intensity work so you can do more. You want to dig yourself into a massive hole (for some reason you think this is difficult. With 17 years of experience I'd have to question the athlete's you work with if you think it's so rare), then you keep up the intensity and neglect that base.

You want long-term improvement, then you hit that aerobic work for long periods of the year and you shift the percentages of intensity and volume to manipulate adaptations and reach peak fitness.

As much intensity as you can tolerate will get you fast faster than anything else. But that comes at a price.

We all know this. Every single one of you attempting to disagree with my posts agree with that. It's kind of comical.

Look at this from the other side: On a day when you're tired, 200 watts might elicit 130 bpm. On a day when you're fresh, it might elicit 140 bpm.

On day 1 you hit 140 because that's what you're supposed to hit and that yields about 200 watts. On day 5 or 6 or whenever, you still strive to hit that 140 but due to fatigue you're having to put out 220 watts. On day 5 or 6 you're working 10% harder to hit the same hr. This can be a problem if done repeatedly.

I trained by hr for 5-6 years and learned a lot about it's variability. Heat, cold, rest, hydration, caloric intake, stress, and a dozen other factors can have a significant impact on hr. It's not a good metric to train with on its own. It can be useful as a data point if you know how to interpret it, but basing your training on a specific hr zone isn't a good idea.

Of course, basing your training purely on numbers in any way isn't a good idea if you're ignoring what your body is saying, but that's another topic.

Most successful athletes have intensity in their programs year around. What kind of adaptations do you think occur at lower intensities vs ones closer to FTP?

When is your next A priority race, and what type of proficiency is required to excel in it? For example, are you training for a 40km TT or an IM? Not sure how much this will help, but here is an opinion piece on "reverse periodization."

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/...zation.html#comments

Yes, they do. And for good reason. But most successful athletes manage that intensity and use it in different proportions year-round, too. And that's key.

In cycling, for example, during a peak/racing season volume is generally lower while intensity is highest. You drop volume to recover from the intensity. At this point you're either improving fitness by a fraction of what you were a few weeks/months prior or you're simply maintaining it.

Once that key period is over, you return to a sub-threshold/endurance focus to rebuild that foundation. You don't keep thrashing about with race efforts and VO2 max efforts because you'll get worse rather than improve. That's my point regarding DD's assertion that it's all base. It simply isn't.

A base period may have loads of relative work in the 85-95% range for athletes with less overall training time, or it may have a higher percentage of Z2 work for those training cycling only. And it may even have a touch of VO2 max or suprathreshold work as well, especially in the form of strength/speed work.

As you progress through a cycle, those percentages can change. In running, you'll be moving towards specificity in the form of race pace. In cycling, you'll also be moving forwards in specificity with regards to threshold or maximal efforts and recovery.

No one, NO ONE maintains that higher level of intensity relative to their overall training indefinitely, however. No, they have to return to that BASE TRAINING the op is referring to.

Seems to me that you and DD are having a failure to communicate. In the same way you think he is stuck on semantics, missing your points, and using examples that support your point of view, I think your responses haven't addressed the specific points he has made either.

My input: I believe in overreaching and overtraining. Both are example of non-optimal training. Lower volume weeks, etc. are fantastic. Returning to traditional base works for some and less so for others (me, not so much). Reducing overall training load after a period of high intensity (and high total TL) makes sense. However, the notion that you need to return to base because intensity "erodes" aerobic development is just plain wrong.


needsmoreair- like your last post. Makes more sense than what I've seen throughout this thread.

---

I have deceptive speed.........I'm slower than I look!

I'd like to apologize to you. I am sorry to have jumped in a private conversation between you and Brian. This won't happen again. My humble apologies.

I guess not. It comes a point in a discussion where we're simply repeating things we've already written. I guess we've eclipsed that point. DD just has a few fanboys jumping in to keep things going longer than it needs to, though.

[/quote]
Is it just plain wrong? So when you reduce overall training load, you still maintain the same percentages of intensity? You do that year-round?

To throw out some arbitrary numbers; 50% of your cycling is race-type/vo2max/maximal efforts. You reduce your overall training load but keep that same 50%? Or do you move to a more endurance/sub-threshold focus?

If you guys are so adamant about my notion being "plain wrong", why not just go out and do threshold and higher work for 45-60 mins a day? If it's "all-base", why not just go for the biggest bang for the buck? What's the harm?

Why isn't this methodology prevalent today? It's been tried many times, that's for sure!

I do applaud your consistency, Francois. You started with irrelevant quips and you just keep them coming. Never really addressing a pertinent point of discussion, just standing on the side throwing out a cute little remark here and there. Relevant indeed.

Is my replying to you somehow giving you the idea that you ARE relevant to the discussion?

Sometimes I do silly things...

I referred Tudor Bompa to you. That's as relevant to this thread as can be. And it's as pertinent as can be.
You prefer sticking to what you know. That's fine with me. Or you can get the many articles and books, and learn on the topic.
I don't care if I'm relevant to you one bit.

No, you ERRONEOUSLY implied that I thought base was "slow to fast".

"We've had this discussion many times already. Periodization is from general to specific, not from slow to fast. "

I never, ever stated something like that.

So you were irrelevant from the get-go due to your inability to read, your ignorance, or your overzealous need to be in a conversation. Or perhaps a combination of all three.

You "referred Bompa" to me. This guy!

Inability to read, ignorance...hmm...ad hominem much? you must be such a wonderful teacher...someone pissed in your cornflakes this morning,
or you just like that all the time? You seem like a charming fellow. You really need more air. It'd help your brain.

Mentioning ignorance isn't an ad hominem. Nor is suggesting you have problems with reading.

Per my example, you mistakenly (either through your inability to read what I wrote, or ignorance of what I know, etc.) wrote that I said something I didn't.

My pointing that out is not a fallacious attack on your character, it is a fact evidenced in this thread on the first page.

Your evoking this "fallacy" assertion is essentially a fallacy in and of itself. You've yet to address any pertinent issues ( I keep saying that) and instead make replies that really have nothing to do with anything. Now you've got me battling your strawman assertion that I've used fallacies. Nice!

Again, this is not an "attack", this is a fact-based statement that is evidenced in the text.

As a teacher, I focus on getting students to use text-based evidence to make informed statements. I work hard to model that. I feel my posts model that very well.

If you feel you can rebut each of my above points and prove otherwise, then go for it. But rest assured just going about saying I'm using "ad hominems" isn't going to have much of an impact.

Clearly you're too smart for me.

I agree with the idea of reducing intensity (or more specifically total training load) but that has nothing to do with your assertion that high intensity erodes aerobic development. Even tabata intervals have been shown to improve aerobic development. When you describe training adjustments, I'm on board with you. I think it's the term erode that people (certainly me) take issue with. Besides, what you describe in your posts doesn't fit 'old school base' if you are including any intensity at all.

---

I have deceptive speed.........I'm slower than I look!

It's funny, you know? The idea that I'm not getting enough air and am some how stunted intellectually due to that. But we all know that it isn't the getting air that's the problem (assuming we're healthy and not at some outrageous altitude or underwater or something), it's the utilization of oxygen in the body.

