So,…
I am going through some of my cycling books, and I run across a book by Michael J. Ross, M.D. In this book he makes a convincing argument that less work at a higher intensity yields better results than training with a high volume at lower intensity.
Is anybody familiar with his ideas? Do they work? Further, if a guy/gal was interested in doing races at Oly or less, then wouldn’t this theory be reasonably applicable?
Your going to get all types of responses. Check out the latest competitor radio interview with Olympic hopefuls where Mr. Schoemaker (sp?) states his weekly volume at 20K swimming, 8-10 hours biking, 40-55 running. Relatively low by Slowtwitch standards. ;0
Oh, and something about 3x2 mile intervals at 5:15 pace. Ouch.
“Relatively low by Slowtwitch standards. ;0”
Most of you guys/gals are beasts on this forum.
Given that I need to keep both my family and my colleagues at work happy, I am considering applying his theories. Dr. Ross’ theories make sense especially for the shorter distances, and I really do not have the time to devote to high training volumes.
Maybe Schoemaker is making Dr. Ross’ point.
Dr. Ross suggests the slower, base building, endurance-focused work preferentially causes the conversion of type II fibers to type I. This conversion results in a decrement of power. If sprint and Oly tri distances require a greater focus on power, then shouldn’t it make sense to focus on training that serves to maintain as many of the type II fibers as possible by minimizing the slow, endurance training?
Long story short
< 15-20 hours /week to train
Intensity
20 hours/week to train
Volume
.