An hour at zone 3, is it useful?

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

spartacus wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:51 pm
iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:12 pm
spartacus wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:59 pm
Can these 90 minute, low to moderate intensity rides be split up throughout the course of the week? What about adding in longer rides or intervals? What I’m taking away from this is that I can use my commute to get faster while not exhausting myself by pushing hard every day. I guess the trick is to try really hard to limit your heart rate, 60% max HR at most?
Basically yes. But rides of less than 45 minutes aren't really that useful unfortunately. I don't know your circumstances that well, but this long slow aerobic training requires more time than HIIT, so you will need to evaluate your goals and your lifestyle.
My commute is 45 minutes to an hour, but I can find a way to extend that, if so, I should shoot for 90 minutes each way? I’m wondering if twice a day will make this more effective, and assuming I’m doing 60-90 minutes twice a day 4-5 days a week, how often should I do higher intensity? Thank you for your insights.
I think 90 minutes each way is aggressive. That's a very high level of training. If you are highly fit and can recover, then go for it, but for the vast majority of people that would not be very realistic. Twice a day would be fine and minimize the risk of injury / fatigue (as compared to a signle 3 hour ride each day), keeping in mind that this won't prepare you for long 3+ hour events that you may have. If you're up for it, maybe throw in 5-10 minute segments of 80% HR every once in a while to give your system a good workout without overdoing it.

Before you ask how often you do high intensity workouts, you need to know why. Are you going to be racing? Shooting for KOMs or some major climbs? Is this more of a casual thing, or are you going to be targetting these types of events several times a month? Unless you are a racer, I don't think anyone should be doing more than one interval session a week, and in fact, I would say once every two weeks, or once a month, is plenty. You get such little gain from interval training but you lose so much.

Take an amateur (poor fitness) going up a big climb (say a 45 minute cimb), he's probably going to be at or near his AT for nearly the entire duration. So you may think, "oh, he needs more AT training." WRONG! You need to increase his basic cardio system, so he remains well below his AT for the entire duration (and only gets to AT maybe when attacking or the last segment sprint). Even well trained professionals can only maintain AT for 30-45 minutes max. Amateurs struggle to hold AT for 10 minutes. So just for a 10 minute segment of a 2-3 hour ride, you're going to devote an entire day of training each week? That makes no sense.

Vo2Max training is even more ridiculous when you think about the returns vs. costs since we almost never ride at Vo2Max. But it's a bit different because you can increase your Vo2Max, which actually raises your AT. There have been many studies on this as well, but it's much harder to raise your AT, than it is to decrease your HR for a given effort. So it's far more efficient to condition your body to do the same effort without getting anywhere close to your AT, than trying to raise your AT. Of course these marginal gains are critical for professionals, but for normal people like us? We're almost always better served never doing AT or Vo2Max training.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



AJS914
Posts: 4969
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

Thanks. That gives me something to think about. I'm actually in a unique position right now to ride as much as I want. My goal right now is to become as fit as I can be, smash the Saturday group ride, and catch up to some of the faster riders in my club. At 52 years old I have been finding recovery to be a challenge.

I would actually prefer to ride every day for stress relief and relaxation but I seem to manage about 5 days a week right now and one of those days is usally a very easy recovery hour. I'm actually riding about 8-10 hours per week. I should have specified that. My thinking on 2x3hr vs 3x2hr. was my slow base miles time. My week works out to about 6 hours M-F and 3 hours on Saturday with Sunday always off.

TheRich
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:04 pm
Vo2Max training is even more ridiculous when you think about the returns vs. costs since we almost never ride at Vo2Max. But it's a bit different because you can increase your Vo2Max, which actually raises your AT. There have been many studies on this as well, but it's much harder to raise your AT, than it is to decrease your HR for a given effort. So it's far more efficient to condition your body to do the same effort without getting anywhere close to your AT, than trying to raise your AT. Of course these marginal gains are critical for professionals, but for normal people like us? We're almost always better served never doing AT or Vo2Max training.
Professionals need little top end work because their top end is well developed. For those of us without a well developed top end, high intensity work does help.

