BikeTechReview.com

wasfast wrote:


Congrats on the positive results! I think Seth and I last did some of the same races in 2005, but the past few years haven't seen me get out much!

Ron Ruff wrote:


I did it during several seasons...years ago. I found that I just got really good at riding slow. Several of my colleagues did those blocks too, and they were adimate that it worked and that it was necessary...until they changed coaches or just stopped doing them on thier own. There was even a belief going around back then that one needed to do all of these weeks of large volumes at really low, controlled intensities in order to effectively build capillaries and fat burning...but the trick was that you couldn't go hard because that would "burst" those new vessels. It's kind of humbling to see those those beliefs pretty much vaporize. I still hear about them every once in a while. It's interesting how things trickle around the cycling world...through word of mouth, a book here or there, or the interwebs. A classic example involves one of my former colleagues. He is a strong proponent of getting in "big endurace miles" to start every season. I've seen his example used to justify/encourage folks to prepare for their seasons with a big block of easy riding...more the better. The problem is...I have hands on experience with my ex-colleague...and those "big endurance miles" have plenty of going hard included in them and the races he prepares for have little resemblence to they races the other folks would be training for!

SteveI wrote:


You are doing a fill ride very similar to how I would (generally, I would do them leading up to an event which might require a specific fill demand or if I felt that generally "filling things in" would be helpful, on top of a base of raise the left training). I would not worry about the zone stuff (despite using them for years, I have grown to no longer understand their utility/reasoning, particularly when using power), I would just focus on the maximal power you can sustain for those rides... essentially, a 2-3 hour TT...which, from what it sounds like, is exactly what you are doing. 2-3 hour TT's generally exceed the single one-day fill intensity demands anyone will see in any local/regional race...and most domestic professional events. Yeah, you should be pretty trashed...and improvement can be very quick...within a few rides for a given 20MP status. I also wouldn't worry about having to recover fast. Less training is often better given that it is the frequency, and spacing, of sufficient overload, coupled with sufficient recovery, that truly matters (this can be essentially blind to weekly hour goals within limits)...with particular note that recovery can vary significantly within an individual.

If you care to, please ask specific questions. I've been known to not get my thoughts across very well!

This is how I used to approach those long rides as well, basically think about holding the best wattage I could hold for the entire time like a TT. This is very different than the "usual" winter base ride, esp those done with a group as those rides tend to have a lot more high-end work, and a lot of things in zone 1 and below (often 25% of the ride time).

SteveI wrote:


2.5 to 6 hrs. Typically 3-4 hrs. Usually 3 days per week with a couple easy trainer spins. The rides were always about as hard as I could manage for the duration. From Oct to Feb I did nothing else except for 2 TTs up the ski road (~40 minutes)... and I set PRs by a good margin.

Kirk wrote:


I don't ride slow... it's always close to what I could possibly do for the duration. It's steady pace and always <60MP even on climbs.

I was as amazed as anyone. I've been trying to get off the perpetual plateau for many years. I don't know the precise reason why this worked for me. Burst blood vessels? Maybe not, but something. Maybe it is simply an odd reaction to being hit by a truck a few months earlier and thinking I was dead...

It still remains to be seen if I will perform better at races this year. In short TTs my power seems to be right where it was at the peak last summer. Surely I'll be able to improve that with some interval training...

The last time I filled the right it took me about four maximal rides of around 4 hours to get it done...I kept after it for much longer than that, but, in hindsight, it was counterproductive:

linky-link

Kirk wrote:

Thanks for your insights, Kirk, a lot of what you say matches well with my own experience.

I will just say that some people do seem to get good results from a low intensity winter, and I have a feeling it comes down to genetic differences in baseline and trainability of different physiological characteristics. E.g. we know that baseline and trainability of VO2max both have genetic factors. If someone has a good baseline VO2max, but poor trainability, then high intensity intervals aren't going to do a lot for them. Someone else might have a poor VO2max baseline, but great trainability, and they find they get great results from high intensity intervals, and their performance drops off a lot when they stop doing them.

