No, of course not on both questions.



Are you wanting a training plan? Surely you're not expecting me to spell out a generic example of progressive workload over the course of a base/build/peak cycle?

As I've said in my last few replies, get an athlete to peak fitness. Are you going to build off that peak fitness? No. Because it's a peak. Now maybe you have an athlete who continues to improve and never really has a discernible peak. That's certainly plausible and most certainly not unheard of. But a concerted training plan with a focus on achieving a peak will have an athlete in a state of peak performance for an event or for a block of races for a short amount of time. And you're not going to build fitness on top of that peak without a large shift in intensity (and adequate recovery, too).

Above threshold intensities are sustainable, as long as overall volume is correspondingly low. Conversely, low intensities can be unsustainable if volume is too high. Focusing just on intensity makes the discussion completely meaningless.

The mix of intensity and volume absolutely needs to vary through the year to have a proper training plan (from general to specific) based on specific race goals. For individuals with a decent background in endurance training, their "base" is already established, so the general training that can be accomplished during the off-season can and should include above threshold and VO2 max efforts. Taking those efforts out means wasted opportunity to increase fitness.

---

-Andrew

The basic premise that we're working under is one of improvement, correct? So when you say superthreshold intensities are sustainable so long as overall volume is adequately low enough, then that's sort of beyond the scope of what we're dealing with here.

Yes, I agree. I gave an example of a new rider versus an experienced rider and the amount of intensity they can maintain and the duration of those intense blocks much earlier on in the thread.

However, I've never said any particular thing should be taken out completely. I've said, repeatedly, continually, over and over and over again, that it is the focus and the percentage of that intensity that shifts throughout the cycle. Namely I said that base training is not bullshit.

Yes, I have a basic understanding of prioritization and peaking.


I'm having a bit of difficulty finding the words to answer this, so bear with me. When you are peaked or peaking (I hate those words in this context), you are doing individual sessions that should trigger a significant amount of adaptations to improve your fitness. So in that sense, yes you are adding to your fitness. However, in order to execute those sessions properly you are also reducing the workload elsewhere in your training program, which lessens the amount of fitness you are adding.

Interestingly, and I can't explain the why/how behind this well, once you've "peaked" at a certain level, it's requires significantly less work to reach that same level of performance again.



If you're tapering properly, no you're not providing your body with an adequate stimulus to maintain fitness.

I've read most of the thread, but one question I have is what is aerobic foundation? Can it be measured? If so, how? It seems that if it can be measured then someone should have data that suggests whether or not it can be eroded or not with high intensity training or peaking. I've read Skiba's books and they make sense to me. But, I'm not a coach or exercise physiologist. I'm just trying to understand what y'all are bickering about. Layman's terms if possible.

Thanks.

+1. The "hazard" of training too hard and going over threshold is, as I understand it... 1) It's less nessesary for the type of event we do 2) going above threshold requires greater recovery, which reduces the volume of quality you can perform in a given training block. It's the same reason you need to pace well.


The goal of training is to get in the most qualty and volume possible within the time constraints and within your recovery ability. Going too easy short changes you, going too hard prevents you from doing as much quality.

Going too hard, too often when running, gets you injured.

Going too hard too often early in the season can get you brunt out before you peak later in the year.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

But you said that intensity eroded endurance and have also stated that one cannot gain fitness while racing?



No, I'm good thanks. So what causes a peak in fitness? Why does that athlete see (hopefully) continual improvement through the trainin program and then achieve a peak of fitness instead of continuing to improve?

Shane

Sorry, I don't know which other words to use. I'm sure a good number of us have peaked (either intentionally or by accident) and can attest to the phenomenon of being in such a state and how fleeting it can be. And that's the point I'm trying to get across. Such a state, while obviously not sustainable for a very long time, is also not a state from which you can simply add to. You break, you rebuild. It is not simply an addition to base that you can in turn simply add to.

Perhaps it's easy to hit that level of fitness later on, perhaps not.

If you look at elite runners, then I'd say peaking each season can take a ton of work and a ton of trial and error and a real focus on the long term. Galen Rupp (and coach Alberto Salazar) executed a brilliant peak at last year's Olympics (10,000m silver) that they haven't been able to so far replicate this year. Assuredly it's not from significantly less work on their part! Can he eventually build on that peak? I certainly hope so and I'm sure both he and his coach would think so, too. But they definitely weren't look to build on that peak last summer. And Salazar is quite adamant about a two peak season in the first place and has said quite a bit about the methodology for doing so.




So are you suggesting that instead of a peak, we could simply have an indefinite build towards a peak? That all we have to do is forgo a taper?

I don't think so.

A taper is to allow for overcompensation of a significant training load. Obviously without that taper the training load itself wouldn't be sustainable and that peak fitness wouldn't be achievable in the first place. That adds to my point.

The problem is by trying to refer to this concept:


with this term:


You're bringing along a lot of baggage added to the term over the years that to many audiences implies things it shouldn't. So people see that term, and think it means something because of our good buddy Joel Friel (and a host of others), just like the term Critical Power has come to be used for things that it really shouldn't.

As for the specific term of "base training", I won't go so far as calling it bullshit, but I think the terms Fundamental, Foundation, General Prep, etc all do a much better job of describing what it is you're out to describe.

Please copy and paste where I said that.


See previous replies.

Base training is not BS. What's BS is the need for an experienced athlete to do it on a recurring basis.