I'm not subscribing to "old school base". I've said it's outdated and not a good idea.

Do you people not read?

Again, I posit the question; if it has nothing to do with eroding aerobic development, why not do it all the time?

Per your example, why not do them all the time? Why not increase the duration of the effort for even more effect? What's the harm?

Why not maintain the same percentage of intensity year round? Why not have a focus purely on intensity?

I agree.

See *** for my responses to help clear the air.

I'm going to throw this out one more time in a last attempt to help you understand.

You said base was b.s. ***I did, bc everything adds to your base. The traditional concept of doing 1000 miles easy before intervals & that sort of shit went out the window years ago.

You said everything adds to base. ***It does.

I said it doesn't. If it did, you would build and build and build and you can't. YOU even gave an example of peaking, resting, and building back up. You proved my point. ****By resting I meant 4d maybe a week maybe 10d at most during the begininng of the training season to the last race excluding taper. Those breaks are more for mental vs physical, which I made clear somewhere. Not returning to a period of pure aerobic training. Again specificity or training is what I'm arguing.

You said racing and high intensity doesn't erode your aerobic fitness, yet again, YOU talk about a break and rebuilding. ****See above.

I say it does because, gasp, after a peak you return to BASE to rebuild aerobic fitness. ****Gasp, you return to base training to add to not rebuild. But you can also add to it with SST or vo2. You manipulate the training load with in the training cycle to rest and stress. Day 1 could be hard day 2 could be easy.

So that's the issue and you agree with it in everything except name. ***If you say so, you're the man I'm just the coach.

You can't continue on at a high-intensity. You must, must, MUST return to shore up that aerobic fitness that you've eroded with that high intensity work. ****Here is where you're wrong. You don't have to return to shore it up. But you can return to it to have a period of lower stress training when you are not racing or need to recover. it's not to shore up anything. Again everything you do adds to your fitness and that's what base is. You read Friel didn't you?

That's "going to the well". That's "digging too deep". That's "burning your matches". ****No burning your matches specifically has been referenced as going well above your CP in a race in multiple papers/books. As for digging to deep or going to the well that can be a system of long term over training which demands more rest and less training not shoring up.

You want to go to the well, dig deeper, or burn more matches? Then you beef up that base with lower-intensity work so you can do more. You want to dig yourself into a massive hole (for some reason you think this is difficult. With 17 years of experience I'd have to question the athlete's you work with if you think it's so rare), then you keep up the intensity and neglect that base. ***** It's clear you don't understand base,periodization, manipulating training variables, how to structure a training season(s), peak etc. But question my athletes if you desire. PM me and I'll give you email addresses if you want to chat with them. Maybe it's so rare in them though bc I can design a well thought out and planned training season(s).

You want long-term improvement, then you hit that aerobic work for long periods of the year and you shift the percentages of intensity and volume to manipulate adaptations and reach peak fitness. ****No shit the second part is what i've been saying. Not a return to just base though. That's not what I agree about.
***You've been saying that the intensity erodes base. It does not. You don't need to do X months of aerobic only cycling to enhance your base, you can do that with a variety of training intensities.

Are there other issues you want to discuss?

Dude seriously, PM me if you want to chat with them. Otherwise I'm going to say we agree to disagree an have different methodologies.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I answered that for you. Post 43 I believe.

According to you it will erode your base. If you do enough intervals, and again according to you, you might erode your fitness to nothing. I'd rather play xbox if that's the end result. But of course people might break down, so you have to have some easy days in between the hard days. That's one reason why you don't focus purely on intensity.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

And you acuse others of getting caught up in semantics?

I've not seen a single post on this thread that promotes not varying load or intensity. Even you are saying to maintain some intensity during 'base'. Duh.

It might help you to peruse this thread again before accusing others of not reading.

Take a minute to go read Tabata's orignal study with cyclists. If you have spare time read anything by Bompa. There are endless studies that demonstrate increased aerobic development through intense intervals. How you equate the idea of needing to back off or vary routine with aerobic development erosion is bizarre. Could you please reference a single study that shows deterioration of aerobic development through intensity?

---

I have deceptive speed.........I'm slower than I look!

There is no reverse periodization. It's periodization. Period. That is it. No reverse no forward, no sideways no standard, just periodization. Periodization is training from least to most specific. That's it. There is nothing reverse about it.

I wonder if I'm still banned from making comments and publishing research that contradicts him on his blog? I may have to visit that tomorrow for some fun.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

The article title is a bit deceptive. But, yeah I agree with what you're saying.

For the OP-- This was posted earlier, and is pretty interesting. http://biketechreview.com/...ase-a-new-definition

lol reminds me of this story: http://www.thebeaverton.com/...heckling-gravity.htm

Sorry this caught my eye

Just to clarify,are you banned from his blog? Or are you banned from challenging his training/principles etc on here?

Maurice

Wow! Dude you're irrelevant! ;)

The blue highlights are things I've already said. The red are things you apparently think I've said that I haven't. The green are my additional comments.

You're still not reading, bud.

Yes, I've promoted a level of intensity all along. The point is that that level of intensity and the percentage of intensity relative to training load varies throughout the year. You cannot maintain a high level of intensity/racing year-round.

Again, if everything simply adds to increased aerobic development, why not just to intervals for EVERY RIDE or run?

Some of you keep dodging that question like it's a leper. Answer it, eh?

You acknowledge that "You cannot maintain a high level of intensity/racing year-round". But that does not mean that high intensity erodes your base. That is where you miss the boat. If done correctly they add to your base by increasing mitochondria and improving your ability to utilize glucose to name two things.

---

--------------------------------------------------------

Did you read the blog? Because that was pretty much exactly what Friel said.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Actually what he wrote was that If you can't get out for significant bike volume (12+ hours) I'd focus more on working FTP from the underside with tempo, sweet spot, and threshold work: ~80-100% of FTP, especially in the range of 85-90% as that work is repeatable over multiple days throughout multiple weeks if your volume isn't too high

Suggesting that you just can't tolerate some VO2max work, or anaerobic capacity work without some decent amount of base. So, it's actually even stronger than saying that high intensity erodes your base. You can bury yourself with LT work just as well as with VO2max work if you aren't careful. I'd refer him to Skiba's book and the comments
on polarized training, along with the references on the topic, but he thinks I'm an idiot ;-)

I was also under the assumption that while intense activities (e.g. VO2max intervals), per se, contribute to aerobic adaptation and do not do things such as "eroding the base", it's the issues of dosage and response that make prolonged training blocks of intense activities a) give diminishing returns in terms of adaptation and b) start to stress the endocrine system in such as way that the body is constantly stressed (as marked by raised cortisoid levels)

For the more knowledgeable people here, is the above a) remotely correct, and b) does it have to do with how the endocrine system handles the training stimuli? It'd be great if someone could point to a few pub-med review on this.

I was more or less banned from his blog. He wrote some stuff on power and I posted comments. The first few showed up, then some more wit research links, those got pulled bc they contraindicated what he said. Then my posts stopped getting approved.

