Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [Alex M] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MarkAllenOnline.com used to have a recommendation for base training that no longer appears on the general (free) site...I suspect you need to sign up to get to the info. If I recall correctly, it stated that all workouts for 3-4 months should be at a HR of no more than 180 minus your current age (there were some minor adjustments based upon current fitness levels). I believe this is also referred to as the Maffetone Method which is supposed to train your body to burn fat as fuel and allow you to get faster at lower HR levels. Allen calls it building your aerobic engine and says that it was one of the most important parts of his training that helped him reach his levels in Kona. He also mentioned that it helped him stay injury-free as opposed to some others who hurt themselves with too much intensity too early in the season. I think Mike Pigg also used this in his training.

After you have built a rock-solid base, you sign up for one of the 16-20 week programs. I don't believe that this method requires 30 hrs per week of base training.
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [JollyRogers] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JollyRogers wrote:
S McGregor wrote:
cjbruin wrote:
So do Mark Allen & Dr. Maffetone have it completely wrong?

Allen's times in Kona 15-20 years ago are still some of the fastest ever. His training programs include aggressive base building at paces/heart rates that are difficult to maintain when you start (difficult to go that slow). He did this for 3-4 months during his base phase.

Why is this approach not a good one?

Edit...I'm not being a smart-ass. I really want to understand why the approach of a 6-time Kona winner is not the best one...or at least a valid one.


Um.... genetics?


Don't forget training time limited only by the need to eat and sleep. If someone has 30-40 hours/week to train, lots of Level 2 would probably be just fine.

Fine if you have the genetics. I don't care who you are. If you have 50 hr a week to train in L2, you are not going to win like Allen unless you have the genetics. OTOH, Allen could have done lots of things in training, and the result would have been very similar, regardless. It's impossible to prove a negative, but even with an unconstrained by time pro, 30 hr of L2 is not optimal. Lots do it, and get away with it, because they can. They have the genetics.


Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [S McGregor] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
S McGregor wrote:
JollyRogers wrote:
S McGregor wrote:
cjbruin wrote:
So do Mark Allen & Dr. Maffetone have it completely wrong?

Allen's times in Kona 15-20 years ago are still some of the fastest ever. His training programs include aggressive base building at paces/heart rates that are difficult to maintain when you start (difficult to go that slow). He did this for 3-4 months during his base phase.

Why is this approach not a good one?

Edit...I'm not being a smart-ass. I really want to understand why the approach of a 6-time Kona winner is not the best one...or at least a valid one.


Um.... genetics?


Don't forget training time limited only by the need to eat and sleep. If someone has 30-40 hours/week to train, lots of Level 2 would probably be just fine.


Fine if you have the genetics. I don't care who you are. If you have 50 hr a week to train in L2, you are not going to win like Allen unless you have the genetics. OTOH, Allen could have done lots of things in training, and the result would have been very similar, regardless. It's impossible to prove a negative, but even with an unconstrained by time pro, 30 hr of L2 is not optimal. Lots do it, and get away with it, because they can. They have the genetics.

So it seems that you are saying that the training approach that Mark Allen attributes to his success was the wrong way to train and that he got away with it because of his genetics.

The question isn't if one can attain results of MA based upon that type of training but if it might be the right approach to achieve their best results based on their own genetics.
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [cjbruin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cjbruin wrote:
S McGregor wrote:
JollyRogers wrote:
S McGregor wrote:
cjbruin wrote:
So do Mark Allen & Dr. Maffetone have it completely wrong?

Allen's times in Kona 15-20 years ago are still some of the fastest ever. His training programs include aggressive base building at paces/heart rates that are difficult to maintain when you start (difficult to go that slow). He did this for 3-4 months during his base phase.

Why is this approach not a good one?

Edit...I'm not being a smart-ass. I really want to understand why the approach of a 6-time Kona winner is not the best one...or at least a valid one.


Um.... genetics?


Don't forget training time limited only by the need to eat and sleep. If someone has 30-40 hours/week to train, lots of Level 2 would probably be just fine.