Ron Ruff wrote:


This sounds like quality "fill" training and not traditional "base" stuff. FWIW...if these were near maximal efforts for the duration, it is quite likely that you had some progressive recruitment of motor units normally associated with higher power outputs towards the end of those rides even if the gross power distribution (ie a histogram) over the weeks was truly capped off. I prefer to target those motor units in a more specific/high-quality manner. FWIW...I set PR's for durations just longer than sprint efforts all the way out to 3+ hour TT's (I didn't try longer ones) with a low-volume, "raise the left" focussed theme where the "fill" training was minimal and specific.

Ron Ruff wrote:


My use of "slow" is relative to the demands of the events I did.

kraig wrote:


It took me 3...but I wasn't doing an IronMan.

SteveI wrote:


Yeah, folks do have good results with a low intensity winter. I just don't think it is necessary or addresses efficiency that thoroughly in the process. All of the folks who I have experience with who have either done low intensity pre-season plans or use that in their coaching themes have all been very clear that top fitness comes after including high intensity.

A couple thoughts here...

Baseline and trainability of maximal O2 uptake certainly includes a genetic component...mostly due to cardiac factors and exercise history (IMO). However, high intensity intervals train/develop adaptations which apply to all intensities (mitochondrial density, capillarity, etc.)...noting that some of that stuff doesn't apply as well to very short sprint efforts. A couple things I like to keep in mind these days are that high intensity intervals recruit the motor units involved at lower intensities, and adaptations from high intensity can be independent of changes in VO2max. Anyone who stops doing high intensity intervals will very likely detrain some portion of their performance profile by not recruiting (in general) higher powered motor units...which may or may not change one's VO2.

I've gotten huge gains from high-intensity. The problem is that any gains were essentially over after ~5 months of work, starting at zero. Like... 70% gains in 5-60min efforts. Then I didn't improve anymore. I've started from zero twice in my life with the same result.

When I'm already conditioned, I seem to max out after only 2 sessions. Say I start doing 6x4min intervals weekly... I'll be better on the second week than the first, but no improvement on the 3,4,5th weeks. It seems for me that a base of endurance riding, with intervals only to get ready for a race, works the best... but you and Kraig seem to be advocating the opposite. But that is pretty close to what I've done in the past with poor results. Last fall I needed ~25 exclusive endurance rides before I maxed out that capability... performing substantially better than I've ever seen before.

Are already trained and dedicated cyclists hitting PRs using the approach you advocate? I can imagine it works pretty well if you are very time limited, but I'm skeptical about it being the best approach otherwise. It certainly hasn't been true in my case, and not in the cases cited in the article at the beginning of this thread.

Ron Ruff wrote:


I have no idea of the details of your training or how it was structured in the past, so I can't comment as to how it compares to how I or Kraig structure and execute things. I will say that given your example of 24 minutes per week of going hard, I wouldn't expect much improvement either if I was already well conditioned. When you mention needing 25 endurance rides to max out your ability in 2-4 hour TT's, that seems like a lot compared to the training structure I would recommend.

Most folks don't discuss their training ideas or progress publicly...I will say that training is very robust with many paths to the same performance. I don't understand how time limitations make a difference in finding one's potential. It's pretty surprising how infrequent bouts of adequate overload need to be for progression to take place, meaning that time can potentially be rather unimportant regardless of one's training plan (IMO and IME).

There is a link earlier in this thread where the article was discussed. The author appears to be questioning the value of tempo to 60MP intensities, or rather, 1-4 hour TT efforts.

Along the lines of this thread...in critical care medicine, getting folks off of a ventilator fast improves morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, the diaphragm deconditions very quickly (just like any muscle). So, getting off the ventilator requires training up the diaphragm with the goal being the “all day endurance” of breathing...sometimes with lung compliance still being elevated, meaning that it is actually harder than normal to breath. Folks get off the ventilator, and get that “all day endurance”, quicker when basically doing higher intensity breathing bouts as opposed to just a gradual taper off of breathing assistance. An interesting parallel perhaps...FWIW.

Another thing along the lines of this thread...in the context of how often one needs to train and the overall volume (say, within a week), I think it is important to consider the time-course of the training stimulus, genetic signaling, genetic expression, and the functional assimilation of that expression. For example, if one chooses to overload more than about once every 3-5 days or maybe 3 times in 2 weeks, much of the signal (assuming that one is actually overloading) could effectively be redundant. There's probably a point where progression will be slowed down by too frequent overload, even if still feeling OK on the bike.

