tl;dr; knees hurt after we run for an hour easy. But are fine when we run for 30 minutes hard. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There's a difference between having a sufficient base for a duration and utilizing a "rising tides" high intensity approach to produce more rapid gains than a ton of LSB.

To really raise the bar...........it's an AND.....not an either/or.

Less important in Tri. It's absolutely a mandatory part of the diet for a road racer. An 250w ftp does you no good if you can't repeatedly surge and recover.

I agree and more so for road cyclists.

I agree all around with the research. N=1 - I find I can whip myself into pretty good shape on the bike, by focusing on shorter harder efforts. The deep historical base allows me to go long when I need to.

Yes - the muscles respond "better" to this, but the problem in older athletes is the supporting physical peripheral infrastructure, sometimes/often is not!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Andy Magness does. He trains for ultras with one to three hours (mostly one) of training a week.

Sounds like HIIT is g2g after one builds a firm foundation/base.

But that doesn't apply to anyone here. We aren't "sedentary adults" looking to gain a *little* fitness in the least amount of time.

Looking back over my history I think I've consistently gone too hard, too often. I just love a good 100% effort. Maybe I got addicted to the endorphins? Plenty of steep hills here where I can try to set a PR. But the only time I've ever experienced a fitness increase was 6 months when I avoided anything over FTP even for short efforts, and never went as hard as I could for long efforts. Best shape I was ever in. As soon as race season started and I mixed in hard efforts, my fitness dropped again. YMMV. I should have gotten a clue I guess, but I simply couldn't believe that I would be in my best condition if I did those 100% efforts sparingly.

This is the theory I'm going with now anyway.... Aerobic fitness is maximized by a large volume of work in the ~70-75% FTP level, and aerobic fitness is primary for everything we do. If you are road racing you'll want to do some high intensity (whatever makes sense for the race) 1 and 2 weeks prior. Then if you are racing every couple weeks or more, that's probably enough. Maybe it's just me, but I think this will work better than anything else.

Hello Felt_Rider and All,

Felt_Rider wrote in part: Would you take on that form of training if you were going to compete in an endurance event? :-)

No .... I think Stephen Seiler's long slow distance with a little intensity is the way to go for me. http://sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

Training for endurance is a much longer intervention than the 12 weeks of this study .... although I think I will be more aware that I am getting in some high intensity exercise to take advantage of the cellular changes it can provide .... especially as I age.

Also I think there is a possibility that those individuals that train for endurance events for years at at time may be different than the individuals in this study .... it would be interesting to test a group of endurance athletes and see how they responded in a similar study.

For cyclists this is good news ..... as we train with some high intensity exercise and caloric restriction ..... both of which appear to be beneficial as we age.

There is a study that shows French cyclists with extended longevity compared to the French populace.

Although some years of PEDs may have an effect it will be interesting to see how well professional cyclists age and how their longevity fares.



https://academic.oup.com/...ticle/73/1/1/4733393

Excerpt:

"The beneficial longevity effect of a simple reduction in calorie intake was first established in rodent studies more than 80 years ago (1[/url]). In the interim, the caloric restriction (CR) paradigm has gone from being a curious phenomenon of limited value to being recognized as a highly informative research tool with which we might enhance our understanding of the complex biology of aging (2[/url])."

"The search for agents that can exert the beneficial effects of CR without the requirement for a reduction in calorie intake has undergone considerable expansion over the last decade (20[/url]). Among these aptly named “CR mimetics” are resveratrol, a plant derived polyphenol, and metformin, a widely prescribed antidiabetic drug, both of which have been shown to produce beneficial effects in rodents (21[/url],22[/url]).

"In their primary research paper, Stockinger et al. compare the impact of resveratrol and metformin on skeletal muscle aging (23[/url]). Here, the authors show that both treatments and CR attenuate the hypertrophy and atrophy of muscle fibers as a function of age, and that CR and resveratrol also protect the neuromuscular junctions. This study points to potential new applications for these CR mimetics as a means to counter skeletal muscle aging. Furthermore, it demonstrates the power for mechanistic discovery in the application of CR mimetics to uncover the biology of discrete factors within tissues that contribute to the aging phenotype."

Bottom line .... seeking Watts per kilogram for an active extended life may be the way to go.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Nice post and thanks for the reply.
Speaking about Stephen I had some ramblings back in November. It may not make sense, but it had me looking at how my time was used in the year(s) past.

This research appears relevant for my overweight office mates.....

Weights + “high intensity intervals”- is better than weights alone (for out of shape people).

Who cares?