I'm 31. I've been running for 15 years and swimming/cycling for 6, most of which has included structured and/or focused training. I don't need to rebuild my base each year, because it's been established over those years. Instead, my year will generally look like this:

Offseason: I'm going to spend my winter focusing on increasing my critical power and critical run speed, which will entail a significant amount of threshold intervals and VO2max work.
Early season peak: As I approach my early season races (70.3 and/or 140.6), those efforts will become more steady efforts, removing the more intesity for more race specificity.
Mid season: I'll add the intensity back in for a few months to continue to build some general fitness.
Late season peak: Depending on what the late season races are I'll again shift the focus to race specific intensity, likely 70.3/140.6. That means much less intense intervals, and more steady efforts.
Transition to offseason: A few weeks of unstructured training and relaxing

Rinse, repeat. No base training, just basic periodization. There are some nuances and detail missing above but bottom line is that if I took a few months to do the classic base training, I would be missing out on some significant fitness gains.

---

-Andrew

It seems like to me you are trying to move the goal posts. What you are talking about is recovery, which is not base. Generally after a couple of weeks of down time the build towards a second peak begins again. That may include some long L2 rides but I guarantee you that it includes some Tempo and Threshold as well. You are getting into an argument on a triathlon board about how to train when it seems that your knowledge of training and a build peak cycle is rooted in cycling. The typical L2/Tempo/SST/Theshold/VO2/NMI cycle found in bike racing seems to have led you to believe that there is direct causality between incorporating HIIT and the loss of aerobic fitness. The reality is that time constrictions and the ability to recover is causing you to lose your endurance.

Many cyclists believe that as soon as you start doing VO2 intervals you are going to peak. If you look at a successful long course training program you'll see something that looks basically like a complete opposite of above cycle minus the neuro-muscular intervals.

Perhaps Brian could have stated it a bit more eloquently than "Base is BS", but maybe he got on here before his caffeine level was at full. But he is right the tradition of "base miles" is something that has left the building and probably won't be coming back. Base miles which traditionally were done at L1/L2 were a tradition born out the time when cyclist would take 2 months off at the end of the season. "Base" miles were done simply to get back all the fitness they loss. Most of these guys would "race into shape" as well. Now with an almost year round season there really isn't time for base. Provided you don't take much time off of the bike at the end of the season, your previous season has already provided the base you need without having to drop back to a much lower intensity.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

Sure, call it what you like. The OP called it base training and I've gone from there. The term itself keeps getting convoluted with a cumulative base of aerobic fitness.

But like I said, the notion of the training, whether it be called base or "Bob's happy time" or whatever isn't bullshit.

needmoreair wrote:

When you're in a peak/race phase, you are not doing base-training and you are not "contributing to base". You are not improving, you are maintaining and trying to prevent regressing for as long as your priority race sessions last.

Uh-huh. You've talked about peaking but what causes the peak? Or, put another way, why couldn't I take an athlete and focus on a program that saw a continual build with no peak?

Shane

Oh I don't know, this thread is great. I probably know less than anyone on here, but it seems to me like the main source of disagreement in this thread is confusing fatigue with loss of fitness. Every single training session you do, if done properly, will surely reduce your performance capability were you to go out and measure yourself immediately after. Because they are all designed to induce fatigue. But in the long term surely all training leads to a fitness improvement, assuming a progressive workload and recovery? So when we quote tinman talking about being undercompetitive in the aftermath of high intensity workloads, well, duh. That's why we have recovery, structure our training into cycles, and taper, isn't it? Which is sort of what needsmoreair appears to be saying. But that isn't an argument that intensity erodes endurance, just that insufficient recovery erodes endurance.

Perhaps what is being described is overtraining.

I hope I haven't just tried to be the rescuer in a Karpman drama triangle (I have been on an active management training course).

This is why no one is taking you seriously and you are chasing your tail. You speak out of both sides of your mouth on a topic that you clearly haven't mastered. And then you complain that people are misquoting you or arguing semantics.

First you said I was talking about a reduction in training volume, now you say I'm talking about recovery.

I'm not talking about either as I have pointedly repeated a number of times. "Recharging" is getting back to that base and build period.

You can guarantee it includes tempo and threshold? Wonderful. I'd certainly hope so seeing as how I've been saying that from the beginning.

I'm just repeating myself ad nauseum at this point. If you're going to allege that I'm saying or not saying something, at least do me the favor of reading through a few of my earlier posts so I don't have to keep correcting these assertions.

And finally, yet again, I have never, ever advocated the "traditional" long, slow distance idea of base. Ever. Not what's being discussed here.

Ha, I about used the Coggan quote, "Cycling is an aerobic sport damnit."

The truth is almost everyone is saying the same thing.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

British Cycling agree with you, and have done rather well challenging those old notions.

And here we were having a decent discussion before you had to come in and throw out your unfounded b.s. without nary a pertinent rebuttal in sight.

Thanks for the party crash, bud.

You lost me.

It's what I've been saying from the beginning. Some of you are failing to read and understand.

That's alright.

Can't keep responding to a new post every 2-3 minutes anyway. Have a good one.

Or I addressed your question per argument with Shane. Guess, once again, you can't support your own argument.

Maybe after you work on your reading and communication skills, you can pick up a physiology book or read research on pubmed.

Uh huh what?

You (and DD) are the ones saying everything adds to base.

I give you a specific example of work not adding to base (peak) and you take that example and run off on a tangent about how to make someone peak?

You can take an athlete and do that and have a moderate build progression that never sees them having to significantly overreach/overcompensate. I specifically said that in a previous post.

You cannot, however, take an athlete and plan to peak them, overreach them, decide "hey, I'll just keep building them instead of tapering to allow for fitness gains", and then keep expecting them to improve.

None of the above has anything to do with the point I raised, however: that being that once an athlete has been brought to a peak, that you can simply add to that fitness.