Best question I have seen in a long time.

I will try and refer it to a friend of mine who is a professional cycling coach now and used to be a competitive runner in the past.

Intuitively I would think that low intensity cycling wouldn't be as beneficial as low intensity running but I am not quite sure why - here are some possibilities off the top of my head.

1) The resistance factor - cycling has more muscular strength involved than running so this needs to be worked on.

2) Low intensity cycling is actually easier physiologically than you percieve, compared to running. Eg if I am on a cruisy run and happen to check my HRM a HR of 145 seems very comfortable where as at 145 on the bike I would think that I am working a lot harder. I guess this comes down to things like weight bearing, cadence rates etc.

3) Cycling is a more foreign movement to the human body - clutching at straws a bit on this one I know.

4) Cycling has a much wider level of effort required than running, eg working uphill, rolling down hill, into the wind, drafting etc) so the ability to work at high intensity levels is more important.

None of the above I would necessarily say were right, just bouncing some ideas around. The one good thing about high intensity cycling as oposed to running is that I find the risk of injury at about 0% were as if I try to do lots of high intensity running work I find it at about 100% (calf muscles).

I am surprised you haven't had any more action on this one Ron.

Seems everyone is more interested in talking about spending huge $ on gear and improving by milliseconds than doing some free thinking about the big picture and improving by leaps and bounds ;-)

(maybe that will get a bite!)

Why be surprised? ST seems to be mostly an equipment or bragging forum - "Bike porn" and "My Race" or "My Workout" being the most oft opened threads! ;-) This question is waaay too rational (more likely better suited to Gordo's forum http://www.coachgordo.com

I'd guess that "base is base", right? However, biking potential actually seems to take longer to develop than running, so that during the years of developing the biking potential, few people (bikers, which are a different breed than runners) have the patience to keep with the lower training rates and they are less at risk of injury with higher intesities and they more likely to do it in a group, which charges them up. You hear "hammer the bike" a lot more than hammer a run. You "can" go train harder on the bike more often, so people do?

Andy Coggan provided some interesting perspective on basebuilding just this morning...

http://stlbiking.com/...t=15&#entry46322

Comming from a competitive running background I have applied those methods to tri training in the past with differing results. I know from experience that I do better when I am doing high volume rather than high intensity in running. Not that it is fast but I'll generally run around 35:00 min for 10Ks off of just distance running. On the bike the same has not held true for me. Someone above mentioned that cycling requires more strength and I think he may be right. All those slowtwitchers without enough fasttwitch will help you go long but not fast is my guess. Swimming on the other hand is a whole different thing, for me at least. For now my limiting factor is my form (think doggy paddle...maybe not that bad) or lack thereof. Most of the good runners I know are high milage guys. Of course that could be biased because many came from the same coaches. But also look at the top runners from northern Africa. Those guys do a ton of running. One of my coaches use to say the best way to get better running is to run more. He never mentioned run less faster. His teams have done pretty well over the years.

---

JW (on the comback trail)

I think with cycling you can hammer often without a huge base with little risk of injury.

In running, you gotta get your joints and ligaments used to the pounding. If you stay high end aerobic, you can run pretty fast and recover quickly from runs, but when you go anaerobic, it takes a longer time to recover. I think you end up being fresher for each run if your last oen was aerobic, and you can actually run more often and quicker if you stay aerobic than if you go over the red line. So in reality, you end up doing more running at a quicker pace than when banging out 400 m intervals in sub 75 seconds and then become cripple for three days. This is why aerobic run training works well. If you could hammer at 5:30 miles constantly and recover, then you'd likely get faster doing that, but for most this is not the case. This is why aerobic run training works. Its all about training effect = exercise+recovery. When you go anaerobic you need more recovery, and if you don't take it, then your next bunch of exercise sessions are slower. Better to stay aerobic and run longer and on the average faster.

For bike training, since you can recover quicker, the training effect of high intensity is a bit different. You can go hard, more often and not be as sore and go hard again at more frequent intervals. Same on skis, and even more so in the pool.

