if I consume the human flesh of a top endurance athlete will I absorb their power?
I read that chart a couple years ago. From personal experience speaking I think this is true for most people that train on a time-budget. If you can only train 10-20hrs a week I think that your time is better spent incorporating high intensity work in most of your sessions at all times of the season.
With unlimited time available though I still believe that one would get more physiological adaptations and benefits from putting in serious base miles/training
Keep in mind that that table is only meant to reflect the relative impact of training at different intensities on different physiological parameters when duration is (roughly speaking) fixed.
Sorry to bring this old thread back to life but your (AC’s) comment above has been bugging me ever since I read it. That table is potentially quite powerful, imho, so I’d like to further understand the piece specifically on duration.
Physiological adaptations only occur over a period of time and I believe the minimal period of time is usually 6 - 8 weeks. So, are you saying that table is only applicable if the training weeks during something like an 8-week block are all fixed to the same amount of training time, eg, 15hrs? IOW, if that 8-week block had slight increases in duration each week or every other week, for example, then the relative impact at different intensity levels changes enough to make that table inaccurate?
Thanks, Chris
Sorry to bring this old thread back to life but your (AC’s) comment above has been bugging me ever since I read it. That table is potentially quite powerful, imho, so I’d like to further understand the piece specifically on duration.
Physiological adaptations only occur over a period of time and I believe the minimal period of time is usually 6 - 8 weeks. So, are you saying that table is only applicable if the training weeks during something like an 8-week block are all fixed to the same amount of training time, eg, 15hrs? IOW, if that 8-week block had slight increases in duration each week or every other week, for example, then the relative impact at different intensity levels changes enough to make that table inaccurate?
Thanks, Chris
My understanding (not ex-phys):
While the physiological adaptations happen slowly over the course of training, each individual workout’s contribution to the adaptation is separate and independent of all others. Today’s workout will have the same effect on you regardless of what you do, or don’t do, tomorrow. The effect of tomorrow’s workout will of course be different.
Don’t read the chart as ‘40 workouts in level 4 will cause a 1 unit change in x, y, and z’. Instead think of it as ‘1 workout in level 4 will cause a 1/40 unit change in x,y, and z’. This is of course ignoring diminishing returns. The chart is certainly valid for a mixed training plan - as almost everyone does, especially in the late season.
The table is not inaccurate; however, one’s understanding and application thereof may be. ;-0)
Which is exactly why I’m asking the question. I’m not claiming the table is inaccurate. However, AC obviously felt compelled to make a very specific comment implying that it could easily be misinterpreted. I was previously under the impression that the table was pretty damn straightforward so maybe I’m just reading too much into his comment. However, here’s where I’m going with this:
First off, I’m not sure what to make of Andrew V’s post because I don’t specifically think in terms of:
Don’t read the chart as ‘40 workouts in level 4 will cause a 1 unit change in x, y, and z’. Instead think of it as ‘1 workout in level 4 will cause a 1/40 unit change in x,y, and z’.
I try to look at a table like this and see how I can apply it strategically to my training. For example, let’s talk about SST for the moment. It’s quite clear to me how this table easily establishes the value basis for SST. Let’s take this a step further and say the same relative impact should apply equally to running (at least in theory). The obvious caveat would be that the impact forces of running would make a focus on SST quite challenging to pull off in reality. However, it helps dispel the belief that there is true physiological value in certain protocols like MAF. IOW, through the use of this table I can start tossing aside certain protocols when I start to define my training in more detail.
Thanks, Chris
Physiological adaptations only occur over a period of time and I believe the minimal period of time is usually 6 - 8 weeks. So, are you saying that table is only applicable if the training weeks during something like an 8-week block are all fixed to the same amount of training time, eg, 15hrs? IOW, if that 8-week block had slight increases in duration each week or every other week, for example, then the relative impact at different intensity levels changes enough to make that table inaccurate?