Fine if you have the genetics. I don't care who you are. If you have 50 hr a week to train in L2, you are not going to win like Allen unless you have the genetics. OTOH, Allen could have done lots of things in training, and the result would have been very similar, regardless. It's impossible to prove a negative, but even with an unconstrained by time pro, 30 hr of L2 is not optimal. Lots do it, and get away with it, because they can. They have the genetics.


So it seems that you are saying that the training approach that Mark Allen attributes to his success was the wrong way to train and that he got away with it because of his genetics.

The question isn't if one can attain results of MA based upon that type of training but if it might be the right approach to achieve their best results based on their own genetics.

Well, I'm not sure if everyone has the correct impression of the way he trained. I wasn't there for every workout, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he didn't train as "easily" as most of you would like to believe. But in response to this....

"If someone has 30-40 hours/week to train, lots of Level 2 would probably be just fine"

my response stands. Most pros, though, are pros because of genetics, and sometimes in spite of their training. Allen's approach worked for him,... obviously, but as I pointed out, he probably could have taken one of several different approaches to training, and he would have been very successful. Again, it's impossible to know though if any other approach would have worked better for him. It's hard to imagine "better".


Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [S McGregor] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do you know for a fact Allen had good genetics, or are you just assuming that he must based on his results and that makes more sense to you than a good training program. I'm not saying Allen didn't have good genetics. I don't know. But people always assume genetics must play a bigger role than good training. If someone is very good at something, it must be because they have a lot of talent or good genetics. Hard work goes a lot further than people realize. It's just that few are willing to do the work.

Here's a link to an article with Allen's heart rate formula mentioned earlier in this thread: http://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460

Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [Supersquid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Supersquid wrote:
Do you know for a fact Allen had good genetics, or are you just assuming that he must based on his results and that makes more sense to you than a good training program. I'm not saying Allen didn't have good genetics. I don't know. But people always assume genetics must play a bigger role than good training. If someone is very good at something, it must be because they have a lot of talent or good genetics. Hard work goes a lot further than people realize. It's just that few are willing to do the work.

Here's a link to an article with Allen's heart rate formula mentioned earlier in this thread: http://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460

You know, you're probably right. He probably has a tiny heart and a VO2max of 55 ml/kg/min. He just trained a lot smarter than everybody else. Heck, he had the magic training program where you just run Pose all day and train your body how to burn fat, and won a bunch of races.

Dood, I'm a coach, it's all about the training! I know that program he used. Call me up and I'll make you an IM champ!


Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [Supersquid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Supersquid wrote:
Do you know for a fact Allen had good genetics, or are you just assuming that he must based on his results and that makes more sense to you than a good training program. I'm not saying Allen didn't have good genetics. I don't know. But people always assume genetics must play a bigger role than good training. If someone is very good at something, it must be because they have a lot of talent or good genetics. Hard work goes a lot further than people realize. It's just that few are willing to do the work.

Here's a link to an article with Allen's heart rate formula mentioned earlier in this thread: http://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460

Any "formula" for heart rate that starts with a fixed number is worthless. If I used that formual I'd have to stop before I got down my block. Z4 for me is in the low 180s. I guarantee that I would not see my pace improve if I trained only at his recommended HR.

In answer to your other question, it doesn't matter how good your training is, if you don't have the genetics, you aren't even going to be close to competitive at the top level.
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [Supersquid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Supersquid wrote:
Quote:
Don't forget training time limited only by the need to eat and sleep. If someone has 30-40 hours/week to train, lots of Level 2 would probably be just fine.


The problem with using FTP to determine Ironman power is that few people ever do a real FTP test - an hour at threshold. They only do 20 minute intervals and from that they extrapolate their FTP and from that determine their ironman power. So they're determining their 5-7 hour power based on a 20 minute test. Sorry, 100's of athletes every year race Ironman successfully using this method.