What I want to know is:
1) What kind of short, high intensity intervals should aging endurance athletes do?
How often?
How much recovery?
How many times/week?
What protocol to follow for each sport?
(I.e. 15 x 30 seconds “all out running”, followed 30 seconds recovery is IMPOSSIBLE)
How does this relate to other longer high intensity intervals and temp efforts?

I’m no expert in this field but as a 55 year old who experiments with different approaches, I think there are some nuggets of helpful advice in Nolegs reference above to Fast After Fifty by Friel. He specifically addresses your question about how to dose aerobic capacity or HIIT type work outs. It’s been 2 years since I read his book, pulled it out this evening and I am going to revisit some chapters. There’s some good stuff in there that may work for some of us.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blog: https://swimbikerunrinserepeat.wordpress.com

Hello Felt_Rider and All,

Felt_Rider wrote in part (blog listed in post above): This puts me right in what I think is Stephen's point. It seems like it is mostly finding the training load one can handle for not just a week, but for many weeks and then for years. We look for that balance for enough stimulation and yet not so much that we cannot overcome the onset of deep fatigue.


That is my thought too for the long view.

I do not keep a detailed log anymore like you have .... but subscribe to your philosophy above.


And writes in part: Although I do love cycling with friends and want to join them I have to consider what is important to me and group rides can be very unpredictable. Sometimes they do ride easy and sometimes it turns out to be a no-mercy hammerfest so I now tend to ride solo more on the weekend so that I am in control of getting out of the ride what is good to me on an individual level. All of it becomes planned.


I agree with you above about the hindrance of group rides in regard to gold standard training ..... but I am not that disciplined and like riding with others and you are right ... I will often have to reduce my regular planned training after a group ride. I think I will rationalize that weakness I have .... by considering the value of HIIT training for improving cellular aging .... or make up some other excuse after the fact because I like doing those rides.


And also writes in part:

• Train more so you can train more.
• Consistency is king.
• If you keep doing what you are doing you'll keep getting what you are getting.

That rings true with me too especially Consistency (another weakness I have).

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Yes, excellent book, and I agree, Friel gives very helpful advice in regards to the importance of the proper exercise dose for those over 50. He makes the point that we 50+ers walk a tight rope. No one needs the high intensity work more (our VO2max can shrink fast!) but at the same time, we are especially vulnerable to overdoing HIIT work. Friel believes that some 50+ers experience high-rate VO2max drop-off due to the obsession with LSD. We "elderly" are naturally drawn to slow, easier exercise.

He makes a similar point with regards to weight training. We need heavy weight to avoid wasting away, but we need to be especially careful not to injure ourselves.

I'd also recommend Martin Gibala's "One Minute Workout." Gibala is one of the most active researchers in HIIT.

And here's another reason to do HIIT to retain/improve your VO2max. VO2max is the single best predictor of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

Gibala was on the Tim Ferriss podcast some time back. It is worth a listen.

It seems like the answer to everyones question of how hard how long is that it depends. I did learn that the minimal effective dose is much less than I thought. Also, just about any interval is better than steady state.

Do tell!

Why is that?
I've not had any issues improving using steady state for a period of weeks in extensive endurance training.

Nothing like getting used to that long term discomfort at a TT type pace at a submaximal intensity.
I can deal with HIIT discomfort far better than I can the discomfort from 5 hours steady state while trying to hold 80% FTP.

I'm just repeating (my recollection) from the podcast. Give it a listen.

I think part of the problem here is what is meant by “high intensity.”

I suspect that most non-athletes (and the researchers) consider “high intensity” to be anything that is “hard.”

It IS true it IS beneficial to go “hard” sometimes.

But what is the best kind of “hard”?
What is the best mix?
Short intervals with long rest.
Short intervals with little rest.
Long intervals with long rest.
Tempo efforts.
How many of each kind?

What this rearch probably shows is that short intervals with little rest are better than slow easy training.

The subjects are probably not capable of doing full tempo efforts and are also not capable of doing multiple truly “hard” short intervals either.

What this study probably shows is this:
15 minutes - 30 seconds at 80% efforts, 30 seconds at 40% effort is better than
15 minutes- 60% effort.

But.....
45 minutes at 95% effort + 12 x 10 second sprints is much much much better. (At least if the goal is to not suck at endurance sports).

Only for previously sedentary people, who begin a modest exercise regime, and are tracked for a short amount of time.

I think it's important to not read too much into that for ourselves. The results might be very different for someone who is already trained, and training a much higher volume.

I would also like to say that to me steady state doesn't always mean slow steady pace and that seems to be the conclusion that a lot of people jump on.
Steady state to me on the trainer can be, not always, SST / L4 mix for 60 minutes or 80% of FTP in a fairly steady state on a 100 mile course may have a mix of intensities over the course. So when someone says steady state they may actually have blocks of sustained efforts in L3 / L4 and maybe even decent moments in L5 and yet overall is steady state with a VI of 1.07 or something.