Thanks, Chris
It’s not the case that the minimal time for physiological adaptions to occur is six weeks, but regardless I don’t believe that was the context of AC’s comment.
I’m guessing his comment was in reference to the weighting of different intensities as to their effectiveness on various energy stems, i.e. L6 is more effective at training vo2 than L3 given a fixed time. OTOH, 4 hours at L3 may have a greater effect on vo2 than 10 minutes at L6 (which is why it’s correct to say 'given a fixed time, L6 training is more effective for raising vo2 than L3, whereas it’s not necessarily correct to say ‘L6 is more effective than L3 at raising vo2’).
I think that’s what he was getting at with that comment (that the fixed time was in regard to a particular session of training). I’m sure he’ll correct me if he disagrees…
It’s not the case that the minimal time for physiological adaptions to occur is six weeks, but regardless I don’t believe that was the context of AC’s comment.
Yeah, sorry, I shouldn’t have emphasized minimal. The minimal time period isn’t really a significant issue within my point. I was just trying to set up an example.
I’m guessing his comment was in reference to the weighting of different intensities as to their effectiveness on various energy stems, i.e. L6 is more effective at training vo2 than L3 given a fixed time. OTOH, 4 hours at L3 may have a greater effect on vo2 than 10 minutes at L6 (which is why it’s correct to say 'given a fixed time, L6 training is more effective for raising vo2 than L3, whereas it’s not necessarily correct to say ‘L6 is more effective than L3 at raising vo2’).
Yes, your response above appeared to me as the obvious answer. Either way, it doesn’t really matter since it’s obvious nobody is going to bite on where I was trying to go with all of this.
Thanks, Chris
Training also effects how your heart functions, and no doubt there are small changes in your lungs occuring also.
Getting your body to the right race weight and shape for yourself is also important.
It is well established that long distance training is required to improve your endurance capacity. To keep that long distance training interesting you will need some rolling hills, bigger hills etc. Varying the intensity will help keep it interesting also. You need breaks and some training changes to keep the motivation.
Exact training intensities will vary from person to person depending on their current physiology.
Thinking at the cellular level is interesting, but to really determine what is going on there would require testing of a variety of biochemicals produced and used by the body before, during and post exercise. And muscle biopsies also would help.
Only teams or government backed athletes and scientists will be able to afford such testing programmes I would say.
I don’t think there is one formula that fits all people. As Frank Day pointed out technique is very important.
More focus on technique here on ‘ST’ and by the individual/coach would be more useful than the latest bike or training intensities.
G.
“However, it helps dispel the belief that there is true physiological value in certain protocols like MAF. IOW, through the use of this table I can start tossing aside certain protocols when I start to define my training in more detail.”
It is good that you BELIEVE…
in replacing one erroneous model with another.
Plenty of believers out there but not enough serious scientists…
I don’t think there is one formula that fits all people. As Frank Day pointed out technique is very important.
More focus on technique here on ‘ST’ and by the individual/coach would be more useful than the latest bike or training intensities.
Funny, I think people focus way too much on technique even in swimming where it definitely matters the most. I’m not saying it’s not important (double negative), because we all know it is, but I’d say individuals and especially coaches focus way too much on prescribing “fancy” stuff. I think all of these discussions on training protocols are highly overrated. I believe a coaches best value depends on the individual (eg, novice vs someone with years of experience) but in general I believe they are best served by doing the following:
- Helping the athlete keep things simple
- Helping the athlete understand how to determine ‘max stimulus.’ This involves a deep understanding of how to effectively*** apply and balance*** their training load.
We talk a lot about how specific training protocols seem to work best for the run or for the bike, separately, but we rarely if ever talk about how these training protocols likely go to hell when you mix something like 5hrs of running with 10hrs of cycling.