I know a lot of triathletes and cyclists who can hammer hard for 20 minutes or even an hour, but fall apart after 3 hours at a good, aerobic pace. The limiting factor for many, if not most, endurance athletes is endurance. If you can ride outside, jump on your bike this Saturday and do that 4.5hr ride I posted. Or do a 2-3hr version of it. Do that ride and tell me it's not building your endurance.

I'm not saying threshold work isn't valuable, but I don't see it as a substitute for good, aerobic base work. But I don't believe in one or the other either. I believe all levels need to be trained, although for long course I don't worry much about anything over threshold.

You can believe in anything you want, but the fact is that hundreds of triathletes out there are doing work on the bike with the specific purpose of lifting their FTP. They then/around this/at a different time of year/whatever you want to call it, do more "endurance" type riding, to build endurance on top of this FTP. They go faster on race day as a result of this combination but the absolute requirement of this combo is a higher FTP. If you want to ride fast, you have to ride fast. Period. Anyone riding with power has learned this lesson.

The triathlon world is full of athletes trying to get faster by riding longer...how's that working out? Not so well, I feel. The reason is that they can't do the volume of slow/steady/aerobic
/AeT/made-up-definition-of-the-month required to go faster by going slow. In my experience, and I say this because I've done it and learned there is a better way, that cycling volume is 15-20hrs per week. I've done 250, 300, 400 mile, 25hr, 30hr cycling weeks. By definition, the intensity was much, much lower than I usually do. I did get faster, no doubt. But to apply this method to 98% of the AG'ers reading this post is professional negligence.

So the net is that the difference between 8hrs/wk of Z1-2 volume (doesn't make you faster) and the 15-20hrs/wk of Z1-2 cycling that will make you faster is essentially wasted time. And the tri-world is full AG'ers applying aerobic, Z1-2 volume to AG'er volume constraints and not getting any faster. Or they try to accommodate extended periods of 10, 12, 15hrs/wk cycling, still don't get any faster, but sure do feel good about all the saddle time they've punched at the expense of life, family, job, etc.

-----------------

Rich Strauss
Endurance Nation Ironman 2013 and 2014 World Champion TriClub, Div I
Create a FREE 7-day trial membership
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [Rich Strauss] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
They then/around this/at a different time of year/whatever you want to call it, do more "endurance" type riding, to build endurance on top of this FTP.

Exactly. They do endurance type riding to build their endurance. My point is that you can't replace the endurance base work with threshold work. You supplement it with threshold work. It doesn't matter how many 20 minute threshold efforts you do if you don't build the endurance you need to sustain a good, aerobic effort (IM power) for 5-7 hours.

I never said there was no value to threshold work. I do threshold work. But I don't rely on it to build the specific endurance I need for an ironman. Like I said, I believe all levels need to be trained.





Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [S McGregor] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mark also did and prescribes about 6-8 weeks in a 20 week programme of gut wrenching intervals in each sport, he is not saying train easy all the time, there are some errors in the theory underlying the practice of thier coaching, but do a MAO programme gets you:

Lots of SBR at or near threshold and quality work above threshold. The HR is not the best way to measure it but regardless of their thinkinh the end result is the same, for a fiar bit of thier programmes people are doing V02 work and plenty at or around threshold
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [kennyDalglish] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kennyDalglish wrote:
Mark also did and prescribes about 6-8 weeks in a 20 week programme of gut wrenching intervals in each sport, he is not saying train easy all the time, there are some errors in the theory underlying the practice of thier coaching, but do a MAO programme gets you:

Lots of SBR at or near threshold and quality work above threshold. The HR is not the best way to measure it but regardless of their thinkinh the end result is the same, for a fiar bit of thier programmes people are doing V02 work and plenty at or around threshold

Absolutely correct. The intervals and threshold work come after you've built an aerobic base. Seems to me like you can't do one without the other.
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [Rich Strauss] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rich Strauss wrote:

You can believe in anything you want, but the fact is that hundreds of triathletes out there are doing work on the bike with the specific purpose of lifting their FTP. They then/around this/at a different time of year/whatever you want to call it, do more "endurance" type riding, to build endurance on top of this FTP. They go faster on race day as a result of this combination but the absolute requirement of this combo is a higher FTP. If you want to ride fast, you have to ride fast. Period. Anyone riding with power has learned this lesson.