spartacus
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 pm

by spartacus

iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:04 pm
spartacus wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:51 pm
iheartbianchi wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:12 pm
spartacus wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:59 pm
Can these 90 minute, low to moderate intensity rides be split up throughout the course of the week? What about adding in longer rides or intervals? What I’m taking away from this is that I can use my commute to get faster while not exhausting myself by pushing hard every day. I guess the trick is to try really hard to limit your heart rate, 60% max HR at most?
Basically yes. But rides of less than 45 minutes aren't really that useful unfortunately. I don't know your circumstances that well, but this long slow aerobic training requires more time than HIIT, so you will need to evaluate your goals and your lifestyle.
My commute is 45 minutes to an hour, but I can find a way to extend that, if so, I should shoot for 90 minutes each way? I’m wondering if twice a day will make this more effective, and assuming I’m doing 60-90 minutes twice a day 4-5 days a week, how often should I do higher intensity? Thank you for your insights.
I think 90 minutes each way is aggressive. That's a very high level of training. If you are highly fit and can recover, then go for it, but for the vast majority of people that would not be very realistic. Twice a day would be fine and minimize the risk of injury / fatigue (as compared to a signle 3 hour ride each day), keeping in mind that this won't prepare you for long 3+ hour events that you may have. If you're up for it, maybe throw in 5-10 minute segments of 80% HR every once in a while to give your system a good workout without overdoing it.

Before you ask how often you do high intensity workouts, you need to know why. Are you going to be racing? Shooting for KOMs or some major climbs? Is this more of a casual thing, or are you going to be targetting these types of events several times a month? Unless you are a racer, I don't think anyone should be doing more than one interval session a week, and in fact, I would say once every two weeks, or once a month, is plenty. You get such little gain from interval training but you lose so much.

Take an amateur (poor fitness) going up a big climb (say a 45 minute cimb), he's probably going to be at or near his AT for nearly the entire duration. So you may think, "oh, he needs more AT training." WRONG! You need to increase his basic cardio system, so he remains well below his AT for the entire duration (and only gets to AT maybe when attacking or the last segment sprint). Even well trained professionals can only maintain AT for 30-45 minutes max. Amateurs struggle to hold AT for 10 minutes. So just for a 10 minute segment of a 2-3 hour ride, you're going to devote an entire day of training each week? That makes no sense.

Vo2Max training is even more ridiculous when you think about the returns vs. costs since we almost never ride at Vo2Max. But it's a bit different because you can increase your Vo2Max, which actually raises your AT. There have been many studies on this as well, but it's much harder to raise your AT, than it is to decrease your HR for a given effort. So it's far more efficient to condition your body to do the same effort without getting anywhere close to your AT, than trying to raise your AT. Of course these marginal gains are critical for professionals, but for normal people like us? We're almost always better served never doing AT or Vo2Max training.
Thanks for the reply. I’m in OK shape, I did a 107 mile ride last weekend with 9000 feet of elevation and felt fine at the end. I could be / have been much fitter though, my main goal is to increase climbing ability, and secondary to increase 1-5 minute power and repeatability. My biggest issue is that it’s convenient and enjoyable to ride to work so I’m trying to integrate my commute into training. It’s 13.5 miles each way with minimal elevation and quite a few stops / intersections. I’m just thinking I need slightly more duration to get the maximum benefit if I understand what you’re saying. Lately I’ve been mostly trying to take it easy then do 2-3 efforts of 1-3 minute duration (all out) each day or every other day.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

TheRich wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:17 pm

Professionals need little top end work because their top end is well developed. For those of us without a well developed top end, high intensity work does help.
Thanks for your post. Although I completely disagree with this line of thinking, it will add a lot to this discussion!

First and foremost, we have to consider why and how professionals have highly-developed "top-end."
-is it because they did a lot of Vo2Max and AT training?
-is it because they have a huge aerobic engine, so it takes a LOT of effort to reach their Vo2Max and AT thresholds? (I think this is the case)
-how often to professionals do specific Vo2Max and AT training relative to a lot of aerobic base miles?