For example, how is my 80% E pace/12% M pace/8% T pace running program impacted when I throw in my 30% IM power/50% HIM power/20% threshold power cycling program??? Might that change the effectiveness of the former program? I think so. In addition, for all of those individuals who believe that specific adaptations only occur by running or cycling at specific intensities, what happens when I do all of my “hard” riding on days when I run “easy”? I ask because that’s basically what we all have to do. We can’t mix hard running with hard cycling on the same day and I don’t think our bodies really understand the difference between running and cycling. They just know what we’re performing at a specific intensity.
Thanks, Chris
“However, it helps dispel the belief that there is true physiological value in certain protocols like MAF. IOW, through the use of this table I can start tossing aside certain protocols when I start to define my training in more detail.”
It is good that you BELIEVE…
in replacing one erroneous model with another.
Plenty of believers out there but not enough serious scientists…
Ok. Then please inform me on the correct model. The only thing this so-called model says is that we experience a wide range of physiological adaptations at a wide range of intensities. You can argue about the accuracy of the relative impact all you want but I’m all ears if you choose to argue with the accuracy of the above statement.
Have at it…
EDIT: Sorry, one of my pet peeves is that you NEVER tell someone they’re wrong without providing a reason as to why you think they’re wrong. You provided me with nothing so here’s your opportunity.
Thanks, Chris
" Huh? Don’t you think when one decides to become an aerobic endurance athlete one should give up on becoming an anerobic speed athlete? There are those few events that require a combination of these two systems but triathlon (even sprint triathlon) is not one of them. Speed in an aerobic athlete will mostly come from good technique or form (combined with an awesome aerobic capacity) and not from using the fast twitch muscles, IMHO. "
As much as I agree on specificity I think it’s a bit far out there to think that a sprint triathlon or even a half doesn’t require the recruitment of type II fibers and the anaerobic energy systems. I don’t think that training at “low intensity” only will get you very far.
From personal experience, a huge base period early in the season followed by structured training sessions that include high intensity intervals once recovered from the base period, is the way to go - at least for me personally. I guess one could argue that you could achieve the same by doing more high intensity work but from personal experience, I simply never got to the point to where I recovered as fast as I did post-high intensity workouts as I did during the season where I had a MASSIVE base (on low intensity). Even if you could get the same physiological adaptations (e.g. mitochondrial density, aerobic enzyme density, capillary density) from high intensity sessions as you can from doing serious base mile at low(er) intensities; I don’t think that early in the season you could do enough high intensity work to get the same benefit as you can get from doing the high volume, low intensity work. Sure, you can get tired from long base sessions but from my experience you can always recover from those while the high intensity work early in the season wipe you out.
That said, unless you can do serious base miles, which 99.9% of the AG Triathlete don’t do, I think you’re better of to incorporate high(er) intensity work throughout the season, including early on.
edit: my definition of serious base miles is 6-10hrs/day for two weeks or so with a couple of easy days in between to get you to about 50+hrs for the week.
who the hell does 50+ hours of training in ONE week?!?!??!?!?!?!?
I should have put a clause at the bottom of my last post on this thread saying :
The above is just a general statement. To be more specific, I think the majority of age group athletes could do with improving their technique in at least one or more of the 3 triathlon disciplines. With longer distance triathlon nutrition is another discipline and with sprint triathlon the transition becomes abigger factor also.
Someone who is a top 10 ITU pro obviously has their technique pretty sorted, but even then small changes could improve times.
Here is something more specific on miochondria from a link off my website :
NADH and FADH2: the electron transport chain Main articles: Electron transport chain and Oxidative phosphorylation Diagram of the electron transport chain in the mitonchondrial intermembrane space
The redox energy from NADH and FADH2 is transferred to oxygen (O2) in several steps via the electron transport chain. These energy-rich molecules are produced within the matrix via the citric acid cycle but are also produced in the cytoplasm by glycolysis. Reducing equivalents from the cytoplasm can be imported via the malate-aspartate shuttle system of antiporter proteins or feed into the electron transport chain using a glycerol phosphate shuttle. Protein complexes in the inner membrane (NADH dehydrogenase, cytochrome c reductase, and cytochrome c oxidase) perform the transfer and the incremental release of energy is used to pump protons (H+) into the intermembrane space. This process is efficient, but a small percentage of electrons may prematurely reduce oxygen, forming reactive oxygen species such as superoxide. This can cause oxidative stress in the mitochondria and may contribute to the decline in mitochondrial function associated with the aging process.