-----------------

What is the physiological reason to work specifically on FTP?

I do understand that you have to ride faster if you want to become a better athlete but why do you take FTP as the benchmark, and not 20 minute power or 2:30 hours?
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [packetloss] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
packetloss wrote:
In answer to your other question, it doesn't matter how good your training is, if you don't have the genetics, you aren't even going to be close to competitive at the top level.

How many pros, let alone AGers, can no longer improve solely due to genetics?

There's a lot of aspects where we can seek improvements, irrespective of genes, eg. recovery. Recovery prior/after/between training sessions, compression, icing, ice baths, massage, electrostimulation, sleep, post training nutrition, stretching etc. That's just looking at one small aspect: recovery.

I'll cherry pick another one: daily nutrition. How many athletes are doing absolutely everything to improve their diet? Getting the right balance and quantities of macronutrients at the right time of the day, all the necessary vitamins/minerals, adequately hydrating, supplementing: all this is important. This isn't even getting in to race nutrition or body composition as a result of daily nutrition.

Another one: psychology. How much do you want to achieve your goals? Is your mind in the right place? At every race, whether it's a small local race of a world championship, guys finish ahead of fitter athletes due to higher motivation and desire. Just because this isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it's not an important factor.

I think blaming genetics for inferior results is really passing the buck. Not only that, but it diminishes the achievements of the best athletes. I don't doubt that Chrissie has genes that make her a natural athlete, but at the end of the day she puts everything together and delivers, and earns the result. People don't win triathlon races accidentally. There is literally an endless list of factors that we can control which effect performance.

VALÄ’RE | YouTube
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [packetloss] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
packetloss wrote:

Now that isn't exactly true - although I would agree that your 28:32 minute power would be close enough. Training is a balance between overloading the proper systems and recovery. What is "special" about FTP is that it's at a high enough level to promote maximal adaption to the aerobic system, without requiring massive recovery time. You could train in the subthreshold zone and get good improvements too. With that said if you exclusively work at FTP or below, you won't be able to do repetitive 200% surges such are what is needed in Crits or road races.

Isn't it funny, that the maximal adaptation to the aerobic system occurs at ONE HOUR threshold? What if someone once decided our day had 12 hours instead of 24? Do you think we would give the same meaning to that "one hour" threshold power? I do think so.
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [big slow mover] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think you are getting awefully close

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I think FTP/threshold/CP is chosen because it represents a physiological point of intensity that once exceeded, results in a near exponential decrease in sustainable duration.
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [sesel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote:
I think blaming genetics for inferior results is really passing the buck. Not only that, but it diminishes the achievements of the best athletes.

I agree. I'm sure a lot of athletes competing against Mark Allen had good genetics, yet he consistently came out on top. Why? Better genetics?

Genetics play a role, but like you mentioned, there are a lot of other factors that contribute to athletic success. Blindly attributing success to "good genetics" is missing an opportunity to learn from someone's accomplishments and improve your own training.

******

Here's a link to a post by Alan Couzens that talks a little about the benefits of 'steady' and threshold work on slowtwitch fibers. By 'steady' they're talking about AeT work, which I believe would be around the top of Friel's zone one/bottom of zone 2. Right around ironman pace. Based on this, there's an argument for incorporating both types of training, which is what I believe is best. I believe FTP work is a good supplement to endurance training, but I don't believe FTP determines your ironman pace (correlation vs. causation). I believe it's possible to ride around 70% of your FTP for an ironman (I've done it a few times now), but I think it's your aerobic ('steady') conditioning that determines your ability to hold that pace for that long, not FTP. Simply having an FTP of 300 doesn't mean you can ride an ironman at 210 watts if you haven't done the appropriate amount of base/endurance work.