Someone asked if I read the article, no I did not.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

http://jp.physoc.org/...t/575/3/901.abstract

---

--------------------------------------------------------

thanks for that. and i didn't even need to go into my university's VPN to read it.

i guess i wasn't as clear in my original question. I'm more interested in the endocrine effects after prolonged period of training (or any sort), and if there are any that looks at how it may induce over-reaching or perhaps over-reaching induces it, or perhaps they are two faces of the same coin?

http://link.springer.com/...07/s00421-003-0960-x

http://link.springer.com/...e/10.1007/BF00237784

http://link.springer.com/...07/BF02386193#page-1 (if you want to see what happens with resistance training also)

dude seriously the use of green is giving me migraines and I can barely see it on my screen.

Why not do vo2 or what ever intervals year round you ask? You do most of the year in a well designed program. The rest for a rest period after racing season ends is to let people be normal people, to give them some mental downtime, let them heal aches & pains etc.

You argue specificity of training but you also say you need to shore up aerobic fitness and that intervals and racing erodes that. It does not.

I've been saying the %'s change as the season progresses. You started your posting on this thread saying you need to return to base training after peaking. Not that you change the %'s. You are the one that implied you cut out intervals and do only aerobic work to build a bigger bottom of the pyramid. Now you are saying that the %'s change. Can you see why people are confused with where you stand on this issue?

I'm reducing intensity bc of how the season is structured, the time of year, the racing left. I'm allowing people to catch up on life, do sponsor stuff, you know all the little things that need to be managed when you are managing athletes. See the above paragraph where I list other reasons. I'm not, I repeat not doing it to re-establish base or build it back bc intervals and racing eroded it as you stated often in this thread.

You clearly do not understand physiology bc you state yet again that race efforts erodes aerobic foundation. Take that to it's end conclusion. I do 4mo of base work then enter the race season. I'm doing intervals 2x week racing 2-3d week. How long before I do this will I have eroded my aerobic foundation? 2mo, 4mo, 12mo? If all those efforts detract from fitness why would I do them when I could just ride around and keep increasing fitness? Please explain that to me and it would probably help me if you can point out scientific papersbooks/etc to back this belief up. I am clearly not grasping this point, in fact I'm having a very, very hard time understanding this statement of yours bc it contradicts human physiology. I'm going to need some proof sources to grasp that erosion of base by intervals and racing I think.

Maybe I am being pendantic, maybe I prefer precision when discussing these things. You accused me of semantics earlier and I will give you an example of why we use specific language for specific things. You and I go on a 5 hour ride, we end up at your neighbors bonked, running on fumes, cross eyed. They have a cooler filled with various sodas. You ask for a soda and I ask for a Pepsi. You get a diet caffeine free coke and I get a Pepsi. You enjoy your 1 calorie while I enjoy my 120. Semantics. That's why we use specific language when discussing specific things.

So yes I am hung up semantics. Because if you are talking about doing SST efforts and I'm talking about doing vo2 efforts and we are calling the same % of FTP by different things then we are having 2 conversations at once.

I'm very pro specificity, I've very pro intervals. I'm very anti intervals and race efforts erode aerobic fitness. This last bit combined with some of your reasoning for it and rational to do specific things in training bc of this, is the point of contention. You stated this in post 16 or 17 and that is what I primarily took issue with not the bottom part of one of those posts where you talk about specificity.

I said base is BS bc everything you do adds to your fitness. It all adds to your CTL. Intervals, SST, JRA. Today's intervals are tomorrow's base just like tomorrows long steady L2 ride is the futures base.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Im finding this whole thread pretty interesting. reading the varying trainging theories is pretty cool. Lots to be learned. thanks

You crack me up. I'm agreeing with you in regard to varying intensity and load. I'm agreeing with you that you don't go full balls year round.

I'll take one more crack at this and then I'm done wrestling with the pig.

Show me a study that shows that aerobic development is eroded by intense intervals. Just putting it out there that you can't find one.

---

I have deceptive speed.........I'm slower than I look!

To the OP:

Periodization is based on periods of time and not types of workouts.

Periodization goes from General to Specific.

The General period has been given different names and different meanings by different people (ie: base, out season, off season, fall, winter, etc) but simply put, this is your General period.

To answer your question, the General period (what you call "base training") starts the day after your last triathlon of the year. Once again, different terms (ie: recovery, preparation, cross training, etc) are used to describe this initial period of time but it's simply your General period.

It may be that you start your General period (ie: "base training) by taking 2 weeks off after your last triathlon and then get right back at it or you may take 2 weeks off and then follow this up with an 8 week block of drinking beer and getting fat. No matter what option you choose, General ("base") starts the day after your last triathlon of the season.

The General period is to prepare you for your Specific period and as desert dude and Francois mentioned, periodization is not slow to fast.

To finish up, some thoughts on "base" as in, "I need to do a bunch of lsd to build my base". LSD workouts aren't stored in a separate container in your body and this container doesn't drain itself empty at the end of every September and then needs to be refilled again starting in October. Instead, imagine that you have a "fitness" container in your body and that all of your workouts regardless of duration and intensity are all stored in this one container. What you want to do is at the appropriate times of the year is fill it with the appropriate amounts and combinations of "fluids". If you do this on a consistent basis, the fitness container won't drain and if you keep slowly and carefully pouring in fluid in the right combinations, the container will magically increase in size so it can hold even more fitness.

The trash talk aside I actually find this thread quite interesting and has made be curious to the periodization concept and how to optimize training. After reading and thinking a bit this is what I'm getting to using my own words combined w what I read. Related to him and im training

recovery phase: a 1-3 week phase after A races where training is light and unstructured. The harder the race the less volume and frequency and the phase could maybe be 5 weeks depending on the individual athletes need for recovery

Preparation: for the experienced athlete this is about getting back to normal volume and for inexperienced its becoming used to the volume. Early in the phase it's almost all low intensity and low duration but during the phase duration, frequency and intensity is increased so volume and frequency gets normalized while intensity stays low although is present. Duration of phase depends on how quickly the athlete is ready to assume normal volume (next phase)

General phase: duration depends on when next A race is but is everywhere between 4 and 24 weeks. Volume is "normal" (let's say 15-20 hrs if next A race is ironman). Intensity is present but is not race specific. For example a long run might be 2 hrs at easy pace and intensity added through mile repeats a bit slower than race pace. A long bike might be 4-5 hrs mostly z2 and intensity achieved on what ever hills are encountered. My key point here is that this is not a long and slow phase. There is some intensity but it's not race specific. Its There will be vo2 max work, tempo runs etc

Transition to race specific: 8-10 weeks where volume is slightly lower than in the general phase if needed (to avoid overtraining) but intensity is increased. The intensity is becoming increasingly race like. For example a long run might now be 2-2,5 hrs and extended continuous periods close to race pace.

Race specific: 2-3 weeks where several workouts are race specific. Volume is lower than in previous phase achieved through reductiom in frequency but intensity is higher. Intensity achieved through race like workouts. For example the long run might now have last 30-40 pct at race pace and long ride might be 5 hrs with 2-3 hrs at race pace.

Taper: 2 weeks of 20-50 pct volume but intensity and frequency largely maintained

Is that correctly understood?

Any suggestions for good reading on the topic?

