I admit it, you've got me completely confused, because you state the exact opposite below.


So are, or are those not, qualitatively different adaptations?

(BTW, I think you're wrong.)


Not in terms of the adaptations that they exhibit in response to chronically increased use.

"Not in terms of the adaptations that they exhibit in response to chronically increased use."

OK, so maybe I am confused on this part. If you care to educate me on this, I am sure my confusion will vanish.

I'll do this... I'll be happy to send you copy of an 8+-page doc I'm just about to complete that attempts to explain my entire thought process but you need to e-mail at: chris at chriswhyte dot net if you're interested. Obviously, much more than what we've discussed here is detailed in this write-up. To summarize my thoughts right now:

1. You need to consider your target from a slightly different perspective. Your overall power target should be based on NP/TSS, not AP, and should consider the following:
a. Projected bike time
b. Fitness Level
c. Mental Strength

The latter two require a good self evaluation or a lot of help from a coach (or both). The first one might require some help from a coach too. Our research says a good IM target is between 270 - 300 TSS. We have a chart that we use that helps determine an appropriate IF (NP target) based on the above factors. For example: For a projected bike time of 5:30, the appropriate IF range would be: .70 - .73. I would target the higher or lower end of the range based on your (and your coaches) assessment of your fitness level and mental strength. I will not discuss what those two things mean to me on ST.

2. Establish real-time power targets for the flats (independent of wind direction -- iow, ignore things you cannot control), short climbs and long climbs. IMC has all the above -- short climbs = McClean and the rollers and long climbs = Richter and Yellow Lake. I like the following:
a. Flats -- Real-time power target = ~overall target NP
b. Short climbs -- real-time target = 85 - 90% of FTP
c. Long climbs -- real-time target = 80 - 85% of FTP

Personally, I like to shoot for the low end of the power target range for short and long climbs and I think Rick might even be a bit more conservative than that. How you attack rollers is more challenging to describe in writing but this gives you a general guideline. You also need to establish what I call a "coasting strategy." I like to increase power slightly as I crest the hill or roller and over top. I keep pedaling but slightly decrease power as I descend going more towards a soft(er) pedal as speed increases from 30 - 35mph and then coast after that. That's best way I can describe it in writing.

The above approach will likely have me yield a VI of 1.05 at IMC, although, you will see a significantly higher VI from the top of YL to the finish. Now let me emphasize that I'm not adjusting everything I do in order to arrive at a VI of 1.05. I just know from experience that the above approach will yield a specific VI on specific course terrain I happen to be familiar with.

Note: I also use RPE and HR. My quick thoughts above don't address those parameters, obviously. Also, for Mark and Paulo's sake, allow me to point out that these are just general guidelines. I don't know anything about you, your training, your background, your strengths, your weaknesses... Do I need to go on? ;-) As always, if you have a desire to talk about this in more detail where you can provide me with more information about you, please feel free to e-mail me anytime!!

Hope that helps and best of luck at IMC!!

Chris

When required to repetitively contract for extended periods, both type I and type II fibers responds similarly, e.g., by increasing mitochondrial content, capillarization, etc., so as to enhance oxidative energy production, while at the same time downregulating (slightly, and only if the training load is high enough) the capacity to produce energy non-aerobically.

Btw, thank you for pointing this out. I believe one of the fundamental problems were dealing with here is that we (not you and I) have different interpretations of variability which is why I'm trying so hard to stick with VI. We'd do much worse if we stuck with subjective terminology. Unfortunately, the problem is that a fair number of people also don't understand how variable, or not, a VI of 1.05 vs 1.1 is on a course like IMC, for example. So, we're stuck in this endless loop because we can't envision the same definition for variability, imho.

However, allow me to point that there's not much difference in variability between a VI of 1.05 and 1.1 if we apply the conversation across all types of cycling (eg tris, crits, road races, the tour, etc, etc). However, if your focus is on optimizing your performance in IM then we could potentially be talking about the difference between qualifying for Kona or walking the latter part of the IM run (even if your run fitness is relatively solid).

Thanks, Chris

Thanks, I have learned someting today!

Finally the reply I was waiting for. Thanks Ashburn. And thanks to the other posters that provided their insight.

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

Thank you. I will email you.

---

Grant

So from your reply I will conclude that by performing a steady-state session the adaptations will mainly "increase the ability to generate energy steadily (via oxidative phosphorylation) while down-regulating it's rate of utilization" and by performing the micro-bursts will mainly "increase the ability to liberate and generate energy rapidly (via substrate-level phosphorylation and non-oxidative glycogenolysis/glycolysis)". Probably both of these exercises will favor hypertrophy, but I'll leave it up to you to know which one does it "better".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's something else that might interest you: none of the types of exercise you guys discuss here will favour hypertrophy at all. Any type of continuous, prolonged, moderate-to-high intensity training will very much inhibit cell signaling processes that are hypertrophic.

1. I mentioned resistance training in the very post to which you responded.

2. It is well established that endurance training results in a slight-but-nonetheless-significant increase in muscle fiber cross-sectional area, at least in the heavily recruited type I fibers. For example, the subjects in this study:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2y9w28

demonstrated 10-12% increases in fiber cross-sectional area with endurance training.