I personally find these debates a little strange because they turn into FTP vs. Base as if you can't incorporate both into your training. I do, but I don't do a lot of FTP work because of the recovery time it requires and I benefit more from aerobic, base work. But that's me.

Here's the link: http://alancouzens.blogspot.com/...ience-of-steady.html






Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [Rich Strauss] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rich Strauss wrote:
jmaley wrote:
80-85% of FTP! If that is where you are working or at least some of the time then the base required to go the distance will be getting formed. My concern was simply that Rich was advocating FTP work (95-105% FTP) without hardly a mention of some lower intensity endurance(muscular) type trg. If EN is advocating some trg in the 80-85% range then that covers off my concern with the endurance trg as that is essentially trg at your HIM race intensity.


Below is cut and paste from our 20wk advanced IM plan, week 13 Saturday long ride of 4.5hrs. Definitions:

  • WU = Warmup
  • MS = Main Set
  • ' = minutes
  • (x') = rest interval, in minutes
  • 95-100%/Z4/Hard = ride at 95-100% of FTP, or at a Z4 heart rate, or Hard, depending on whether you have power, heart rate, or nothing at all.
  • WD: Warmdown

Bike 4:30 WU: 20-30' @ 65-70%/Z1-2/Easy

MS:
8' (3') @ 95-100%/Z4/Hard

10' (3') @ 95-100%/Z4/Hard

12' (3') @ 95-100%/Z4/Hard

12' (4') @ 95-100%/Z4/Hard

10' (4') @ 95-100%/Z4/Hard

8' (4') @ 95-100%/Z4/Hard

6 x 12' (2') @ 80-85%/Z3/Mod-Hard

For each interval include 2' standing WITHOUT spiking watts or effort, ie, standing for position change only.

Remainder of ride time is @75-80%/Z2, in the aerobars, practicing steady riding: no surges, constant power, etc.

WD: 10' Easy spin.

As a frame of reference, and because we are talking power-speak, a well-paced Ironman bike leg will generally accrue 275-~300 TSS points from about 5:15 to 6hrs. Athletes riding longer than 6hrs will generally put up 300-330 TSS points. We can use these numbers as a frame of reference for our training rides: "If I expect to put up ~285 TSS on race day, and on my Saturday ride I just racked up ~275 TSS, I've basically introduced an Ironman-ride's worth of training stress to my body, even though I did so in 4.5hrs vs the 6hrs that my friends say I need to be doing.

Guarantee that that ride above will net you north of 275 TSS, maybe close to 300 in 4.5hrs vs 6hrs.

  • 95-100%: we include this so the athlete continues to lift their FTP
  • 80-85%: we've found we can dramatically increase the TSS/hr of a ride by having them spend a lot of time at this intensity.
  • 75-80%: a tick higher than IM intensity, so they get used to riding in the bars, fueling themselves, etc at just higher than IM intensity.
  • The standing, steady riding, no surging stuff: I want them to develop the skill of riding steady. To stand...without spiking watts; to ride hills...without spiking watts, focusing on their efforts on the crest and into the downhill, etc
  • Around this workout, we've also told them they are stapled into the aerobars from Week X through race day.
  • These last two bullets reflect, for me, the requirement for race specific training.
The ride is followed by a 30' brick run, as Easy out, Marathon Pace (per Jack Daniels) back.

Next is the same week, Sunday ride:

Bike 3:00 WU: 20-30' @ 65-70%/Z1/Easy

MS: Spend as much time @ 80-85%/Z3/Mod-Hard as possible. Take short recoveries as needed (eat, drink, etc),

WD: 10' Easy spin.

"But what about aerobic base, race specific intensity, how can you ride 6hrs on race day if you've only ridden 4.5hrs in training."

  • The plan will include 2 x race sims of 112 mile ride followed by a 6mi run.
  • Plan includes 1-2 "big days:" ~1hr swim, 4hr bike, 1hr run.
  • We encourage folks to schedule a high volume bike or tri week if they want and have the resources.
Finally, there's what you read in a book, there's what you learn by coaching a handful of IM athletes...then there's what you learn in 15+yrs of IM-only coaching and thousands of athletes. Those workouts above reflect the experience of the later. Just sayin'.