EDIT: regarding intensity in each phase: percent of volume done with intensity will difer by sport: swim swill be mostly intense while running will be mostly easy . However for all 3 sports the intensity will go from general to specifi for example in swim the general phase will probably have lots of speed and threshold work while race like sessions and intensity will come closer to race

I would suggest these two books: http://www.physfarm.com/store/

They're well written, easy to read and easy to understand.

The power book is great even if you don't have a power meter. It also has good swim and run stuff. Between the two, I think it even has the better chapter on periodization so I'd definitely recommend getting both.

For the love of God and everyone on this forum, just stop. Seriously, just stop. None of us want to know this thread as the last thread you posted in.

Needsmoreair, all any of want to see is one, just one, peer-reviewed article regarding the degradation of aerobic fitness through high-intensity training.

Thanks for the links, Francois.

---

The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important.

-Albert J. Nock

indeed. Thanks to Francois for sharing his knowledge.

These aren't particularly new results. I have seen some more recent but I forgot where I have put the links. I'll check from work tomorrow.

I am liking this thread thrash talk drama and some good valualbe stuff.
I would like to add that this time of the year is also good to improve and refine skills.

I think what one of the protagonists in this thread was trying to argue (before he lost his way) is that the people that do well in Kona are usually not at top of their game at the begining of the season and dont win too many races.

The italicized part of your post indicates that you have a very limited understanding of physiology and basic training concepts. Otherwise you wouldn't be asking that question. No one is denying that daily v02 intervals would take too large a toll on your body. They would. And to do them year round would come at the cost of missing out on building other systems. No one does the same thing day in/day out - and no one is this thread is arguing for that. So your question is pointless.

There is a benefit to mixing long endurance efforts, steady efforts, threshold efforts, progressive efforts, v02 efforts, etc etc into your training - and doing so year round. Training is about applying different stimuli and stress to your body - moving from general fitness to the specific demands of the race. You need multiple types of stimuli to maximize fitness. For example - a long ride/run is a stimulus of duration, and v02/threshold are stimuli of intensity.

Also the thing about intervals eroding aerobic fitness is patently false. Where did you come up with that? I suppose if you went from running 100 miles a week to running 10 miles a week and doing only sprints and no long runs, then yeah you'd be eroding your aerobic fitness. But it's not the intervals that's doing it, it's the lack of volume.

From the bulk of your posts, it seems like you've read an older Friel book and stopped your education there. You would do yourself a huge service by looking up the Physfarm books, anything you can find about Renato Canova's training methods, and the links/references already cited in this thread.

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

Could you elaborate on what characteristics and examples of workouts the "build phase" and "race specific training" phase could have?

I understand and agree to the concept of going from general to specific and I have a good idea about what general is and is not (it is not long and slow, it is still a mix of training stimulis but it is just not race specific). I also have a good idea about what workouts could look like in the "race specific training" but I am not completely sure - and in between "general/base" phase and "race specific" training phase, let us call it build phase, I am not sure what specifically characterizes this phase and what type of workouts would be done.

Thanks

I'm using this thread to practice restraint ;-)

An example would be a marathon season plan.

Early in the season you would focus on vo2max intervals and speed work via track or hill repeats. Late in the season the focus would shift to 2x20min threshold runs and extending the amount of miles you can run at 90-93% of yourFTP.

Endurance training in a nutshell: moving from general to specific while gradually increasing the training load then reduce volume and maintain intensity to peak.

François Peronnet has a great book on marathon training, which I think has been translated in English.

I would argue that for triathlon training you can pick any training regimen that involves zones 2, 3, or 4, and as long as you hit the same average TSS per week it doesn't matter *much* how you break down the zones.

a billion hours in zone 2, or a few hours in zone 4, gonna end up *pretty close* to the same place.

Do what works for you psychologically, schedule wise, and what allows you to get your run training in.

*Tend towards race specific pace more often when getting close to race day.*

If doing longer zone 2 rides in the winter gives you a psychological break that you need, do it. If you are happy doing 2x20@ftp year after year and time crunched, do that. Both are gonna make you faster as long as you apply the basic principle of progressive overload.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

No, the italicized part is a rhetorical question. I guess we need a special font for that now, too?

Exactly, you don't do the same thing day in and day out, nor do you the same thing at various points of the year. That's sort of my point. Actually, that IS my point.

Where did I come up with that? I didn't. You know about Canova so I assume you're also familiar with other Letsrun posters of old like Tinman? The concept comes directly from him.

I have every post Canova has ever made as well as every file at this link. I've read through them all many times. I very much enjoy Canova.

https://2008olympictrialsakatommyleonard.shutterfly.com/filecabinet

I also have a bunch of stuff from Cabral and Kellogg and of course, Tinman.

I find this a bit vexing that some of you think I'm so ignorant about training and physiology despite my experience and the stuff I write in my posts. You'd do better to refute the message instead of simply saying the message is wrong and trying to denigrate my knowledge as a whole.

At some point I've got to accept that maybe I'm just not getting the message across well enough for others to understand. My fault. I guess I need to work on my communication skills some.

Anyway, I don't have such an article. Here's some posts from Tinman, however, a coach I trust and one who is fairly well known in run training. Maybe I'll find such an article later, but for now perhaps this example will suffice.

What do you mean I acknowledge it?

I stated it outright from the very beginning.

Sustained high intensity. Weeks/months of hard workouts and races. You do not improve. You stagnate. You maintain. However, if you keep pushing, you get worse. You are not adding to your base. You are not improving your fitness.

Instead of pushing through, you break, you rebuild, you enter another cycle.

I don't know what boat you're referring to, but is there any part of the above that you disagree with?

All I've said is that you can't read well and/or are ignorant and then I pointed out the parts of your posts that made me believe that. Then I agreed with your quip about your intelligence.

To continue in that theme and add to my examples of you not reading well, you're now asserting "you just can't tolerate some VO2 max work without some decent amount of base"?

I've never said that. Thanks for continuing the charade, however.

When everyone seems to misread what you write, I'd consider taking a deep breath, pondering a bit, and starting to wonder 'maybe I'm not expressing myself correctly'...
But I guess you have a way too high opinion of yourself to ever consider that maybe, that would be the case.

And we're all anxiously waiting for one single reference showing that continuing high intensity work will erode aerobic base...

As for intelligence, don't kid yourself...

You must have missed it above - its all about "lactic acid fatigue." Who needs a reference for something so obvious?

Shane

Since someone mentioned Canova, I'll throw out a selection of his posts from letsrun on prepping for a specific event (running: marathon) since I like his analogies and explanations. This doesn't include the initial 3-4 week introductory/transition stage that takes place as an athlete is coming back from a break/down time.

Francois, are you just taking the piss now?

Read up three posts from your reply.

Now that wasn't directed at you in any way, because you've said nothing of note to begin with. But wow, how bad are you at reading?

I keep pointing it out and providing examples and you just keep giving me more. And then you talk about intelligence.

Surely you're taking the piss. Surely.

No, no. Reading your posts once is painful enough already. You seem to be the pissed one here. It seems that no one really understands what you're saying.

