I should post a picture of my "ghetto" fan unit on my rollers....It adds around 30-50W at 36-40 kph....I just took duct tape to an old wheel and taped in between spokes on the opposite side of the hub so that I turn the entire wheel into a fan (the duct tape is now acting like a blade).....works really good.

By the way, in this entire discussion, no one has mentioned walking/hiking as part of the low intensity part of the training. At least in North America, we essentially don't walk at all if we live in a suburban area. Europeans and Japanese inherently probably walk 30-45 minutes per day just to get around. We get close to zero. If I run at 15 kph at FTP, then walking at 5 kph is around 33% FTP. It all adds up over a week, but I'm curious to know if this is high enough for the "low end of low". It is way below 75% FTP (barely half of that).

So for the time limited athlete, maybe do all the hard training discussed in here, but since you can't devote at much time with the easy stuff, supplement the easy stuff with an additional 5-7 hours of walking per week spread through many small walking breaks in the course of each day.

Hi Mark

Do you have any athletes that are training with this little Z3/Z4 time ?

Sounds a bit like what my best friend and I did in our youth by using playing cards taped to chain stays in order to give our bikes a bit of simulated engine sound;)


Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Halvard....one more question on this topic as your background on this type of training is out of Norway in the 80's as was my first exposure to it,and it was all on skis. One missing part that is specific to skiing is the technical part. In cycling, the technique is idential, going easy or hard (there is almost no technique). In XC skiing, holding form at threshold (forget about V02max) is very difficult. And waaay on the other side of the spectrum, holding good technique at the low end of the spectrum is really hard too, in some cases because you don't have enough speed to hold proper technique. When I coach my teens, I am very firm about them holding good form during easy parts of their training including warm up and cool downs, because the bad habits they ingrain there ALWAY show up in a full out effort in racing. It is actually "easy" to hold good form when we are going in cycling terms "at sweet spot effort" because you have enough speed but enough remaining aerobic capacity to maintain good coordination. At the top end of speed we don't have enough aerobic capacity left to sustain the timing and coordination and at the low end, we literally don't have enough speed (ex: 1 skate up a 3% incline at say 60% FTP.....you'll literally want to break into an offset).

So I think for a sport like XC skiing, this approach also serves a big technical component. For running, I believe the same applies....any bad form one ingrains while jogging shows up in a full out sprint (or even at 10K pace) . Likewise in swimming. Cycling it makes no difference from a sport technique perspective.

I once sat in a training discussion in a rowing conference in the late 1990's. The discussion was not on polarized training or Hi-Lo but on what was called LSD or long slow distance training.

The tone of the discussion was derogatory. LSD was a staple of the GDR and at that time it was fashionable to disparage everything the East Germans did because it was thought that all their success came from drugs or blood doping.

The coach leading the discussion sarcastically said that LSD was one way the Eastern block coaches controlled their athletes. He said it was a technique to dominate their day and because they were essentially wards of the state, this training technique suppressed any resistance from the athletes.

I thought this was an absurd comment because we all knew that the GDR and the Soviets wouldn't do anything unless it enhanced their chance to win a medal. So back in the late 60's and 70's the Eastern block countries were mainly prescribing LSD or the low part of the polarized training to their athletes at least in the rowing world.

There was no discussion of the high end. But LSD has been a part of training for a long time.

Halvard, you might be interested because one of the lead speakers at the conference was Thor Nilsen who I believe was head of FISA. People referred to him as the god of rowing because of the name Thor and his influence on the sport. He did not agree with the coach's point of view.

An anecdote: we have a couple rowing customers who report a lot of success primarily with training at the low end of the lactate curve. They are essentially doing most of their training at levels of lactate production that are on the baseline.

I have had a couple of European sport scientist tell me that a specific lactate level is meaningless for prescribing a training effort. They said what those who are using these lactate levels are essentially doing is just restricting the training to certain effort levels that will be productive and the actual lactate produced at the effort level is not an indication of an expected training effect from the training. They said what low blood lactate levels tell the coach is the amount of involvement of the two energy systems and that the effort level is not too stressful and the thing to avoid is too much stress on the aerobic system. Of course the workout has to provide stress or else it won't do anything but that too much stress is a problem.


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

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

So would I but Coggan avoids debate with people who don't agree with him.

The East Germans were using the same drugs as the Americans but their training methods were superior. There is much the East Germans were doing that was decades ahead of its time, for one, interviewing the athlete at the start of the day then deciding what training he should do that day.

Nothing personal here, but I do think it is ok to state facts when someone is trying to play the experience card. Many on ST have a lot of experience from a broad specter of sports even though they do not put coach in their signature.