--------------------------------

seems very complicated and what good is a 30 foot brick run after? Why not "just ride hard for 4 1/2 hours" - push the hills, coast the downhills - make sure you drink enough.
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [bmcmaster11] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
30' = 30 minutes
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [Supersquid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't think that anyone is really contending it's an either or proposition.

What's really being proposed is that there is a time and place for each - building speed and building stamnia. I prefer to think of it that way as that's what your really doing and it's a bit less emotion invoking.


Someone who has a reasonable level of fitness and history of training will take a very small amount of time to truly be prepared for a longer distance race. As such, why not leverage that and spend the time not required to specifically prepare for a long distance race by getting faster - raising your VO2max and or Threshold.

I think the reason that it turns into a bit of an and/or proposition is that your average guy/gal doesn't ahve the ability to recover from both high volume stamnia building work and VO2max/threshold work.

Another reason is turns into and/or is that Threshold work does do a really good job of building speed AND building stamnia - perhaps not enough for a HIM/IM in and of itself, but if you did nothing but 3x Threshold rides a week for a few months, you'd be pretty damn strong on the bike with an ability to go longer than you'd guess.
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [sesel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sesel wrote:
packetloss wrote:
In answer to your other question, it doesn't matter how good your training is, if you don't have the genetics, you aren't even going to be close to competitive at the top level.


How many pros, let alone AGers, can no longer improve solely due to genetics?

....

I think blaming genetics for inferior results is really passing the buck. Not only that, but it diminishes the achievements of the best athletes. I don't doubt that Chrissie has genes that make her a natural athlete, but at the end of the day she puts everything together and delivers, and earns the result. People don't win triathlon races accidentally. There is literally an endless list of factors that we can control which effect performance.

Now you are twisting my comment. I never claimed you can't improve, that training style didn't help, or that you can strictly blame genetics for poor results. All I said is that if you don't have the proper genetics you aren't going to be competitive even if you had the best possible training, motivation, nutrition, rest, luck, equipment etc. Anyone who made it to the pro level, clearly has superior genetics - (high VO2, high economy), or some combination of the 2 that puts them above average.
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [big slow mover] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big slow mover wrote:
packetloss wrote:

Now that isn't exactly true - although I would agree that your 28:32 minute power would be close enough. Training is a balance between overloading the proper systems and recovery. What is "special" about FTP is that it's at a high enough level to promote maximal adaption to the aerobic system, without requiring massive recovery time. You could train in the subthreshold zone and get good improvements too. With that said if you exclusively work at FTP or below, you won't be able to do repetitive 200% surges such are what is needed in Crits or road races.


Isn't it funny, that the maximal adaptation to the aerobic system occurs at ONE HOUR threshold? What if someone once decided our day had 12 hours instead of 24? Do you think we would give the same meaning to that "one hour" threshold power? I do think so.


I don't think it has anything to do with the length of a day. There is more behind it than this, but the main factor about FTP is that it's just at the limit to where you can maintain the effort for a decent amount of time. Thus it's right near the end of the bell shaped curve depicting effort against time that you can maintain that effort. Go just a bit above FTP and you aren't going to be holding it very long.

Technically, it appears that maximal gains are achieved at around 88-94% of FTP (according to Coggan). I would guess that is because you can hold those efforts even longer, but your still taxing your body quite a bit.
Last edited by: packetloss: Dec 30, 10 5:58
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [packetloss] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
packetloss wrote:
All I said is that if you don't have the proper genetics you aren't going to be competitive

Well it depends on what we're defining as 'competitive', but I disagree. Smart and serious training goes a long way. If we're talking 'competitive' in terms of winning major titles like the ITU World Championship Series, IM 70.3 and IM World Championships, then genetics is an important factor, but IMO it's still a long way down the list. If the top athletes slacked in their preparation it would be reflected in their results. Genes don't win titles.