The answer is quite simply, outside of track cyclists on the velodrome (who are consistently hitting AT and near Vo2Max thresholds with HRs going well over 170 during their events), professional cyclists pack on a lot of miles, and will use races to "race themselves into shape."

Also, you really need to ask, why do we need to develop a top-end? What is a top-end and do we really need it?
-My point has always been, increase your aerobic engine to DELAY or PREVENT ever letting your heart hit the "top-end" of your HR. Your training should be devoted towards the goal that efforts that would typically put you at 80%+ of your MaxHR would now require only 80% or LESS of your MaxHR, so you can sustain this level of output for a greater period of time

Does this mean "top-end" training is absolutely useless? Of course not. But we differ in that I don't think the point of "top-end" training to be Vo2Max or AT, but rather:
-Biomechanical efficiency (more efficient pedal stroke)
-Muscular development (pushing more watts builds a certain type of muscle fibers that is helpful in power generation through the lower body)
-In essence, it is STRENGTH training

I liken this to an analogy between a Toyota and a Ferrari. At a Grand Prix, the Ferrari, already fast, will get a lot of tuning (top-end) done to make it even faster. Take the Toyota...you can do as much tuning as you want, but it's not going to be that fast. What we, as amateurs are trying to do, is build the BASE engine so it is no longer a Toyota but becomes a Ferrari. Putting as many "top-end" modifications on a Toyota will only get you so far, but cost you a lot of money and time!
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

AJS914 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:11 pm
Thanks. That gives me something to think about. I'm actually in a unique position right now to ride as much as I want. My goal right now is to become as fit as I can be, smash the Saturday group ride, and catch up to some of the faster riders in my club. At 52 years old I have been finding recovery to be a challenge.

I would actually prefer to ride every day for stress relief and relaxation but I seem to manage about 5 days a week right now and one of those days is usally a very easy recovery hour. I'm actually riding about 8-10 hours per week. I should have specified that. My thinking on 2x3hr vs 3x2hr. was my slow base miles time. My week works out to about 6 hours M-F and 3 hours on Saturday with Sunday always off.
Unless Sunday is off for a specific reason (you just don't want to ride everyday), I think especially at your age, slow consistent training + weight training would be your best bet! And you also need to maximize your HGH production at your age (don't worry, I'm not spring chicken myself!) so going on more rides more often is also key. Pushing the pedals really hard and tiring yourself out is not only reckless but probably not very effective.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

spartacus wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:33 pm

Thanks for the reply. I’m in OK shape, I did a 107 mile ride last weekend with 9000 feet of elevation and felt fine at the end. I could be / have been much fitter though, my main goal is to increase climbing ability, and secondary to increase 1-5 minute power and repeatability. My biggest issue is that it’s convenient and enjoyable to ride to work so I’m trying to integrate my commute into training. It’s 13.5 miles each way with minimal elevation and quite a few stops / intersections. I’m just thinking I need slightly more duration to get the maximum benefit if I understand what you’re saying. Lately I’ve been mostly trying to take it easy then do 2-3 efforts of 1-3 minute duration (all out) each day or every other day.
This all sounds fine. Duration and miles is (my rough guess) 95% of the equation. Unless you have filled the 95% bucket to 100% capacity, spending an egregious amount of time to increase the 5% is not very efficient.

The only thing you should ask yourself is, what is the point of your 2-3 efforts of 1-3 minute durations? Why is it 2-3 efforts? Why is is 1-3 minutes? Is Why not do 5 efforts of 45 seconds each? Or 10 efforts of 30 seconds each? Or 1 effort of 5 minute each? Well, this would all depend on the purpose. And there are several valid purposes:
-biomechanical efficiency (then shorter 30 second bursts are fine)
-muscular strength (then shorter 60 second bursts are fine, or you can go to the gym and do squats and leg exercises for much better gains)
-AT (then 3-5 minutes would be better)
-Vo2Max (you can't achieve this with your current ride structure...you would need to get your HR up fairly high already, then really push hard and keep bouncing off as close to your MaxHR as possible for as many reps as you can handle, but this would be an intense workout)

More likely, it seems like you are doing these "bursts" because "you feel like you need to sweat a little and push the pedals to get a good workout." That's just guesswork. If this is really why you are doing these bursts, why not pick up the speed so you are doing maybe 80-85% maxHR for 10-20 minutes of each ride? That will get you high-quality aerobic benefit but will be short enough in duration that it won't really pose a significant risk.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

TheRich
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

iheartbianchi wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:58 am
TheRich wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:17 pm

Professionals need little top end work because their top end is well developed. For those of us without a well developed top end, high intensity work does help.
Thanks for your post. Although I completely disagree with this line of thinking, it will add a lot to this discussion!