On a side note, I'm quite amused that you called me irrelevant a few times, and keep answering my posts. So, I'm kind of having fun, trying to figure out how often you'll
answer to someone irrelevant.

And by the way, brilliant quote from Tinman...that's top notch exercise science.

No, no, taking the piss. Not being pissed. Nice.

Francois, let's just call a spade a spade. You don't read my posts. You skim my posts, decide what you would have me say, and then respond to that.

I keep pointing that out. I keep giving examples of you just making stuff up. Yet you just continue stating that I'm saying things I'm not saying. Thus proving the above.

Irrelevant to the discussion, which you have been. But don't sell yourself short on your entertainment value. You're having fun when I respond to you, and I'm laughing out loud at how often you just make something up and attribute it to me.

Like I said, you keep giving me more and more examples.

Nice rebuttal.

I do read your posts. The Tinman quote was hilarious. Interestingly when you say irrelevant, others say thanks for the links.

Are you and gurudriver related?

I can attest that earlier this year was focused on "high-intensity" training (both biking and running) and my pace/watts decreased with each race I did between February and May. I decided to do a total 180 (after some suggestions from the Oregon run team) and ONLY did slow/long distance (on the bike and run). I did one session of intervals once every 3 weeks, that's it. Then at AG Nationals I slaughtered my previous sprint/oly times. Even my sprint time was faster after doing the Oly distance the day before.

Whoever said base is bull$hit, I'm not so sure about that. I've only been doing tris for about 5 yrs but that sounds like bad coaching advice.

Your replies to me have been irrelevant for the most part.

Do I really have to explain this to you?

Francois, let's do each other a favor and not talk about your intelligence anymore, okay? Let's just focus on your responding to things that are actually written and then I think our replies will flow a bit more smoothly.

I don't know who that is.

More relevant musings I see.

Careful, Desert Dude said that and he has about half a dozen people on here who apparently think he's "the coach" (as he calls himself) and are seemingly ready to post all manner of silliness in order to protect their opinion of him.

Prepare yourself.

It is obvious that you know just enough about this subject matter to be incredibly dangerous. Perhaps you should man-up and open your mind to those here that do have a firm grasp on the subject. It appears that you understand 90%, but refuse to admit that you have the other 10% wrong. That is your loss.

When I talked about evolution with him, it feels just the same as talking about 'exercise science' with you. I just see Willy Wonka memes appearing everywhere.

So my saying that too much high-intensity/race work erodes your aerobic foundation necessitating a return to a more proportional endurance/sub-threshold focus is 10% wrong?

Yet who on here disagrees with that notion that too much high-intensity/race work can burn you out, lead to stagnation and if pushed through, overtraining?

Does anyone actually disagree with that?

Not really.

So basically it's the "erosion of that aerobic foundation" that people disagree with, despite agreeing with the over all concept of modulation and varying the proportions of high-intensity work. And that comprises 10%?

I'm no math professor so I just want to make sure that your assertion that I am 10% wrong is really accurate...

Or are you just taking the piss too and having some fun with random numbers? Funny stuff.

I'll give you one thing though. You're one stubborn dude, and you must be one tough pitbull to drop in a bike race.

Are you talking about the evolution of life now?

Or are you going to say something relevant about the evolution of base training from long, slow, distance to a modulation of intensity to DD's claim that it's all actually bullshit?

Because the latter would be relevant. The former wouldn't.

And Willy Wonka certainly isn't.

And I applaud your consistent irrelevance.

Sigh, more personal attacks? I expect better. In case you aren't certain there is a difference in being the coach to several of being The Coach as in the almighty. Now onto relevant topics.

We are still waiting for a peer reviewed article that demonstrates that those high intensity efforts erode aerobic base. What you gave is opinion by others, a belief system if you will. One that may or may not be backed by actual facts. If you can find the sources they cite in reference, I'd accept that as well.

When you can find something factual that backs up that statement you made numerous times, I think many of us would be very interested in reading it.

That's all many of us are asking for. Factual evidence. To which you have so far cited none.

To starkrayz: When you did you 180 did your training volume and/or frequency and/or duration and/or intensity increase/decrease? Are you certain that it was the cessation of intervals and not more volume if you did more volume, that resulted in a decrease in race times? As I am sure you know, causation does not equal correlation.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Well, that's not what you said before. If you add the qualifier 'too much' before high-intensity, that becomes quite an obvious statement, I'm afraid.

Hey wait, he cited coach Tinman, and the concept of lactic acid fatigue (sigh).

Who am I personally attacking? A copy and paste would suffice.

What I gave is not a peer-reviewed article, no. It's the postings of an established coach. I've conversed with him on numerous occasions and read book loads worth of his stuff as well as his discussions with such stalwarts of the sport as Dr. Jack Daniels and Renato Canova. And then I've read your posts on here.

He goes indepth with explanations regarding physiology and methodology and you say base is bullshit and everything adds to base and then just basically rephrase that in as many ways as possible.

So, yeah, I'll take the established work of that coach over whatever work you're claiming. I'm not asking you to accept it. I'm simply stating that your initial notion that base is bullshit is actually bullshit. And I'm stating a reason to explain the FACT (that you agree with) that training load must be modulated and that an overwhelming percentage of high-intensity is not manageable over the long term. You're not stating a reason yourself, you're just disagreeing with the reasoning of another coach as repeated by me.

I did say that before. Many times.

See? You not reading again.

Yikes!

It is hard to say what happened with that little information, but I can say with almost absolute certainty you don't go faster by training slower. Pinky swear. Do you believe the Oregon run team only does intervals once every 3 weeks? If you don't believe that, did they tell you why they told you to do that?

No one said base is BS

Uh, yes, Desert Dude said it. Why do you think this thread is 6 pages and growing?

No. He said base training is bullshit. There is a major difference. Your inability to articulate anything accurately prevents you from understanding the very subtle difference between saying base is BS and base training is BS.

That's what we're talking about Francois. Base training.

Try to keep up here.

More explanations from Tinman:


http://www.therunzone.com/index.php?topic=11.0

Just because someone uses exercise physiology terms doesn't mean they understand what they are talking about. First clue - discussing lactic acid.

Shane

So let me ask it this way, bc maybe I am reading it wrong, or interpreting it wrong. Are you backing off your statement that high intensity training and racing erodes aerobic base?

I'm not disagreeing with another coach unless they are stating the same exact thing you did. I have stated numerous times I'm disagreeing with the statement you said, and have not retracted to my knowledge that high intensity and racing erodes aerobic base.

I am, as are many of on here, looking for you to give us something other then he said she said in regards to this. To state you've read books or had conversations with people is to deflect the request. We all have had conversations with authors of training books, other coaches, authors of physiology text books, ACSM researchers of the year (heck I trained under one in school). But what does that prove? Nothing, it still amounts to he said she said. So we are asking you, have asked you numerous times from numerous people, to prove that statement.

If you can not find, or choose not to find scientific proof to back your statement then just tell us you can not or more likely that none exist in this case. If you are going to make extraordinary claims such as this, that fly in the face of physiology, you should be prepared to provide evidence when people call bs on your outlandish claim.

To be clear, I said """"that base training is bull shit. Everything you do all year round contributes to your base. unless you take an extended break you still have your base."""""