I find it interesting that I get PMs from people telling me that they do not want to ask questions because of comments from coaches. I think that is sad.


When it comes to training tools I am not saying that you should not use a PM. It was more in reference to the "train by power" approach vs training by effort. Of course you can use a PM. I guess to be totally sure you are hitting the zones, you should use a lactate meter since it is more accurate than HR, or even better a combination of all three :-)
I guess I should be better and more accurate in my statements.

No, I have just decided that life is too short to be spent dealing with trolls like yourself. I'm sure people here will soon come to feel the same way about you, just as others have on the numerous other fora you have contaminated.

Besides, it's not like a debate between Steve (hi Steve!) and myself would be all that exciting anyway, since he and I don't really adhere to markedly opposing perspectives.

This is off topic but not unimportant and Seiler did hint at it in his talk. You referenced a cordial discussion of science on the topic of the Crossover concept. In it you were critical of George Brooks for several reasons but one of the reasons was:

the crossover concept does not provide any unique insights into substrate selection during exercise, as the ideas that underlie it have been around since at least early in this century

Someone did point to something very similar to the crossover concept in the mid 80's as part of an overall model of exercise metabolism. This article published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine discussed substrate utilization by conditioning level of the athlete. The article is

A Theory of the Metabolic Origin of "Anaerobic Threshold"

A. Mader and H. Heck

Int. J. Sports Med. 7 (1986) 45—65 Supplement

The article is quite technical but one of the concepts in it refer to how the various substrates are used and predicts what aspects of conditioning will lead to substrate utilization at every effort level. Here is a graph from the article illustrating this



lack of pyruvate is essentially fat utilization.

There is a term in the model called the crossing point which sounds very similar to the crossover point. I would have to say that this is a unique insight into substrate selection during exercise.

This article or any of the other articles by Mader on this topic are rarely mentioned in the literature. Here are some other articles by Mader on this topic.

Mader, A. (1991). "Evaluation of the endurance performance of marathon runners and theoretical analysis of test results." Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 31(1): 1-19.

Mader, A. (2003). "Glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation as a function of cytosolic phosphorylation state and power output of the muscle cell." European Journal of Applied Physiology 88(4-5): 317-38.

Hartmann, U., & Mader, A. (1996). The metabolic basis of rowing. In Rogozkin & R. J. Maughan (Eds.), Current research in sports science (pp. 179-185). New York: Plenum Press.

Mader, A., Hartmann, U., Hollmann, W. (1988). Der Einfluß der Ausdauer auf die 6minütige maximale anaerobe und aerobe Arbeitskapazität eines Eliteruderers. S. 62-79. In: Steinacker, J.: Rudern: Sportmedizinische und sportwissenschaftliche Aspekte. Berlin: Springer.

Mader, A., (1994). Aussagekraft der laktatieistungskurve in kombination mit anaeroben tests zur bestimmung der stoffwechselkapazität. In: Clasing, D., Weicker, H., Boening, D.: Stellenwert der Laktatbestimmung in der Leistungsdiagnostik. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.

The reason why this is relevant for the triathlon is because coaches are using this model to train winners at Kona as well as other world championships.


--------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

How very scientific of you Andrew. I'm sure people on this forum are already very well aware of your inability to argue rationally with people who don't agree with you.

Right now no one is training z3/4. Or at least they shouldn't be (wink wink nudge nudge hint hint to them reading this). Specificity of racing will bring it into the fold later on in the year.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

There is a big difference in experience. You have yours from the last 30 years. Every single calendar year I gain 30 years of experience with each one of my test subjects. So by your math I've been working like this since the 1800s.

Don't take it all so seriously.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

To the coaches checking in here:

1. Does it make sense to use "just" a 3-zone scale, as the video highlights? It's the first I've ever seen it, but I really dig the concept of a simpler scale. This sport is a little complicated as it is! :)
2. When calculating efforts, such as the 4x8 @ 90% max, what method was used to determine 90%? Was it straight-up 90% MHR, was it MHR- [9(MHR-RHR)], or was there some method of accounting for bike HR being lower (I've seen/heard MHR-7bpms)?