First and foremost, we have to consider why and how professionals have highly-developed "top-end."
-is it because they did a lot of Vo2Max and AT training?
-is it because they have a huge aerobic engine, so it takes a LOT of effort to reach their Vo2Max and AT thresholds? (I think this is the case)
-how often to professionals do specific Vo2Max and AT training relative to a lot of aerobic base miles?

The answer is quite simply, outside of track cyclists on the velodrome (who are consistently hitting AT and near Vo2Max thresholds with HRs going well over 170 during their events), professional cyclists pack on a lot of miles, and will use races to "race themselves into shape."

Also, you really need to ask, why do we need to develop a top-end? What is a top-end and do we really need it?
-My point has always been, increase your aerobic engine to DELAY or PREVENT ever letting your heart hit the "top-end" of your HR. Your training should be devoted towards the goal that efforts that would typically put you at 80%+ of your MaxHR would now require only 80% or LESS of your MaxHR, so you can sustain this level of output for a greater period of time
You don't build a pyramid without stacking some blocks on top of the base, so you are blazing your own path here....and I have no doubt in my mind that elite cyclists have done tons of high intensity work while progressing through their careers. As they transition to higher levels, THAT is when they really start concentratinng on creating a massive base to deal with the additional length in their races.

I haven't seen anything that suggests that training that includes no higher intensity (which to me means sweet spot or higher) provides better results than some sort of a mix of intensities. I'm not suggesting only hammering the bejesus out of yourself with 3x13x30s every time you get out on the bike, but just like with any other sport (my previous experience was with swimming), you build your overall fitness from all directions.

Eventually, one day, never venturing above tempo power (staying below 80% HRmax) will produce results, but not as quickly as mixing low and higher intensity work,. The higher intensity work also familiarizes you with those power outputs, what it feels like and what you can actually do. You cannot do that without training at higher intensities.

Staying at low intensity is fine if that's the extent of the riding that you want to excel at, but if you want to excel in all situations, you have to train for them.

I'm also in the same boat as AJS in that I can ride as much as I want, which is a mixture of durations, intensities and mtb and road.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

TheRich wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:39 am

You don't build a pyramid without stacking some blocks on top of the base, so you are blazing your own path here....and I have no doubt in my mind that elite cyclists have done tons of high intensity work while progressing through their careers. As they transition to higher levels, THAT is when they really start concentratinng on creating a massive base to deal with the additional length in their races.

I haven't seen anything that suggests that training that includes no higher intensity (which to me means sweet spot or higher) provides better results than some sort of a mix of intensities. I'm not suggesting only hammering the bejesus out of yourself with 3x13x30s every time you get out on the bike, but just like with any other sport (my previous experience was with swimming), you build your overall fitness from all directions.

Eventually, one day, never venturing above tempo power (staying below 80% HRmax) will produce results, but not as quickly as mixing low and higher intensity work,. The higher intensity work also familiarizes you with those power outputs, what it feels like and what you can actually do. You cannot do that without training at higher intensities.

Staying at low intensity is fine if that's the extent of the riding that you want to excel at, but if you want to excel in all situations, you have to train for them.

I'm also in the same boat as AJS in that I can ride as much as I want, which is a mixture of durations, intensities and mtb and road.
I'm sorry, but I question the souces of your data (assuming you are going off of more than just statements you heard or read online). You are making vast generalizations such as "it is better to train in all situations" or "do a mix of intensities" but have not offered any evidence or studies to back these statements. It is like a high school PE teacher telling his students "stretch before you exercise" when science has proven stretching before exercise is counterproductive and incorrect (you never see Usain Bolt or Cristiano Ronaldo stretching before the start...why?).