You stated that high intensity and race efforts erode your base. Which would be in contradiction to what I quoted above. I implied, and for all I know probably stated in a post, that doing intervals today increases your base tomorrow, that riding sst intervals tomorrow increase your base next week. That doing a 75 min aerobic ride today is adding to tomorrow's base. Everything that you do training contributes to base. That is why base training, solely doing L2 efforts to rebuild as you stated somewhere in your first couple of posts, is BS. That has been my point from the beginning.

As for attacking, I took this as a personal attack, something I think I've refrained from doing to you.
The use of italics indicated, to me, that you were making a snide comment about me. I think I've refrained from taking cheap shots at you.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I'm trying to keep up but it's hard to think as slow and as inaccurately as you. Anyhow, post your last answer to me. I'll ignore you. You're just too dumb.

Hey Francois, can you do me a favor?

Instead of continually going through my new posts and making up something you think I said and then saying I said that, can you instead respond to the corrections that I have continually made?

So every time I respond and correct one of your increasingly errant statements, how about responding to that post instead of completely ignoring it because you're focused on another post that you want to misread and respond to.

Think you can do that?

Thanks bud!

And this is the post you make when you concede that you can't refute what I actually write. Especially when I start calling you out on all the things you make up.

Thanks for that concession, veiled as it may be behind your unnecessary insults.

That post was made years ago, back when lactic acid was what everyone called it.

Despite a shift in the terminology (aided by an understanding that we're not even producing lactic acid), the key points remain.

I wouldn't just up and denigrate the guy because of that. You can still find the term in lots of places used by lots of famous coaches and writers.

I went back and re-read the first page of this thread and it abundantly clear what DD, Francois, Prevost and others have said and continue to say. Sorry that you fail to grasp what they are trying to explain to you. OR >> it could be that everyone else is wrong and you are correct. Does that happen in your life often?

The use of italics? Quotations you mean? Dude, I was quoting you. You're the one who referred to yourself as "the coach" (quotations used to denote it as a phrase you used and I'm repeating). It's not a personal attack. It's pointing out what you apparently wanted to point out with your use of the phrase.

And you've been snide, pedantic, and downright insulting from your very first post.


You can't read. You and Francois CANNOT READ. I never said that. EVER.

So it's clear that DD said base training is bs and I said it's not?

Super.

Are you up to date on what's being discussed now or do you need a picture drawn?

riltri, still waiting to hear if you're sure about me being 10% wrong.

Fair enough - not all coaches, not even all successful coaches understand physiology and continue to use incorrect terminology.

However, it may be worth considering that if some aspects of the post are outdated, that perhaps hitching your wagon to the idea that high intensity work degrades aerobic capacity may not be the best idea.

Shane

Yeah sorry, that's when lactic acid was called lactic acid. You know, back in the day. Now, it's called bob.

So if any coach used the term lactic acid back in the early 2000s, then they don't understand physiology?

I copied and posted a post from years and years ago and you're hung up on the phrase "lactic acid" and ready to dismiss everything else outright because of that.

Glad to see you're not trying to be disingenuous or anything.

Francois, you're back! I thought you left.

Francois, are you saying that the notion of lactic acid was not prevalent in endurance sport back in the 2000s and widely touted as an effect of prolonged exercise?

I love Jason's answer to you. From the guy who's been accusing others to make him say things he never said...sigh...

"high intensity training and racing erodes aerobic base" Your continued failure to provide valid support for that statement and your continued personal attacks on those that are attempting to broaden your understanding have brought your credibility down to zero.

Thanks to all others for the excellent education and entertainment.

Nothing more to see here.

---

--------------------------------------------------------

Francois, maybe you're right. From the above, I took that to mean he was insinuating that Tinman, even though he's a successful coach, may not understand physiology and continues to use incorrect terminology.

Shane, were you insinuating that or am I mistaken?

If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

Francois, I hope my responding to this post and asking for confirmation of what I believe is being stated is a good example for you to follow when you brazenly make things up and I correct you.

x2

---

_________________________________
Steve Johnson
DARK HORSE TRIATHLON |

Personal attacks? Again, please copy and paste. I don't call people names. All I say is that people can't read and are making things up. Then I provide examples of that. Those aren't personal attacks. Those are simply facts.

I provided the posts of a renowned running coach to validate that statement.

To be clear, the only issue all of you seem to have is that statement. The statement that not a single one of you have provided valid support to dismiss, despite my continued goading of examples to the contrary about not sustaining high-end intense work for long periods of time and having to return to a predominant aerobic base.

I've seen nothing to refute anything I've said except for people like you coming on here and saying "nuh uh" and then making silly insinuations and deflections. Or just flat out making something up like Francois and DD have done.

As for broadening my understanding? Well, I've made dozens of posts outlining methodology that DD and others agreed with completely (minus the aerobic base statement). Like I said, it's that one phrase that have thrown you all for a loop.

But thanks for your input. Well, no, not really.

It's so funny to see all of you guys with signatures promoting coaching services. Yet your entire involvement in this thread is simply a quip here or there that doesn't address anything pertinent.

No, I meant fair enough. I had no idea how old the post was and that if was indeed that old, then I can't fault him for using terminology that is still used today.

The part about successful coaches not understanding the physiology is that I have discussions on a fairly regular basis with coaches who will still discuss lactic acid so I was saying your point about the use of the term was valid.

I didn't say I was willing to dismiss everything else because of the use of term but rather because everything I've read and my experience tell me that high intensity work does not erode aerobic capacity.

Shane

It's even funnier to watch your one man crusade to promote....who knows what in this thread and attempt to discredit several notable coaches in their efforts to provide truth, facts, science.

I actually think you might suffer from a major narcissistic complex. All of us see the problem in the thread except you. Do yourself a favor and just walk away from this thread with what little credibility you might have left on ST. And I don't mean that in an insulting way.

Well, an interesting explanation, Shane.

Quote:

However, it may be worth considering that if some aspects of the post are outdated, that perhaps hitching your wagon to the idea that high intensity work degrades aerobic capacity may not be the best idea.

I took this to mean that your dismissal of the "aerobic base" notion was directly related to your dismissal of that phrase.

Nevertheless, if you say it's not, then fair play. I misread that and apologize.

I know, right?

It's kind of comical on my end, too. Granted, most of these notable coaches you're going on about were simply misreading/not reading and making things up and attributing that to me, but understood on the rest.

To be clear, per my initial response to DD, all I've been trying to promote is that DD's concept that "base training is bullshit" is ridiculous.

Then some people went nuts on an explanation of why endurance athletes must turn a focus towards sub-threshold/endurance work after heavy racing/training blocks of high intensity.

This is ST. Credibility is an illusion. Like I said, a good chunk of my responses on this thread have been to posts that have nothing to do with the thread itself, or correcting posts that attribute things to me that I never said.

This being ST and all, though, apparently means making accurate statements isn't at the forefront of discussion. All that matters is choosing a side and "winning". My demanding accountability for inaccurate statements costs me "credibility". And it'd appear calling out a coach when he says something ridiculous is grounds for tar and feathering.

Funny place.