Of note though...some of the metabolic enzymes appear to up-regulate almost overnight (ie "fat burning" enzymes for a given mitochondrial density).

Any thoughts?

Well...I read the whole damn thing, the commentary too. What I took from it is that most elites train 80% lower intensity, 20% higher intensity as the big race approaches quantity decreases a bit and that 20% high intensity gets a bit higher in intensity, the 80% low intensity gets a bit lower. And training volume seems to matter.

But I've been on an unstructured intensity kick for about as long as I've been riding (since '92). If it's short, get some hard efforts in. Long? Well long and hard is good too. Most years I get 200-250 hours of training in and at 187 pounds and a max for 60 minutes of 320 watts I'm sitting at 3.77 watts/kg, good enough for a (barely) sub 57 min. 40K and enough to occasionally get on the podium in the 35+ class 4 cyclocross races (I'm 42...and maybe a sandbagger?)

I can't complain, I'm happy enough with the results...but sometimes I wonder if a real "periodization" plan and more volume would be better...like a lot of guys I'm sure. I have been able to maintain decent fitness with a really limited time on the trainer in the fall and winter so I have seen that work....but to move up to the next level of performance probably requires doing something different and if you're already doing a couple of really intense workouts a week...and not in your 20's anymore...volume starts looking pretty good.

One of you guys said something like "maybe it wasn't the big mile weeks that made me fast when I was a cat 1 (or pro or whatever), maybe it was the 60 minutes of hard efforts that I got in during the week of high mileage" but isn't it possible that the "slow" miles weren't slow enough and that limited the intensity of the hard efforts?

And is it possible that high intensity training works better for a guy that has a ton of miles in his legs already and not so good for somebody without that big low intensity base?

Anyway, just a few comments and questions, thanks for posting the link to the article

Joe

Fastskiguy wrote:


A guy that has done large volumes in the big picture for periods in the past has no advantage when training intensely over someone who has not done large volumes of easy stuff. That is a myth that is often repeated IMO. Folks who do large volumes always also have a history of going hard too, and I have not heard specifically how folks genuinely justify the low intensity benefit. Regaining fitness is generally faster than forging new ground, but that's about it for the advantages of having any training history.

If anyone hears a good justification as to what unique adaptation resulting from exclusively large volumes of low intensity enables high intensity training success despite the removal of the stimulus, please less me know! I've been searching for years for one.

Ron Ruff wrote:


Ron,

I've heard through the interwebs that you are having some trouble on your longer rides these days. From what I've heard, it sounds a lot like fatigue may have snuck up on you. My experience is that over-doing the hours (the number of hours required is variable between people, IME) can induce a fatigue that one doesn't notice right away...it can take weeks to months to show itself enough for folks to pick up on it. The way I have seen it manifest is via unusual fatigue at intensities which should be able to be maintained easily...kind of like starting out on a tempo ride and having one's body start shutting down early (despite being fully fueled and feeling relatively recovered from the immediately preceding rides) way earlier than it should. It also doesn't feel like the normal acute fatigue one typically gets during a normal training ride. It sounds like you may need to take some time off and rest. My experience is that this type of fatigue takes weeks to months to fully recover from since it isn't just muscular or fueling-related fatigue...if indeed this is what you are experiencing. Best of luck figuring things out. I hope you get back on track soon.

[quote/]
A guy that has done large volumes in the big picture for periods in the past has no advantage when training intensely over someone who has not done large volumes of easy stuff. That is a myth that is often repeated IMO. Folks who do large volumes always also have a history of going hard too, and I have not heard specifically how folks genuinely justify the low intensity benefit. Regaining fitness is generally faster than forging new ground, but that's about it for the advantages of having any training history.

If anyone hears a good justification as to what unique adaptation resulting from exclusively large volumes of low intensity enables high intensity training success despite the removal of the stimulus, please less me know! I've been searching for years for one.[/quote]

So that whole idea of getting 100-200-300 hours of low intensity riding in before any high intensity stuff in order to get a lot of capillaries isn't based on much fact? And the idea if you go hard during that time you destroy all of the "budding capillaries" so it's critical to go easy in that period? I mean, you've got to admit it sounds good, right? But the idea that "you go fast by going fast" sounds good too LOL

I've ordered the book "base training for cyclists" so I'll report back after I read it.