You wrote:
Halvard....one more question on this topic as your background on this type of training is out of Norway in the 80's as was my first exposure to it,and it was all on skis. One missing part that is specific to skiing is the technical part. In cycling, the technique is idential, going easy or hard (there is almost no technique). In XC skiing, holding form at threshold (forget about V02max) is very difficult. And waaay on the other side of the spectrum, holding good technique at the low end of the spectrum is really hard too, in some cases because you don't have enough speed to hold proper technique. When I coach my teens, I am very firm about them holding good form during easy parts of their training including warm up and cool downs, because the bad habits they ingrain there ALWAY show up in a full out effort in racing. It is actually "easy" to hold good form when we are going in cycling terms "at sweet spot effort" because you have enough speed but enough remaining aerobic capacity to maintain good coordination. At the top end of speed we don't have enough aerobic capacity left to sustain the timing and coordination and at the low end, we literally don't have enough speed (ex: 1 skate up a 3% incline at say 60% FTP.....you'll literally want to break into an offset).

So I think for a sport like XC skiing, this approach also serves a big technical component. For running, I believe the same applies....any bad form one ingrains while jogging shows up in a full out sprint (or even at 10K pace) . Likewise in swimming. Cycling it makes no difference from a sport technique perspective.


Technique is important in cross country skiing, and it is something an athlete has to work on every year. The good thing, it is never to late for old skiers, and teens can make big strides in a short time :-)
Here you have my experience with teens. First of all the equipment has to fit, especially the pole height and the flex of the skies. It is better to be shorter than longer on poles, and softer than stiffer on skies.

Classic skiing: It is all about the timing of the kick, but to do that you need the balance, stand tall and use the hip. One thing all my coaches told me, make sure your foot is equal or past the foot your stand on before you start transfer weight. The classic mistake is to not transfer the weight but to stand between the skis. The best exercise for all lever is skiing without poles. It is used from beginners up to world cup skiers. The timing should be there when they are skiing easy.
These days we can use our phone to take video :-)

Skating:
The hard part with skating is that it takes more effort and can be hard to use for longer easy workouts. It is kind of fun, all the top skiers are in Switzerland on a plateau Seiseralm these days since the weather is nice but also since the terrain is easy. When they are doing intervals they travel 45 minutes to lower elevation and steeper hills. It is hard to go easy in V2 when you are young (and old ;-)
Again the most important thing is weight transfer. Make sure that are not standing between, but are moving from leg to leg. I have not have any success with skiing without poles in skating, but taking a skier with not so good technique and make them ski behind someone with better can help with rhythm. In skating it is also important to get fluid transfers between techniques, especially over the top of hills, turns and different arms in V1. Especially getting them from V1 to V2.

But most of all, getting feedback during the workouts is the best. The athletes have to feel what is correct and own that feeling. That is easier said than done and sometimes you will hit a plateau. Skiing is like swimming, you learn by doing, not watching videos (I wish I could watch myself to a better swimmer).

So I agree with you, you should always ski with good technique no matter speed.

Ok, taking this to a practical approach, as I want to give it more of a try.

The 8 minute intervals, what %of FTP am I aiming? 110% seems a little high, as I am likely to hit exhaustion on that. 105% seems more realistic and would probably give me the build up to 90% MHR mentioned.
In regards to how best to start off, would it be advisable to aim for the target wattage, lets say 105% and then try and complete 8 minutes, then another 8 minutes until I fail. Or should I go in with the strategy of say 4 minutes x 4/5 and gradually build the interval length each week?
And at what point should i re-assess and up the wattage if I am going for this building time approach?
Or do I start at something like the 4 min intervals at 110% and as i increase the interval decrease the intensity very slightly?

This was generally the way I approach sweetspot until I hit 5x20 and decided that was enough volume for one session! But I am conscious with this I want to have an eye on increasing wattage if my physiology improves as I get fitter.

Secondly, I dug out an old physiological test that shows my power/HR at LT and LTP. Is this of any use for the slow element? My LT was about 220, and LTP around 260 for 2mmol. Its a few years old now and I was not as fit back then, but I have the HR that corresponds to that, should I stick below this LTP ~2mmol?

Hi Halvard

Sorry for my ignore on XCountry skiing despite living in a country of snow and ice (Canada)
What is the longest events they do in skiing and do they follow the same hi-lo model ? Do they have 4-6hr races ?

For races like HIM where a big chunk of your race time is in that zone of > 2.0 mMol and < 4.0 mMol what happens to the whole conversation of specificity ?

Steve's slides showed nobody training in that zone at any time of the year. Maybe it's because nobody races in that zone ?

I assumed they were straight %, but if this could be confirmed just in case.

Marcell, I'm no coach, but I think you're headed down a false path. I'd imagine you would build towards that kind of workout. It's not a goal unto itself. You want to get to 30' of accumulated hard work above threshold. What those %FTP and interval durations are depends in your aerobic and anaerobic systems. Too many variables to just apply a formula. And no framework for how that fits into your season plan.

As for easy, well it should be just easy! You're already quite fit so it may be 55-70%% FTP. That's a wide range. Aim to make it so you can kill your next hard workout.