VALÄ’RE | YouTube
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [sesel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Training, execution and motivation being equal, genetics are the remaining differentiator....genetics may also play into how an athlete is wired from a motivation perspective. If you coach kids, some kids are just wired to excel....some are wired to accept second place :-)

Anyway, this thread is getting silly. I don't think Rich or anyone is arguing that FTP type training is better than 'base' type training. We're just talking about the timing of focusing on each type of training given the finite time and recovery resources of your average age grouper.....see my post above where I said, "last year's long course training and races is base for this winter's FTP training". Rich/EN is providing age grroupers with a practical framework for maximizing results off limited time...rather than squander hours away noodling around to generate the physiological adaptations that can be achieved in much shorter duration.

Rich....I've been doing this now for 20 years....race tris during the summer which are typically 2-11 hour races and require a bit more of a 'longer duration" focus to race specificity. In the winter race XC ski races, which at 30 min to 2.5 hour races which require lot of Threshold and VO2max type training (for the mass start races, it's like a bike race, so you have to train to stay in the pack). No surprise that I typically have had very good races at St. Croix and Wildflower coming off my winter race season :-). Tri season is base training for winter "speed" racing season (XC) :-).

I will call you to discuss how I can weave EN type training into this.....but maybe best to wait till I get through the next 2 months of racing on skis.

Dev
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [sentania] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sentania wrote:
I think it depends on who you are listening to.

There are a number of threads where folks like lakerfan and Rich Strauss et al. are promoting, threshold work, and SST type work.

Others promote a bit more on/off.

Yet others the traditional "build a base"

I tend to think it is more dependent upon the time of year in relation to your A race, what your A race is, and what your current aerobic "skillset" is.


Just for clarity sake, what I truly promote from a general perspective is:

1. somewhat based on the athlete's response to a specific type of training stimulus
2. highly based on the athlete's schedule and their time available to train within that schedule
3. highly based on time of year

Having said that, I've said this a million times but it really comes down to achieving some rather simple principles in the sport. I think all of that magic/fancy protocol shit that people talk about is just that... shit. It's very safe to say that the more variability (on/off) you have in your training, the more challenging it becomes to balance the training stress -- a critical requirement within the progressive overload principle. I believe that most people screw up because they really don't know how to effectively accomplish a *progressive* overload so they end up getting hurt, cause muscle damage or just make little progress because they don't know how to push themselves.

SST is definitely not fancy but it enforces consistent hard work so there's not a lot of on/off stuff making it relatively easy to manage. If you choose an "on/off" approach you really have to keep your easy days easy and your hard days hard. I think I can count the number of males who have that kind of discipline on one hand. ;-) Your average female is a different story though.

Thanks, Chris
Last edited by: lakerfan: Jan 6, 11 21:34
Quote Reply
Re: Increasing FTP and Building IM Bike Distance [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sorry, I checked off the net for the holiday. My notes:

Endurance work
Yes, absolutely. But as Dev said, in my opinion it's a matter of timing. The method we use is to do it closer to the race, preferring to use lower volume for the balance of the season to create the opportunity to focus on lifting FTP, which we believe is at the core of cycling faster. That workout I shared is how we build endurance in this race prep phase.

Why FTP?
Fitness is in the muscles and the purpose of exercise to recruit a lot of muscles, forcing them to adapt and become better at what they do. Several years ago a smart guy named Andy Coggan said that FTP, your average power for a 60' TT, is a good benchmark to use because it's a power level that recruits a lot of muscle fibers and you can sit there a long time, forcing them to adapt. Since then thousands of cyclists and triathletes have used FTP as a benchmark and gotten faster for it. In short, because it works.

Complicated
I prefer "detailed." I prefer to give people detailed guidance and then show them how to amend that detail to fit their own personal riding situations and constraints.

-------------------------

Rich Strauss
Endurance Nation Ironman 2013 and 2014 World Champion TriClub, Div I
Create a FREE 7-day trial membership
Quote Reply

Prev Next