I'd venture to say that your ability to recover and go harder more often is based on how weight bearing the sport is and how it pounds your joints. So basically, I look at the intensity risk pyramid as swim-bike-XC ski-run with run at the top.

This is why, during tri season, I do all my intervals on the bike and the pool and other than a few weeks, leave the speed work on the run to races (I race relatively often).

Ron,

Have you checked the article here on slowtwitch regarding (in part anyway) building an overall base through bike-focused off/early season?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...oachcorn/season.html

It does work for cycling, except you'll find the same argufying about intensity and volume etc. there..
Also I think cycling volume has to get pretty high, 10hr/week is likely a minimum.

A good discussion by real roadies here,
http://archive.roadbikereview.com/04/0EFC30B9.php
especially the posts by lonefrontranger.
And, discussion of Z3/"dead zone" training,
http://archive.roadbikereview.com/04/0EFC3CBF.php

---

"It is a good feeling for old men who have begun to fear failure, any sort of failure, to set a schedule for exercise and stick to it. If an aging man can run a distance of three miles, for instance, he knows that whatever his other failures may be, he is not completely wasted away." Romain Gary, SI interview

Could you clarify... a minimum for any triathlete? Or IM competitors?

---

_______________________________________________

[reply]
Could you clarify... a minimum for any triathlete? Or IM competitors?[/reply]

any, is my SWAG.. 8-10 hours of running a week in a base period was the minimum that gave results for me, cycling easy is a lot less work than running easy, ergo. Of course it also depends on where you start from..

---

"It is a good feeling for old men who have begun to fear failure, any sort of failure, to set a schedule for exercise and stick to it. If an aging man can run a distance of three miles, for instance, he knows that whatever his other failures may be, he is not completely wasted away." Romain Gary, SI interview

Thanks for all the good replies. Let me clarify a few points.

In Hadd's articles, he goes into some detail regarding fast twitch muscle development vs. slowtwitch endurance. His premise is that if you train slow enough (50-70% of MHR, or well below LT), you start developing your aerobic system. The bigger your aerobic capacity, the lower your lactate at any pace. If I understand his article correctly, even if you COULD run 120 miles/week at 5:00 min/mile pace (at say 3mmol lactate), you would still be better off to train at say 8:00min/mile at zero lactate.

As far as the "train slow race slow" sentiment, I can personnaly say it's BS. I did nothing by 8-10 min/mile base work last winter with a few strides thrown in each run. My weekly mileage from Nov. to March was around 50-60 miles/week, and I was regularly doing 2 and 3 hour runs through this time. I then ran a spring marathon at 7:00 min/mile pace (3:03) and it felt easy the whole way. Closed with a 6:40 and a 6:30. No speed work all summer other than some 1 minute on/1 off pickups on the road, weekly mileage of around 20-30 (but lots of cycling/swimming) and had no problem holding low to mid 6 pace up to 1/2 marathon distance in the fall. Seems to support the "less lactate at any pace" theory. I could run right at my LT for as long as I wanted, but had no real "speed" on the track.

Let's think it through with cycling. Let's say I ride 10 hours/week at 50-70% MHR. Lets use 135 HR for conversation. No real power or strenght work, just spinning along. If the same thing holds true in cycling, by March, my average pace (watts) at this HR should significantly increase due to a bigger aerobic engine. Then, when I start doing the "hard" work, my power at LT should again be improved. As an example, lets say I start in November by toodling along at 170 watts all day and build a larger engine. Then come march, I can hold 200 watts with no significnat lactate. My max short term power might be 280 watts in this case.

Again, if the running theory translates to cycling, and this time were spend building power and speed (fasttwitch), it would leave my aerobic system lacking. While I could put out lets say 300 watts during my winter intervals, I couldn't sustain over 190 watts before accumulating lactate. So even though I have more absolute short term power, my sustainable power is less than if I built a bigger engine.

Does this make sense?