Or just hire a coach. Maybe that's cost prohibitive, but there are bound to be coaches who'd find a way to make it work.

Good luck! -J

---

----------------------------------------------------------------
Life is tough. But it's tougher when you're stupid. -John Wayne

Marcel, at the world cup level, the longest races are 50K so around 2 hours at most. In the world loppet series (equivalent to the non ITU World Cup Ironman Circuit), the longest races is the Vasaloppet in Sweden at 90K, so around double the duration. But you also have guys racing long classic style races on Saturday and then the same course on Sunday as they do in the Finlandia Hihto (75k each day). Here in Canada, we have the Canadian Ski marathon which is 180K or so over 2 days and the Boreal Loppet which is 100K skate ski on a single day in Northern Quebec (I did that one 3 times...very cool, all on snowmobile trails literally "off the grid").

So do they have 4-6 hour races? Not really for the pros, but yes for amateurs.

Dev

Marcell_s

First off take a step back and answer me a few questions. Where are you in your training cycle, what are you training for etc. To answer these without context or framework is really tossing darts in the dark. This is what I was trying to tell Halvard in an earlier post.

You have a few ways you can approach the how to get to 4x8.

You can try some 6 min intervals at what ever FTP if that doesn't work then back it down or you can reduce the effort level and try it that way.

You should reassess at the end or near the end of your training cycle. Or possibly also in in the mid point depending upon how long it is.

Again trying to answer this, well this is often where a forum falls on it's face unless you type a book for a post.

You asked about a test, a past test. Tests are snapshots in time. That tests time has passed.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Agree and I think you are spot-on about the specificity principle. IMHO if they would have used pace/power and/or accounted for the (well known?) fact that race day HR tend to be way higher than training HR at the same pace/power; even in similar environmental conditions, the conclusions would be reversed: the results not only wouldn't challenge the specificity principle, but would give support to it.

---

Ale Martinez
www.amtriathlon.com

Thanks,
I didn't mean it to be such a generic open question, it was merely to compare the merits of taking the same interval duration, say 8 minutes and increasing the wattage or a higher wattage and increasing the duration. I think that increasing the duration is the best bet.

For what its worth I don't think of training as cycles. This idea of going into an off-season then moving through various training blocks aiming to peak in the middle of summer seems odd to me, I prefer the idea of continued physiological/biomechanical/psychological development with an end goal in mind. I am currently about 2 years into my 5 year plan. I don't think in seasons, just times when I race and times when I don't.

I think this is a good point, a lot of the studies look at athletes who might compete primarily in events which are 30-60 minutes or less.

They require a pretty high VO2 a low BL at threshold but at the same time a relatively high BL capacity at the end.

Cross country skiers, 5-10km track runners some cyclists etc require a good kick or sprint at the end, but it is less important if you don't have the threshold ability to stay at the front to begin with.

I was curious as well because a lot of our specific stuff during the last 12 weeks to ironman is right up the middle, for age groupers (for us) it also coincides with some of the highest volume in the year. And it is different with all three sports and the year over year volume that athletes can handle. For example on the run I think a lot of athletes would benefit from simply a 100% to 0% polarization until they can handle a certain amount of weekly volume - and have close to optimized body weight (barry P or some version of volume with frequency)

An interesting quote from Canova (he's referring to his specific period) :

"In the middle and long distances, the specifity is a specifity of extension. So, the philosophy of training for every event of this sector is to extend the capacity to last at a fixed speed, specific for the performance that you want to build.

In this type of philosophy, every event is an event of speed (because always the winner is the athlete who is 'faster' at the end of the competition), but most of the training is training of power - endurance (where 'Power' is the speed that every athlete is able to maintain for about 3/4 of the distance, and 'Endurance' is the training to maintain, at the same speed, the full competition distance). "

Maurice

Dev,
You need to get updated on the last development within long distance cross country skiing. While you are right that Worldloppet never took off, these days it is Swix Sikh Classic that is the big thing along side the world cup. In Swix Ski Classic you have skiers as members of teams just like cycling. Many of them get a salary so it give some stable income. Also the races are live on TV and live on Youtube. One of the big races happen today Marcialonga. Simen Oestensen won, how good is he? He just become Norwegian champion in 15k two weeks ago.
Here you have the race http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZsz7bHrm4E


Swix Ski Classic has made it possible for the long distance guys to race and make money, while get exposed on live TV. Maybe something for triathlon.
Vasaloppet usually have over 1 million viewers in Sweden, a country with 8 million.

Biggest different in training is that the Ski Classic guys are focusing more on double poling than the world cup guys.