Also I wonder if there is a difference in regaining old fitness vs. breaking new ground and setting new PR's later in life. I want to break some ground!

Thanks for all of the comments

Joe

Fastskiguy wrote:


There's not much fact about low intensities driving capillary development that I know of. It is actually seems to favor the opposite or high intensities. There is a family of gene transcription modulators called HIT's (hypoxia inducible factors) which are significant players in the chain of factors which lead to the development of blood vessels. Low intensity doesn't really elicit hypoxia to any great extent at the cellular level...mostly because low relative intensities by definition are enabled by prior aerobic adaptation processes. Additionally, shear forces on vessel walls from high rates of blood flow is hypothesized to induce the development of vessels (noting that it is hard to distinguish the role of HIT's and shear forces since they tend to occur at the same time). Blood flow states are much higher with high intensity, so low intensity riding is likely to have a limited role in capillary development compared to high intensity when speaking of shear forces as well. What the whole bursting capillary thing is based on is a mystery to me. If that was the case, there would be a lot of blood leaking out into folk's legs...never hear of or seen that regardless of the capillary-forming stimulus part.

Regaining old fitness sure seems a lot easier to me than breaking new ground!

I guess it would be odd if high intensity did not lead to more ability at high intensity....and it "seems" like low intensity might not necessarily lead to more ability at high intensity....but there has to be something to "old wives tails"...doesn't there?

Fastskiguy wrote:


My experience with old wives tales in medicine is that they often appear to "work"...because, 90+% of the time most people will recover from illness/injury on their own if given enough time. It's only the other 10% where they don't work...(speaking philosophically). So, they look like good therapy!

I think training is robust in much the same way. The interesting part to me is when one truly explores what matters and what is old wives tale.

Well I'm in the medicine business and there is some truth to that....90% (or something) of the time things just get better due to the amazing healing properties of animals (humans included!)

I read "base training for cyclists" and they definitely are promoting "you need to slow down to get faster later in the year". I looked back over the last several years of my training and my highest outputs were a couple (like 2) months after some big miles. Whether it was the Trans Iowa (www.transiowa.blogspot.com/) or a randonneur series (www.glrrando.org/) I was able to hit some high numbers. This year I tried to get back to those levels and just couldn't (max this year was 324w for 25 min., other years were 335-340) but I didn't have many long miles in the spring.

'Course there could be a million reasons why the other years were better...but I think I might try a real "base period" this winter and spring.

No disrespect to other ideas out there, I'm sure looking for results and am happy to change any opinion for a decent reason If I can bust out some big numbers next August after a big base period that might mean something. If not then maybe I'm just getting old LOL

Joe

Just a couple of thoughts…the time-course of adaptation is generally within a few days if resting properly. So, any unique benefit of the long rides you did was likely in hand immediately afterwards and then faded away after the unique stimulus was removed. Does that sounds reasonable? For myself, when I have had sub-par power numbers for comparable tests, it has almost always been a function of training consistency in the preceding weeks/months, predominantly the higher intensity stuff.

Does the author of the book discuss specific, unique adaptations that results from volumes of riding slowly and/or avoiding high intensity intervals? Is any specific mechanism discussed for the down-stream benefits?

25 years ago, I was told the same thing…riding slow/avoiding hard intervals for many weeks would make you faster later. Ya know, have discipline and “don’t be a winter champion”. After doing it multiple seasons and working with input from different people, and then trying other techniques, I did not find that held up as necessary or uniquely beneficial. IOW, there are many ways to the same performance. I really haven’t come across the basis for needing to go slow and/or avoiding high intensities either. I think a lot of the general reasoning stems from echoes out of the running literature, and running-related injury issues, which gets projected onto cycling as practical. Ya know, stuff that just gets repeated in the literature and in educational materials which probably doesn't have cycling-specific utility.

Out of curiosity, if I was to start coaching again, or tried to get fit again, what does anyone out there perceive a generic training plan of mine would look like for a master’s bike racer (or a pro athlete for that matter)?