As the proton concentration increases in the intermembrane space, a strong electrochemical gradient is established across the inner membrane. The protons can return to the matrix through the ATP synthase complex, and their potential energy is used to synthesize ATP from ADP and inorganic phosphate (Pi). This process is called chemiosmosis, and was first described by Peter Mitchell who was awarded the 1978 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work. Later, part of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Paul D. Boyer and John E. Walker for their clarification of the working mechanism of ATP synthase.
- Helping the athlete keep things simple
- Helping the athlete understand how to determine ‘max stimulus.’ This involves a deep understanding of how to effectively*** apply and balance*** their training load.
We talk a lot about how specific training protocols seem to work best for the run or for the bike, separately, but we rarely if ever talk about how these training protocols likely go to hell when you mix something like 5hrs of running with 10hrs of cycling.
Thanks, Chris
G’day Chris,
I agree with No 1 we definitely need to keep things simple. In terms of No 2 I’d be weary of helping an athlete understand how to determine ‘max stimulus’. What I tend to do with my athletes is help them develop an undertanding of the ‘demands of the event’. Once athletes undrerstand this concept, I feel they are then able to apply more realistic levels of intensity and volume.
The demands of the event will be dependent on the length of the event, course profile, weather, etc. We look at those aspects in terms of how they are going to impact on the athlete and from there we address those aspects in training, with specific training sessions.
Be careful using the word ‘max’.
In relation to Coggans table, I have always viewed it as being… do this amount of time at this level of effort and expect this sort of adaptation (ie the table with the ticks, table 2). What I find is that as you increase the intensity it gives you more ‘ticks’ i.e more adaptations, but it greatly reduces the time that you can spend at that higher level of intensity. For example, at you get lots of adaptations (more ‘ticks’) occuring at level 5 but you are restricted to only doing 30-40minutes of total work, AND consecutive days of training at level 5 is not possible. However, at level 2, for example, much less ‘ticks’ but you can back up as your reocvery in between these sessions is only 24hours. So over the course of a week you’ll accumulate more ‘ticks’ and therefore more overload, IF you have the time.
If I was to compare training at level 2 and level 5 over the course of a week I think I could accumulate a lot more ‘ticks’ (table 2) at level 2 and therefore experience greater adaptations. That is where I think Coggan’s table can be misleading.
paul
Mr. Chondria, in which Olympics were you a participant?
Nothing wrong with training the way one should train if you want to maximize your season. I don’t race pro and neither did I participate in the Olympics. I just wanted to put in a good season one year and building a HUGE base with serious miles and multiple 10+ hrs day in a week did wonders for me. Of course I followed that with many high intensity intervals in the months after. I build my base on a round trip from LA to San Francisco in the winter of 2003 and I had major headwind both ways.
G’day Chris,
I agree with No 1 we definitely need to keep things simple. In terms of No 2 I’d be weary of helping an athlete understand how to determine ‘max stimulus’. What I tend to do with my athletes is help them develop an undertanding of the ‘demands of the event’. Once athletes undrerstand this concept, I feel they are then able to apply more realistic levels of intensity and volume.
The demands of the event will be dependent on the length of the event, course profile, weather, etc. We look at those aspects in terms of how they are going to impact on the athlete and from there we address those aspects in training, with specific training sessions.
Be careful using the word ‘max’.