Chris Froome's heart rate when attacking up Mt. Ventoux in the 2013 TdF was leaked, but he was averaging 158 with a max of 174. That's 85% or so of max. Or just below his lactate threshold! (interesting tidbit - why do pros publish wattage but not HRM? Think about what is more important and why?)

You said you need to venture above 80% to really know what you can do at higher intensitites, but Froome killed Ventoux on only 85% of maxHR. Think about that. Imagine what Froome was at on the flats (we don't have this data), but I assume it was close to 60% of max, or between 110-130bpm.

He managed to avoid high HR despite being on one of the most legendary and difficult climbs on the most difficult race of them all, after days of intense effort and on that particular ride, after hours of racing. He did not achieve this by hammering Vo2Max or interval training. He was able to keep his effort in the pure aerobic zone because of his massive mileage training.

Your statement that elite athletes building massive bases AFTER they have achieved pro status is completely contradictory to my experience training with Olympians and professional athletes. If you have evidence to support your claims, I would welcome it. I think what you are referring to is, cases where talented youngsters with poor coaching and no knowledge of modern training methods training at "various intensities" (translation: going too fast too often) get picked up by a proper coach, who immediately tells them to stop and do more slow miles (that's what happened to me and my teammates!). So you see them suddenly doing slow miles and you think it's because they are now good. No. They became good enough to get selected DESPITE an awful training regime, and they could have been BETTER had they been doing those long slow miles earlier.

Also, your statement that low and high intensity work produces quicker results than just low intensity is fine, but we are talking about long-term and sustainable results. And sorry, but the science shows that long-term, sustainable results are dependent on your ability to do as many low intensity efforts over any given time frame. High intensity only helps in terms of giving you a quick, short-term boost in fitness with an incredibly decreasing benefits curve, and serious athletes use high intensity to prepare themselves for efforts at those intensities (but as I showed above, cyclists rarely ever reach those intensity levels even in the toughest of races, with the exception of track cyclists).

The real benefit for "faster" training is muscle development and biomechanics. But these are marginal benefits, and you can get the same through strength training (as I'm sure you've seen videos of Sagan in the gym).

And why is there so much information out there about interval training? Well to be blunt, coaches need to earn a living, and nobody is going to pay anyone money if they are simply told, "go ride 90 minutes a day slow." You can structure complex interval and anaerboic and threshold training programs, and these coaches need to sell you on it, simple as that. Doesn't make it right, and I guess if you're an unfit joe off the street it will probably help you improve and you'll sing their praises. But if you want to be serious, low speed long efforts is key. Everything else is just fluff.

For your further reading:

First some baseline facts:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6388288/

"Reduced Exertion High-Intensity Interval Training is More Effective at Improving Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Cardiometabolic Health than Traditional Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training"; Int J Environ Res Public Health (2019) [Basically, benefits of HIIT / SIT are better than moderate-intensity...so avoid doing "junk miles" or that bad zone around 70-80% of maxHR if possible.]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657417/
The Effects of High Intensity Interval Training vs Steady State Training on Aerobic and Anaerobic Capacity [Basically, no differences in aerobic or anaerobic capacity between steady state training or interval training after 8 weeks]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4619258/
High Intensity Interval- vs Moderate Intensity- Training for Improving Cardiometabolic Health in Overweight or Obese Males: A Randomized Controlled Trial [Basically, greater cardio benefits and Vo2Max for moderate intensity training than high intensity training]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5539186/
High Intensity Interval Training Leads to Greater Improvements in Acute Heart Rate Recovery and Anaerobic Power as High Volume Low Intensity Training [However, in trained athletes, high intensity leads to greater muscular growth, anaerobic power and the acute HRR]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6290642/
Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training vs. Sprint Interval Training on Anthropometric Measures and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Healthy Young Women; Front Physiol (2018) [This study targeted cyclists which showed that 30 second sprints were slightly more effective than hard 4 minute intevals!]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28124388
Effects of reduced-volume of sprint interval training and the time course of physiological and performance adaptations; Scand J Med Sci Sports (2017) [This study indicates a plateau of between 3-9 weeks for interval training!]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942093/
Continuous Exercise but Not High Intensity Interval Training Improves Fat Distribution in Overweight Adults; J Obes. 2014 [This study implies that there are greater physiological changes induced in your body from continuous exercise as opposed to HIIT, but they only analyzed fat composition.]