Thanks

Ron

Yes, it definitely makes sense Ron, and I've followed the HADD thread to a degree. Point of clarification please however, if ten hours is truly the most you can put in over a week, is that based upon only being able to get a little less than an hour and a half in per day? What is your schedule like?

I love this question, because cycling is very very different from running, and I handle base entirely differently between the two.

The reason that the Hadd base approach works in running is NOT the slow speed -- it's the frequency and the volume. Slow aerobic running does not stimulate mitochondrial growth better than hard aerobic running! If mitochondria growth were the only issue, you'd run hard more often. But -- there's a tradeoff. You run hard too much and you are not recovering. The impact and the eccentric contractions involved in running do serious muscle damage. The compromise is to use frequency and volume at moderate paces so that we can keep the mitochondria growth rolling while not ending up hurt or sidelined. We have to take our hard fast running in modest doses; it's usually best to wait until a race is coming up.

Cycling, on the other hand, does not share running's recovery handicaps. You are free to undertake mitochondria growth stimulation by the fastest, most efficient means available. Frankly, that means some tougher riding mixed in. Not that volume isn't good -- it is good, and it too will stimulate mitochondria growth. It's just that you stimulate more and faster aerobic development with a mix of intensity. If you are time-limited with your cycling (a problem inherent in three-sport training), then intensity is essential.

As I am building for an early season peak next year (I'm done after CDA in June), I am base-building my run by running 6 days a week, about 45-50 miles, of which 40-45 are nice and steady, and only 5 are tempo. Straight out of Hadd, Lydiard and Daniels.

In stark contrast to that: On the bike, I do two threshold interval workouts (at 40k TT effort) twice a week (usually 3x12 minutes or 4x10 minutes); and an uptempo mixed pace 90-120 minute ride that averages about 90% of 40k effort. Three tough rides that are serving to rapidly ratchet up my aerobic power. I'll add a 3-6 hour endurance ride to the mix as race season approaches.

Now, there is no way I could do running like I'm riding. I'd be busted up and in a body cast. But I can pound through these bike workouts and get very very fit. I consider this bike structure to be my base building. I'm building the aerobic power and stamina to tackle the long race-specific work later, but be able to do the longer work at higher power and faster speeds, with fast recovery.

The running base work is building stamina, economy and durability. I'll add the tougher stuff later so that I can run faster in races.

So anyway -- long way of saying that I really believe that running and cycling offer up quite different base-building paradigms. Swimming too -- just show and go. No base required at all!

I think this theory is very individualized for different people. I can not comment on the biking since I dont know much about it. However, I have done the hard and long running approach, the short and hard, and the long and easy. For me, i run the best with hard, higher mileage. I also put in breaks between seasons and workouts so i do not burn out. As for the long easier mileage (I did up to 75 miles when i did it), I was in good shape. I could run a long time. I could not run fast, and I got slower over the course of the season from lack of speed work. So what worked for you was terrible for me....

Keep in mind that any effort lasting more than a few minutes -- no matter how hard -- is an AEROBIC EFFORT. Contrary to popular myth (and contrary to just about every coaching book like the "Bible" series), anaerobic pace can only be maintained for about a minute and a half.

Any intervals you do that are sufficiently long are entirely aerobic, and develop your aerobic fitness (to be safe, say 3-4 minutes or longer). Hadd writes a nice article, but he's flat-out wrong about that stuff about fast-twitch development from tempo runs.

As I wrote above, the benefits to a long period of frequent, high-volume, steady-paced running do not arise because of some magic in the pace of the running. It's the fact that the pace allows you to run a lot. And, it is the "a lot" that makes you faster. Lydiard figured this out in the 1950s and 60s.

So, easy and steady running can, in fact, make us faster. We just have to do lots and lots of it. Like every day.

Sorry -- I missed this. It is patently false.

Of course, you can't train that hard or you'd get hurt. But, if you could in theory, it would be the better regimen. Because, if you could handle 120 miles at 5 min/mile, then that would be your high-volume everyday training pace. The best pace for 120 miles a week is the fastest one you can handle, backing it up day after day; not getting hurt; recovering every day; rolling through the year. Again -- read Lydiard.