Smh

You really don't get it. And stop playing the victim card. It makes you come off as an even bigger loser. Let. It. Go.

Again, that accuracy thing. How is asking for an accurate reflection of what's been written a victim card? I'd love an explanation.

Or you can just keep saying silly things like the above if it makes you feel better.

It's like bizarro world in here.

I explained that all training lends to you base. Interval, easy, hard. All of it. You are promoting that as ridiculous?

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

No, I'm promoting the idea that base training is bullshit is ridiculous.

You just quoted that in your post. Why are you asking again?

And before you ignore that, I'll throw it out there again for you to also ignore: percentages of intensity relative to overall training change throughout the year. You've alluded to that as well with the break and build example. In addition, at peak fitness you're no longer adding anything to anything. You're maintaining or regressing. That's why it's a peak. Now you can go on and on about constant improving and all if you must, but in human physiology and proper methodology there is a clearly defined performance peak followed by a fitness decline. Following such a period is a return to that sub-threshold/endurance focus. It is not all just "base" and it sure as hell is not all "base training".

You can refuse to call it base and call it "cheddar-eating with bob" time if you want. That doesn't change the concept, nor does it change the notion of training that has a greater focus on those lower intensities than the high intensities.

x3

Return to sub threshold/endurance focus?

FTP is endurance. You don't have to reduce intensity while base training.

I think the reason why you're getting so frustrated is because you do not know how to qualify training load.

needmoreair wrote:

Base should be focused more on increasing aerobic development than maximizing anaerobic abilities as those erode the aerobic base.

------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9927024/


CONCLUSION: Performance and aerobic factors associated with the performance were not altered by the 4 wk of intensive training at vVO2max despite the increase of plasma noradrenaline.


----------------------------------------------------

Interval training at VO2max: effects on aerobic performance and overtraining markers.
AuthorsBillat VL, et al. Show allJournal
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Jan;31(1):156-63.
Affiliation
Sport Science Laboratory, Université Lille 2, Centre de Médicine du Sport C.C.A.S., Paris, France.

you must try harder if I may say so ;-)

I wasn't dismissing the idea of "aerobic base" but rather the idea that higher intensities erode endurance. Of course base is important and like Brian (and pretty much everyone else) has pointed out, everything you do contributes to your base, not just easy efforts. Even if we were to constrain our training to efforts that are primarily fueled aerobically, we would still be training up to and including VO2max type efforts which certainly add to one's fitness base.

Now that it seems you have allowed for some intensity during "base training" what intensities do you thin are appropriate? Would it make sense to do some threshold work? Maybe some VO2max efforts? Higher? And how often would these be appropriate?

Shane

Yes, I know. That's why I said practice. Is there any evidence that practice intense restraint erodes your ability to practice restraint over the long run?

For me its like this: I can do shitloads of training in Z2&3. I can accumulate 150-200TSS per day for a pretty long time as long as I keep the rides easy. This leads to pretty sweet gains in my zone 2 and 3, ie my heart rate gets lower and lower at these levels even after correcting for FTP gains (which ofc also occur). I can also ride for longer at a given watt watt without fatigueing as long as I am working <80%.

I can not do shitloads of training in upper Z3, Z4 or even Z5. I frequently do it, anyhow, to continue developing these systems. About once per week for now, during early winter.

Later on I will start reducing my easy milages and use the "extra TSS" that I free up to work more directly on FTP. I find that after doing a lot of volume I can withstand these stresses better and by that - make better more direct gains on my FTP.

This is why I do 8 weeks of building volume and TSS at a pretty low intensity before I start more intense training.

During racing season its hard to get a high enough training stress to cause further adaptions. There is always a race that you want to appear fresh and ready for it seems like, haha. Of course there is a lot of training stress from races but since you dont control them, like you do in a workout, you often overdo it and get sore and need a few days of extra rest. This is no way to get fit. This reduces fitness.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

You don't? So you'll, say, do threshold intervals Tuesday, VO2 on Thursday, and race Sat and Sun? Year-round? Because that's never worked for anyone I've ever heard of for more than a couple of months. Why? Because you're putting out a ton of suprathreshold efforts on a continuous basis that isn't sustainable.

It's not frustration. It's more...intrigue. Perhaps the issue here is that so many of you are focused on work/races that involve racing and training under FTP so aren't familiar with the concept of multiple weeks of anaerobic work that's more prevalent in road racing where the intensity is so high and maintained for such long durations. So when you guys are talking about intensity, the vast majority of your work is still aerobic and you're not overextending yourself to the points I keep mentioning. Could be a key difference here.

Perhaps the "intensity" hasn't been qualified correctly, though I have continually repeated "above threshold/anaerobic".

4 weeks of 3x VO2 max workouts doesn't address what I'm talking about in the least. I could do that for 6-8 weeks and maintain normal training volume and come out singing on the other side, as I'm sure many others could.

I'm repeating myself here for the umpteenth time. Brian said base training is b.s., which is what the entire OP was about. He just dismissed it outright and then went on a tangent about a cumulative aerobic base. Base training is not bullshit, which is what my continued involvement in this thread is about. When you're in a peak/race phase, you are not doing base-training and you are not "contributing to base". You are not improving, you are maintaining and trying to prevent regressing for as long as your priority race sessions last. There is nothing building on anything, here. Building comes during the rest of the year, during those base and build periods. Neither of those periods is bullshit, despite Brian claiming base training is.

I have said from my very first couple of responses that intensity has its place year-round and one of the key attributes to a decent training plan is modulating the percentages of intensity relative to training load. That applies doubly to the concept of base-training because the focus there will be less superthreshold intensity and more sub and threshold work. There are any number of efforts one might incorporate and some that may eclipse (speed and strength work especially), but the point is that training is not focused on those superthreshold efforts and the vast, vast, vast majority of training and focus for that period is subthreshold.

Your practice of intense restraint involves making irrelevant posts, then simply insulting people when you can't adequately respond to what they've written?

You've got a lot of work to do.

At the risk of getting caught in the middle....

Isn't there a conflation here of intensity and overall training load?

Hypothetically if I go out and do only flat out high intensity three times a week for an excessive duration (or for example race a lot) to the extent that I cannot do any other training due to the necessity of recovery then my overall fitness may well start to drop as my overall training load is lower.

None of those high intensity sessions "eroded" my fitness base of themselves, indeed each of them probably added to it, but the overall impact on my fitness has been a negative one.

A poorly structured training load will be bad for fitness. I don't think anyone would disagree about that.

This seems to be entirely about semantics with no new ground being broken.

It's about managing training load, not about avoiding efforts above threshold/anaerobic. I think everyone agrees that peak training loads are not sustainable year-round. Depending on your race distance, that peak training load may consist of above threshold efforts or of lower intensity steady efforts. Clearly, there need to be periods during the year that overall training load is decreased to allow some recovery, but there's absolutely no reason that those periods of decreased training load shouldn't consist of intense threshold or VO2 max intervals or tempo rides. You just adjust total volume accordingly.

---

-Andrew

Rather more elegantly put than I managed.

- Andrew (and coincidentally initials AMT!)