There are many more interesting studies which I won't bore you with. But you have to really understand, what are you gaining that is UNIQUE to each corresponding level of exercise? More importantly...can you get the same benefit in a more effective and sustainable manner in some OTHER manner?

This is not to say that higher intensities have no place. If you are completely unfit, then HIIT is amazing for you. But if you are fit, then you really need to think about why you are doing HIIT and what you hope to gain from it, since the studies above show you can get the same or better aerobic benfits from doing something else, but at less cost. We know that beyond the aerobic benefits of HIIT, you also get muscular benefits and biomechical benefits, which are essential for high-speed efforts, along with some marginal gains in Vo2Max. So ask yourself, are you planning on going really fast for short periods of time (attacking or sprinting?) If so, then you probably need interval/sprint training. Or are you just trying to increase your average speed and be able to go longer? Then high intensity is the wrong approach for you.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

And I wanted to share a comprehensive study on low intensity vs. a program that includes high intensity, which studies trained runners, swimmers and cyclists.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 10.01184.x

"In one group, more low‐intensity training (below the first ventilatory threshold; 81 vs 12%) was performed. In the other group, more moderate‐intensity training (above first ventilatory threshold but below the second ventilatory threshold; 67 vs 25%) was performed. While intense exercise performance was not assessed, it is interesting to note that the magnitude of the improvement in 10.4 km running performance 5 months following the intervention was significantly greater (P=0.03) in the group that performed more low‐intensity training (−157±13 vs −122±7s)."

"t is clear that when a period of high‐intensity interval training is supplemented into the already high training volumes of well‐trained endurance athletes, further enhancements in both intense and prolonged endurance performance are possible."

"nother report of a high‐volume training plan that elicited a winning intense exercise performance was that of the German 4000‐m team pursuit cycling world record achieved at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games (Schumacher & Mueller, 2002). In this paper, Schumacher and Mueller (2002) provide a detailed account of the training performed by the cyclists over the 7‐month lead‐up to the critical event. In general, training involved extremely high volumes (29000–35000km/year) that included long periods of low‐intensity road training (∼50% VO2max) interspersed with stage racing (grand tour) events. While the road racing component of the cyclists' training program would have entailed numerous periods of both high‐volume and high‐intensity stimuli, it was not until the final 8 days before the Sydney Olympics that a specific high‐intensity training taper period on the track was prescribed. Nevertheless, this training design yielded outstanding results, and the model has since been replicated by both the Australian and British cycling teams to break this record repeatedly over the last two Olympic Games (Quod M, Cycling Australia, Australian Institute of Sport, personal communication)."
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

basilic
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by basilic

hey iheartbianchi, thanks for all the info, and for providing the references. Very useful.

I'll admit I am not very confident in relying on HR though. It varies quite a bit day to day at the same level of effort without a clear reason. Plus when I'm tired, say after a couple days in the mountains, the HR gets really slow at rest, and is difficult to bring up on effort. So for me slow does not alwys mean fit (I should add i have no rhythm problem or heart condition).

Unrelated to above - people may find it useful to do a stepped exercise test with determination of the respiratory quotient. It shows how soon you start burning sugar as opposed to fat (exhaled CO2/used O2 is 0.7 for fat, and 1.0 for sugar). The slow training should boost the use of fat to higher levels of effort.

User avatar
onemanpeloton
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:30 am
Location: Edinburgh, UK

by onemanpeloton

Thoughts?

http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2 ... nsity.html

Joe Friel seems to be a well trusted source
2020 Trek Boone
2017 Merida Reacto
2017 Trek Superfly AL

peted76
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:30 pm

by peted76

iheartbianchi - so taking on board that longer easier miles are better (60% HR for me would be circa 110 bpm).
In the comparison of Rollers and Turbo, where the lack of resistance on rollers is easier to turn pedals...

