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.