In relation to Coggans table, I have always viewed it as being… do this amount of time at this level of effort and expect this sort of adaptation (ie the table with the ticks, table 2). What I find is that as you increase the intensity it gives you more ‘ticks’ i.e more adaptations, but it greatly reduces the time that you can spend at that higher level of intensity. For example, at you get lots of adaptations (more ‘ticks’) occuring at level 5 but you are restricted to only doing 30-40minutes of total work, AND consecutive days of training at level 5 is not possible. However, at level 2, for example, much less ‘ticks’ but you can back up as your reocvery in between these sessions is only 24hours. So over the course of a week you’ll accumulate more ‘ticks’ and therefore more overload, IF you have the time.
If I was to compare training at level 2 and level 5 over the course of a week I think I could accumulate a lot more ‘ticks’ (table 2) at level 2 and therefore experience greater adaptations. That is where I think Coggan’s table can be misleading.
paul
Hey Paul!! Nice to discuss again. 
Yes, you’ll notice that I have reverted back from using “max training load” to using “max stimulus.” I did this for a reason and it pertains to your comment on why we need to be careful using the word “max.” In any case, I’m making a really big assumption that people understand what max stimulus means and now that I think about it more I’m willing to be that they don’t. It can actually be a bit complicated, imho. I’ll explain below (in a couple of paragraphs).
I believe your interpretation of the table is slightly off but it might just be because of the way you explained it in writing. The relative impact, ie, # of ticks, for a given physiological parameter isn’t necessarily higher as intensity increases. I don’t think that would surprise you although that’s how I interpreted your explanation above.
I also believe that you used the word “overload” incorrectly. More ticks definitely does not equate to more overload and that leads into my basic point. Which is:
Max stimulus is combination of applying progressive overload and balancing your training load. The significant words here are “progressive” and “balancing.” Progressive implies that there is an optimal level of overload that should be achieved, and an optimal timeframe for this overload to occur. An overload should not be increased too slowly or improvement is unlikely. Overload that is increased too rapidly will result in injury, muscle damage or, more likely, fatigue to the point where future workouts are impacted.
So, the relative impact on a given physiological parameter as specified in the table is entirely dependent on the occurrence of progressive overload. More relative impact (more ticks) doesn’t mean “more overload” as that actually might be counterproductive. It just means that you have to train at that level of intensity for an optimal period of time in order to achieve those # of ticks.
Just for clarity sake, the term overload states that a greater than normal stress or load on the body is required for training adaptation to take place. The body will adapt to this stimulus. Once the body has adapted then a different stimulus is required to continue the change. In order for a muscle, including the heart, to increase strength, it must be gradually stressed by working against a load greater than it is used to. For some odd reason, people seem to want to separate the heart from other muscles, hence I suspect the term “muscular endurance.”
Someone once accused me of hammering too hard on progressive overload. Well, hopefully now people understand why. It is probably the MOST fundamental principle in this sport. Maybe those MAF folks will do a little thinking before they decide to do a bunch of “slow” running for a long period of time which won’t get them anywhere close to achieving max stimulus.
Lastly, now try to pull off the above while doing mixed training across 3 disciplines and you the term “balancing your training load” takes on a whole new meaning. To this last point, what’s the overall intensity that my body actually experiences when I do 1 - 1.5hrs inserting 2 x 20 @ FTP + 1hr of E pace running? If I focus just on the cycling then it’s an intensity level associated with L4 but if I focus just on the running then it’s much lower. Unfortunately I’m sure my body doesn’t see it either way. Now add this up over an 8-week block + some progressive overload and tell me if I actually achieved max stimulus.
I believe the reason why most people don’t improve in their training is because they do one of two things:
- They never apply a progressive overload, they just maintain volume and intensity so they just maintain fitness.
- They apply too much overload. That can occur in many different forms but basically they fail to balance their training load.
Thanks, Chris
Reduce the delta-G in the muscle fiber to induce mitochondrial biogenesis. How and what fibers one does this too is where the training debate comes in. If energy demands can be met by the fiber there is no biological incentive to create more mitochondria.