Just something to consider.

This is a total sidebar thought this morning.

It is interesting and I really enjoy looking at some connecting thoughts in a number of recent posts here and elsewhere. The topics are different titles, but I see connections. My blog post from the link above stemmed from a more recent Stephen Seiler video with connection. The blog post was not about whether one chooses a polarized, pyramidal or other approach, but more to the point of a mile high view of general success among athletes. While we may not want to compare ourselves to what the pros do it is not necessarily a bad thing to look at attributes of pros in respect to lifetime hours trained and that was more of what caught my attention in the Seiler video.

I was very fortunate in my prime to train in a gym with a large number of world class lifters. One of the best known coach for Olympic Lifting owned the gym and trained many of the women on the US team. But with two of the world class powerlifters, both going for the 1,000 pound squat record, I saw differences in training down in the finite details and yet there were common traits. The most important seemed to be patience. Almost every competitive athlete wants to get to the top quickly and are prone to attempt to accelerate gains, which end up leading to issues, burnout and/or discouragement/disappointment. The eager athlete wants to sear the meat rather than let it stew in a crockpot. The veteran and long term successful athlete has come to a point of finding that out either by trial and error or finally agreeing with a coach that staying on a plan, stay consistent and let this thing stew over a period of time may be a safer approach and lead to less disappointment.

I deal with it constantly like everyone else. For instance if I had a break from training due to illness there is this rabid desire to try to ramp up quickly to get back to that former fitness or strength level. The mind is willing, but the body simply cannot adapt that quickly and/or cannot endure that for a very long period of time. I am in that mode now after an illness and I have set my plan for January to ease back into the crockpot and let this thing cook slowly. I am fighting to not let the desire to return back to former fitness by jumping right back into to HIIT or other forms of high intensity training.

On ST I have watched threads play out from various views and I can see tremendous wisdom from various posters. The wisdom is coming from those who have been successful personally and through coaching and it is similar to what I have observed in my own success competing in a different activity for a number of years and helping others do the same.

Whether one picks a polarized, pyramidal or other approach to training it seems good to keep in mind as to what your are trying to achieve and can you keep up with the training load. Is the path and plan aggressive enough, too much or too little. Ultimately it sure seems like the path that allows training consistency over a period of months and years seems to be a common theme for the winners. And winning IMO is not necessarily always trophies, medals and podiums.

Of the competitions I have won the highlight of my career was a friend that asked me for training advice. The thing was we were both nationally qualified for the NPC in bodybuilding and he was one of the most requested personal trainers in my area making a mid six figure income. The friend was 5'11" 275 lbs shredded and yet he asked me how to improve his legs more. I was in the lightweight division and not near the standout in my gym that he was. That moment he asked me for the advice will always standout as a win without a trophy. I asked him why at his level was he asking me for advice. I will never forget his response. "No one I know has achieved more than you with the crappiest genetics in this gym. To achieve what you have achieved with so little ability is beyond amazing. You must know more about training than any of us." Well I cannot say that I know more, but what I did have was the ability to stay patient and determined and let this thing cook slowly. Stay at it day after day, year after year, do not watch others that jump ahead of you with genetics are doing, keep plugging away and let it cook. (ultimately I believe genetics do decide. It is near impossible for lesser genetically inclined to overcome someone who is genetically inclined when they are dialed in on a good training plan, but don't watch that. Train to beat yourself next year and the year after.)

Threads that have been interesting to watch and see some connecting thoughts:
Genetics
Coaching - an athlete doing more than what the coach has planned. That eager athlete that wants to sear the meat and try to rush gains.
Train slow race fast
HIIT - here and on a time trial forum.
Psychology or Mental Drive - I cannot remember the thread title but one about the mental drive being a more important training aspect.


disclaimer: I am not preaching or pushing any agenda or thought. My opinion here and elsewhere are simple observations through the years with various athletes that have been successful and some that have burned out and dropped out altogether. I have witnessed many very blessed genetically gifted athletes go up the ranks fast, but once they got there they did not gain that precious attribute of being patient and letting that meat stew in the crockpot. Many of the successful that I have observed have endured many injuries and illnesses, successes and failures and yet they keep at it even if the gains are very small.

Best wishes to all those in the trenches that keep at it no matter what. When you get older and look back at lifetime hours trained, that too can be a trophy of sorts.

Great post, and thanks for sharing.

Link to the TT forum thread(s) noted above?

Thanks,
Gene