No -- I'm not saying all this moderate-pace work is making me faster. I'm saying it builds the stamina and toughness I need to handle the stuff that does make me faster. I only started getting faster after I ran high-frequency and volume for a year (getting no faster), and then hit the tempo and threshold runs. WOW! Did I get faster QUICK! I PR'd everything I entered this fall. So, I'm working back through the frequent, high-volume period again, and I'll hit the hard stuff starting in Jan/Feb.

But, I'm hitting the bike hard right now.

A few points:

1. This whole talk of base training and what it is and what it means is really dependant on what your background is and how many years you have been training. The need and amount required is going to be different from someone who just took up triathlon vs. someone who has been training at a moderate to high level for, say 10 years.

2. For someone in the first 2 - 3 years, I would say that doing a substantial volume of miles in both cycling and running will pay long term dividends for a number of years.

3. For a vet, as the years go by there is less and less need to keep going back to the "build the base" program. The base is already there and it's not going to go away, so if you are looking to improve simply doing more, may not get you there. For IM focused folks, what I would reccomend is taking a year off from IM racing and focus totally on setting absolute best times for 10k and/or 1/2 marathon running and in the 40K ITT. You will come back to IM training a year later AT that whole new level.

4. There seems to be this aversion to going "faster" with many people in triathlon. You have to understand that just about every up to a 400m all out sprint has a substantial aerobic component to it therefore most training regardless of how fast you are going or how hard you are working is training the aerobic systems - the most important ones to endurance sport success.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Thanks for all the thoughtfull responses.

I'm on board with the high volume at the highest sustainable pace for that volume. I think the key point here is that to run a high volume (in this example 120 miles/wk), you are by definintion at an aerobic pace. In this example it just means that 5 min miles are "easy" and you could probably rip off low 4's on the track.

On the bike, again, volume is key. If I understand the posts above, the thinking is that almost any pace over a minute or so is working the aerobic system to some degree. So the more volume, the better, the higher the intensity (sustainable for say 2 minutes or greater) the better? The key difference is that on the bike you never really hit the limit of recovery/injury with a "normal" workload?

What about the different training zones though? I would think that at zone 5 training I'm predominantly gaining power at the expense of endurance?

Thanks

Ron

Ashburn,
Great posts. Everything you have said makes sense to me and more or less backs up my current training philosophy. You seem quite knowledgeable. What is your background/expertise on this subject?

I operate on a relatively low volume training regimine (10-15hrs/week). To compensate for lack of sheer training hours I up the intensity as high as possible in all three sports but still allowing adequate recovery, which can be tricky. After a few overuse injuries I have learned to better listen to my body. I have had good results and steady improvement with this. From what you are saying it seems that my intuition on how to best train within the time constraints has been correct. Do you agree?

[reply][quote]
No -- I'm not saying all this moderate-pace work is making me faster. I'm saying it builds the stamina and toughness I need to handle the stuff that [i]does[/i] make me faster. [/quote][/reply]

Background, as Fleck notes, is always important. My personal experience was the same as Hadd etc - I'd been training hard, 6 days a week, for several years, without any performance gain. I made enormous gains after a phase of ONLY high volume/frequency and low intensity runs - from a 3:06 marathon PB to a 2:45, a 38min 10k to 35min. I made further gains by doing speedwork, but nowhere near this breakthrough level. But this is mere anecdote.

I do agree with your analysis - base works wonders on the run because it's simply not possible to train the volume/frequency required at high intensity. Maybe it is possible on the bike ? I dunno, quite frankly. I suspect the principle is the same - maximise volume/frequency with a limiter of however much intensity can be tolerated. How exactly to determine the limits of tolerance may be more subtle on the bike..

---

"It is a good feeling for old men who have begun to fear failure, any sort of failure, to set a schedule for exercise and stick to it. If an aging man can run a distance of three miles, for instance, he knows that whatever his other failures may be, he is not completely wasted away." Romain Gary, SI interview

[reply] - read Lydiard.[/reply]

Which book would you recommend?