So are you saying that if I do a race that the stress of the event does not result in any fitness gains? Further, that it is impossible to arrive at the beginning of race season and through both training and racing finish the season with better fitness than at the beginning?


So the question I asked was how much, of what type and how often? Since the higher intensity sessions erode endurance, how many of these sessions should be prescribed per week so that the athlete builds fitness instead of regressing? What intensities will be appropriate in order to build fitness?

Shane

  
This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxig2AF1-gw

What you are talking about here is a reduction in training volume. When you reduce training volume your fitness declines. It really has nothing to do with high intensity intervals directly reducing aerobic fitness. The fact is that unless you are doing sprint workouts which are hitting the neuromuscular side of the equation, everything you do, contributes to aerobic development. In fact there is a recent study that just came across that shows that these shorter interval can help aerobic development as measured in VO2 max.

http://www.tandfonline.com/....853841#.UoI1v_mshQa

The problem I see, and I've painfully waded through this whole post, is that because you are, at least what I would call over-racing, you are seeing a decline in fitness. In the cycling world this tends to be a much larger problem than in running or triathlon. Early season tends to be longer road races and then you get into crit season. Racers get into a cycle of race/recover/race/recover. The problem is that the week's volume goes from 15-20 hours when not racing to 8-10 when racing. This is especially true when there is a lot of travel involved. The problem is a massive reduction in volume and not that the high intensity work is eroding your fitness.

If you look at domestic pro cyclists, you'll notice that while even they suffer a bit from this, it is not as great as amateurs. The big reason why is that they are still putting in long L2 rides during the week since they don't have to sit at a desk all day.

When you say " So you'll, say, do threshold intervals Tuesday, VO2 on Thursday, and race Sat and Sun? Year-round? Because that's never worked for anyone I've ever heard of for more than a couple of months. Why? Because you're putting out a ton of suprathreshold efforts on a continuous basis that isn't sustainable." I'll just say you are doing it wrong. You have to balance the load. This is not sustainable because it is not a balanced plan and does not allow for enough recovery which leads to a reduction in volume, not because the workouts themselves degrade aerobic fitness.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

There's a lot of semantics.

That's a good point and can certainly be applicable if done the way you describe.

However, maintain the same training load yet shift the intensities to a much higher percentage of superthreshold work and you'll plateau and later regress as well (allowing for a decoupling from stagnation due to adaptation from an unchanging stimulus). There simply has to be a return to sustainable intensities with diminishing focus on superthreshold work relative to total workload at some point in the cycle. It's inevitable.

I understand the argument about overall training load. I addressed it in my previous reply. That's not what I'm talking about here.

Great point about the domestic pros that goes hand in hand with what I'm saying:

Modulation of percentages of intensity relative to overall training load. They're maintaining volume so we can disregard the aspect about lowering overall load. But domestic pros get worn down over a season. There are substantial down times and there are base/build periods throughout the season. I trained and raced with and against domestic pros for a few years. You come out of the spring crit block and you recharge. You back off that intensity and return to that subthreshold focus. You don't keep hammering away at crits (well, if you're fortunate enough) the entire season without a good chunk of time away from the intensity of racing and the high-end training necessary to be competitive at that level.

Simply because you're training above threshold doesn't mean you're not adding to your aerobic fitness. Training (and fitness) is a continuum. Although I'm certain there are some exceptions, pretty much whatever you do in terms of training will add to your fitness. Somethings promote certain adaptations better than others, but it all adds to it.

Additionally, just being over threshold doesn't make training this horrible evil thing that will destroy your fitness. Training at an intensity above threshold, i.e. Coggan Level 5 is *still* nearly a 100% aerobic workload, it's even possible for a workout focused heavily on Coggan Level 6 to be a strongly aerobic session.


It's sustainable if you manage the workload of your training properly. Is it possible that you'll reach a plateau in your performance or even a decline in performance doing this type of training indefinitely? Certainly, though the reasons for it have nothing to do with an erosion of your aerobic base. It's because you are not providing your body with an adequate stimulus to get stronger, or you are not doing enough work to maintain your fitness.

Not a lot of time just to click on random links.

If that's about being 10% wrong and all, maybe you can just give me a synopsis?

Thanks.

Hmmmm - it's interesting that we typed pretty close to the same thing.

There's a basic understanding of periodization and peaking here, right?

Are you adding to your fitness when you're peaked? Why can we not sustain a prolonged peak if it's all a continuum and we're simply adding to base?

During peak fitness, are we not providing the body with an adequate stimulus to get stronger or doing enough work to maintain fitness? See where I'm going, here?

No, of course not on both questions.



Are you wanting a training plan? Surely you're not expecting me to spell out a generic example of progressive workload over the course of a base/build/peak cycle?

As I've said in my last few replies, get an athlete to peak fitness. Are you going to build off that peak fitness? No. Because it's a peak. Now maybe you have an athlete who continues to improve and never really has a discernible peak. That's certainly plausible and most certainly not unheard of. But a concerted training plan with a focus on achieving a peak will have an athlete in a state of peak performance for an event or for a block of races for a short amount of time. And you're not going to build fitness on top of that peak without a large shift in intensity (and adequate recovery, too).

Above threshold intensities are sustainable, as long as overall volume is correspondingly low. Conversely, low intensities can be unsustainable if volume is too high. Focusing just on intensity makes the discussion completely meaningless.

The mix of intensity and volume absolutely needs to vary through the year to have a proper training plan (from general to specific) based on specific race goals. For individuals with a decent background in endurance training, their "base" is already established, so the general training that can be accomplished during the off-season can and should include above threshold and VO2 max efforts. Taking those efforts out means wasted opportunity to increase fitness.

---

-Andrew

The basic premise that we're working under is one of improvement, correct? So when you say superthreshold intensities are sustainable so long as overall volume is adequately low enough, then that's sort of beyond the scope of what we're dealing with here.

Yes, I agree. I gave an example of a new rider versus an experienced rider and the amount of intensity they can maintain and the duration of those intense blocks much earlier on in the thread.

However, I've never said any particular thing should be taken out completely. I've said, repeatedly, continually, over and over and over again, that it is the focus and the percentage of that intensity that shifts throughout the cycle. Namely I said that base training is not bullshit.

Yes, I have a basic understanding of prioritization and peaking.


I'm having a bit of difficulty finding the words to answer this, so bear with me. When you are peaked or peaking (I hate those words in this context), you are doing individual sessions that should trigger a significant amount of adaptations to improve your fitness. So in that sense, yes you are adding to your fitness. However, in order to execute those sessions properly you are also reducing the workload elsewhere in your training program, which lessens the amount of fitness you are adding.

Interestingly, and I can't explain the why/how behind this well, once you've "peaked" at a certain level, it's requires significantly less work to reach that same level of performance again.



If you're tapering properly, no you're not providing your body with an adequate stimulus to maintain fitness.

I've read most of the thread, but one question I have is what is aerobic foundation? Can it be measured? If so, how? It seems that if it can be measured then someone should have data that suggests whether or not it can be eroded or not with high intensity training or peaking. I've read Skiba's books and they make sense to me. But, I'm not a coach or exercise physiologist. I'm just trying to understand what y'all are bickering about. Layman's terms if possible.

Thanks.