In your opinion, presuming the HR being the same at 110bpm for 90mins, would the miles be better accumulated on rollers at a higher cadence or a turbo at a lower cadence? I'm thinking about the stresses on muscles in particular.
I don't know the numbers here not having tried or compared trying to ride at 110bpm as yet, and I'm assuming that the lack of rolling resistance on rollers would indeed allow a faster cadence over a tyre squashed on turbo.
Or do you think it would make zero difference, and HR if the defacto here, regardless of spinning at 90rpm or 70rpm?

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

onemanpeloton wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:19 am
Thoughts?

http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2 ... nsity.html

Joe Friel seems to be a well trusted source
First, his blog article was written in 2007, but he cites research from 1991 and 1992? High mileage and low intensity became a thing in the 90s, so it seems he has failed to catch on. Much of the research on this topic has come in the past 10 years or so.

Second, he cites the following:

"In a German study 17 experienced runners steadily increased their volumes from their normal 50 miles per week to 105 miles per week over a four-week period (1). All of these runs were done at about marathon pace or slower (2mmol/L lactate) One year later they allowed the researchers to tinker with their training again. This time they nearly doubled the amount of time they trained at high intensity, over a four-week period again. With increased intensity they improved on four measures of performance from 5% to 17%. Increased volume produced no significant improvements in the same metrics."

This is simply misleading or incorrect for several reasons:
-The volume was done at marathon pace or slower. HR training and modern research shows that marathon pace training is FAR TOO FAST. Marathon pace or slightly slower is incredibly demanding on your body (elite athletes are doing 4:30-4:50 per mile on the marathon!).
-The study was limited to only 4 weeks. Science shows that it takes approx. 10 days for your body to make aerobic adaptations to stress (capillarization, mitochondria, etc.). And the purpose of high volume training is consistency over an extended time period for long-term growth. Limiting the study to only 4 weeks is highly prejudicial to slow aerobic training and frankly, is a bit amateurish. Modern studies have shown if you transition to a program consisting of a lot of high intensity training, you begin to plateu around week 3 to 8, and then you start LOSING aerobic fitness.
-Nearly every elite distance runner these days are doing 4-a-days and logging 20 miles a day or more. And HR training is basically the only training that is conducted by elite runners of every country of every discipline. So this study is completely contradicted by modern training in reality.
-Of course if you take highly trained athletes, and move them into a high intensity phase, they will show improvements. But that's not what we are talking about. We are not talking about training to peak. If that's the goal (i.e., there is an "end goal") then you have a 3-6 month training program where oyu peak at the end, rest, and start over the next season. But for everyone else, we are talking about long-term, consistent gains. And all modern research shows that you need long consistent mileage to achieve this, with the caveat that if you are peaking for an event, you start doing intervals.
Last edited by iheartbianchi on Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

basilic wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:49 am
hey iheartbianchi, thanks for all the info, and for providing the references. Very useful.

I'll admit I am not very confident in relying on HR though. It varies quite a bit day to day at the same level of effort without a clear reason. Plus when I'm tired, say after a couple days in the mountains, the HR gets really slow at rest, and is difficult to bring up on effort. So for me slow does not alwys mean fit (I should add i have no rhythm problem or heart condition).
Interestingly, this is why HR training is SO important. It is a great indication of your body's condition, but it also prevents you from overcooking it.

Generally, if you are fatigued or ill, your HR will typically spike much higher and demand that you slow down. However, you say "tired" from days in the mountains and can't raise your HR. It seems likely that you have either depleted your glycogen stores so that you are simply out of fuel (and no, simply eating can't fix this quickly...it takes a couple of days to digest and convert into quickly useable energy) or you have done damage to your muscle fibers and there is lactate buildup so your legs simply can't keep up with your aerobic system. Because you didn't follow the HR training (or you just went longer than you normally do), you have overcooked it and you will need to either get complete rest until you're back to normal, or you cross-train. In other words, your mountain days have set you back in terms of aerobic capacity, but I'm sure it was worth it!!

I'd be interested to see your heart rate data for these days on the mountains. What was your average HR on a climb?
Last edited by iheartbianchi on Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

Post Reply