There you go. As we move from physiology out into the real world, each athlete has to determine the optimal mix of volume and intensity. We'll all need different mixes. Generally speaking, the more volume you do, the more the average intensity has to come down. But even a high-volume cycling program would benefit from weekly threshold/tempo sessions.

As an example of how we can get the causes of our fitness gains mixed up: Imagine I do my current 3-day plan of tempo and threshold riding. My fitness goes to point "X". Then, I add 12 hours a week of steady riding and drop one of the threshold workouts. My weekly average intensity drops significantly. I assure you that my fitness would rise to point "X+Y". I would be more fit, and race faster.

But -- we should ask "why" I got faster. Did I get more fit because my average intensity dropped? Or did I get more fit because I did more hours training, at the best average intensity I could manage?

I would suggest that it is the latter.

Again, I think running is different and a little more mysterious. Cycling really comes down to plain old aerobic power development in the muscles. Economy is just not a material part of the equation because we translate muscular power onto the ground through a fixed machine. One reason we see cycling used in physio lab work is that it has this feature. Gains in muscular aerobic fitness translate directly to power on the road, making lab work repeatable and meaningful. Most of the studies you see people cite that involve cycling weren't studying cycling -- they are studying the human body's response to work stimulus of one kind or another. Cycling is merely the convenient mechanism by which to have people do work.

Running is messy. The muscles are bound up in the running machine itself. Nobody has ever successfully measured running muscular power separately from the running mechanism. It is possible have muscular power gains NOT translate into improved pace! On the other hand, it is possible to get faster without ANY improvements in aerobic fitness! That's why I think that high frequency running at these comfortable, modest paces does us such good. It keeps the machine working well so that our aerobic gains DO translate to speed; it can also improve our paces even without significant aerobic fitness gains. Economy is a huge, huge part of running. Some folks are gifted with great economy and others have to work at it.

Apologies if I made it sound that simple, because it's not. Sure, you can blow yourself up riding too much/too hard. You won't get a stress fracture or plantar fasciitis perhaps -- but you can hurt yourself. In my experience, AG cyclists get into trouble by making their intensity training too hard, with short intervals. By keeping the intervals sufficiently long, with even pacing, it's hard to overdo it.

This is why coaching matters. I've come to the conclusion that the mix of workouts and the year-long changes to that mix matter a lot. It's easy to design one workout or even three or five. Putting them into a successful program is the art form of coaching. I find two truths about the vast bulk of popular coaching books/programs/advice:

(1) They work. Pick a program and follow it and you'll get better. Good coaches have real-world practical experience. For the most part, coaching works as it is most widely practiced.

(2) The coaches almost always get the reasons why something works wrong (like HADD and even Lydiard, in some respects). Does that matter? Perhaps not. I like to find out the "Why" just because I'm curious (and self-coached).



Power=Endurance=Power=etc. What is "endurance"? Is it the ability to ride a given duration at a given power? Say, 5 hours at 200 watts? Then, "improved endurance" would mean to ride those same 5 hours at higher wattage; or to ride that same power for more hours.

Well, if your power over a 30 min TT goes up from 250 to 270, then your power over a 5 hour TT also goes up: from 200 to 210*; or you can ride your 200 watts for 5-1/2* hours. (*just using figures to illustrate the point; the specifics will vary.)

(note: this long-short connection does not necessarily hold for running -- just cycling).

So, workouts that raise your 30 min TT power can (and usually will) improve your "endurance" at longer efforts. We still need to train long to race long, but the shorter Z3-4 efforts (again: properly applied) will raise the power at which we can train and race long.

BTW -- not Zone 5 though. Well, Z5 workouts do improve short TT power, but you can't do very many of them. Z2-Z4 workouts, properly blended, will do more for both 30 min and 5 hour TT power. Z5 is nice for a final peak for a race, or to use to try to break out of a plateau, but doesn't really need to be a core part of triathlon training.