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