3. Studies in which subjects have performed both endurance and strength training have generally failed to find any "interference effect".

Given the above evidence, I think the question you should be asking yourself is, just how predictive of actual phenotypic adaptations are changes in signaling molecules such as mTOR, etc.?

1). I know, but your discussion, and Paulo's subsequent reference to hypertrophy, is clearly a discussion between your "micro burst" session vs continuous steady intensity training.

2). This is an obvious case of any training is good training if you are untrained. Whether training for endurance or strength/hypertrophy adaptation in a lowly-adapted individual, I know you know that a program including predominately resistance or endurance will give you both. Exactly the case in the elderly, as per your cited study. Now, if you take an already well endurance trained population - presumably where our discussions should be directed for the ST crowd - hypertrophy will be negligable with continued endurance training, whether it be varied in intensity, or continuous (note: need to look more upstream from mTOR for why).

3). Re: interference: It’s a stretch to conclude the limited area of work in this field has failed to find an interference effect. I haven't read any studies in which I thought this issue was definitively answered anyway, at least in any serious kind of way by means that would be any use to us, whether the data are molecular or applied. Not relevant for this discussion anyway, since we’re referring to training sessions in (1) above, which, as per (2), hypertrophy is a non issue in this context.

Your final point - interesting philosophical point, as science in this area goes "molecular". I ponder these questions alot.

A perspective regards your #2 point there where we are talking about possible hypertrophy due to endurance exercise.

Following a recent accident, I was able only to do cycling training, and I duly increased the frequency at which I trained from 3x to 5x a week. Most of these sessions (as they were all indoors!) were zone 3/4 and an occasional zone 5 (by zone I mean level in the power lexion) - the same as before, so my training didn't change, just my frequency of cycling sessions. After two weeks of this, my thighs got bigger: my bike shorts were tight! I didn't eat more, I didn't gain weight - granted atrophy in my arm may have been compensated by muscle gain in my thighs. I didn't measure my thighs before so I cannot quantify changes but they are present. And I didn't (couldn't) do any weights etc. I feel confident that just cycling more had this effect. I know I am only one person, but I think there is substance to the argument.

Regarding your point: "I didn't measure my thighs before so I cannot quantify changes but they are present"

I could take the usual pompous ST stance and say you therefore have no data, but I'm not like that, I'd prefer to assume you have a reasonable grasp of whether they got bigger or not. To stand by my arguement, which I do, I'd say that you were relatively untrained at ~3d/wk compared to when you started training more. I also stand by what I said before: that training the other guys were talking about in a well trained person: if you just replace some kind of endurance training session with some other one that you presume might use different motor units/muscle fibres, you won't see hypertrophy in any serious kind of way.

In defense of those who ask for data when debating... As I'm sure you know from experience because you seem to be a highly intelligent individual, one's perception of reality vs actual reality are often very different. Therefore, the need for data. I believe it's simply an attempt to make sure we're comparing apples to apples and not an arrogant or pompous stance. As difficult a place ST can be to have these types of discussions, I believe that most people have the best of intentions in mind.

Sorry, this probably didn't add a whole lot of value to your current topic of discussion but it's nice to remind ourselves of that fact.

Thanks, Chris

Randolph - No, I disagree that I was untrained, though it does depend on your perspective. I could pump out a 59' 40k TT and had a W/kg at FTP of 4.2. So, a long way from elite, but well above what typically is referred to as untrainined in studies. In addition, two or three weeks of training more is not going to take me from untrained to trained. Furthermore, in my main build phase in the preseason I was doing 7-8 hours of cycling a week. I expect to take about 1 min off my 40k TT, which is not a very big change relative to the gap between me and elite athletes.

Lakerfan - yes, it's a shame I didn't measure before and after. Next time I break something I will! I am certain that some change has occurred, there's no doubt about it. I was just voicing my experience in light of the absence of any real data.

Don't apologise, your points are quite valid, and I'm just as guilty of going off topic.... Note the highlight above. Taking your point of view aboard, I agree all are well within their rights to ask for hard data. Many should just ask for it in a less accusatory or high-and-mighty tone. And maybe only ask for it if generally interested rather than just an opportunity to shit-can.

In a sense, the distances/times in the model are arbitrary...a 1k section could just as easily be 10k. And the power limit is, in a sense, arbitrary as well. If a given course model tells a rider going 75% of FT (over, say, 180k) to ride a 1.02 VI, then it will also tell a rider going 100% of FT (over, say, 40k) to ride a 1.02.

What is interesting (and validating of the NP construct, IMO) is that, in either case, the resulting "recommended" power levels for the various slope segments are quite "real world." IOW -- an experienced racer/coach would look at the list of power outputs over certain amounts of time and say, "Hey...I could do that, and it would make sense to race like that." For the 40k guy going up various hills, the model asks him to ride pretty darned hard up short bits; definitely into MAP territory. For the IM guy, it keeps him under half IM power for all but the shortest hills.

Thinking about it...if you're riding at 75% of FT, going 10% over that figure for a short while isn't all that costly and is still within the scope of a "nice and steady" ride. OTOH, if you're riding at 100% of FT, going to 110% for a short while is a serious piece of work -- just as we would expect to see a 40K TT specialist do in a real race when he faces a hill and is going guts-out.