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.