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