A member from a group to which I subscribe named Frank just posted a how to on his website. It details sweet spot training (SST), which is something many, many top coaches and physiologists recommend during the base/build season and occasionally during race season.

SST is one of the fastest and most effective ways to increase your threshold power. Simply put, it's the best "bang for your buck" training. What does this mean? It means you can finish the group ride, perform better in the group ride, and get faster in your long-duration rides (or races)...all by doing work that is usually less than 2hrs long, or sometimes as short as 20-30 minutes.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/photos/toolbox/sweetspot1.jpg

For those of you without a power meter, I would like to make an addendum to the article. Heart rate can be used, since these are usually longer, steady-state efforts. How do you figure it out? Go and do a 60min test, all out. It has to be 60min, and preferably, on a consistent indoor trainer. After a 15min warmup, working up a bit of a sweat, start the timer and do an additional 60 minutes as hard as you can. Record your average speed and average heart rate for the trial. This is your LTHR, and will be used to gauge SST exertion level.

Based on HR, your SST zone is between 89-100% of your LTHR. Retest once a month in the same conditions to guage improvement. The higher your speed, the faster you are now going! Realize, however, that LTHR changes only a little during initial phases. As soon as you dial in your true LTHR, it should not change much (if at all) from test to test, year to year.

Good luck!
-James

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/training_tips/SweetSpot_partdeux.html

I decided to do some SST this morning. I usually do repeats on a local hill at around 330 watts for 22.5 minutes. Today I decided to shoot for between 300-310 and do three. The first at 7:15 am with about a 7 minute warm up was ok (Avg 305/ Norm 310). The second I felt good and just tried to avg the same (avg (306/ Norm 310) and the third I felt real good but didn't want to go to hard since I have big weekend planned (avg 315 / norm 319). I feel surprisingly fresh today.

For those of you who would like to learn more (or just believe we should give credit where credit is due), the coach who developed this article (in full @ the link) is Frank Overton from Boulder.

More goodness here --

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/training_tips/SweetSpot_partdeux.html

For those of you who would like to learn more (or just believe we should give credit where credit is due), the coach who developed this article (in full @ the link) is Frank Overton from Boulder.

More goodness here --

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/training_tips/SweetSpot_partdeux.html

Thanks, I wasn't sure of Franks last name...but I did include his link in the post ;)

Just to dumb things down for those of us who just want the upshot of all this science, does this in essence mean that I should train more often near but below the threshold level where I do 3 x 20 minute intervals?

Just to dumb things down for those of us who just want the upshot of all this science, does this in essence mean that I should train more often near but below the threshold level where I do 3 x 20 minute intervals?

Yes, basically.

+1. My training plan for much of the winter does not include 3 x 20. Rather, it will look like this: "4 hour ride with two 45-minute sustained hard efforts."

That's what this means.

I won't start doing 2 x 20 type stuff until maybe Feb.

Thanks, I wasn't sure of Franks last name...but I did include his link in the post ;)

Yes really why cite the source you jacked the info from?

People are using a training system based on a graph that has one axis labeled "Arbitrary units"? One day it's pieces of leftover Halloween candy consumed, the next drops of sweat per minute- just insert any unit there and the system works? I'd say, "Wow," but I see exercise systems like this advertised on late night TV all the time- buy the gizmo, do hardly any work, and in two weeks you'll have six-pack abs.

+1. My training plan for much of the winter does not include 3 x 20. Rather, it will look like this: "4 hour ride with two 45-minute sustained hard efforts."

That's what this means.

I won't start doing 2 x 20 type stuff until maybe Feb.
All this on big winter balloon tires? I get my Ruffy Tuffys soon.

I probably deserve the contemptuous replies...but, nonetheless, I shall respond.

Yes really why cite the source you jacked the info from?

The SST theory has been around for years before it was given a name, and Frank did not invent it. He simply wrote a very power-based article on it. I skimmed it, but didn't even read it since I'm already familiar with it. All of the information I wrote in my post is stuff I already knew from previous readings on many, many other websites, articles, personal contact with other coaches, and emails. In fact, Frank never mentioned anything about SST with HR, did he? The numbers I posted are directly from my current training. The picture is from pezcycling (right click on photo for "source") and the picture was made available by Andy Coggan -- so credit goes to him on this.

People are using a training system based on a graph that has one axis labeled "Arbitrary units"?

At first, I was also critical. However, no one can benefit monetarily from making SST up -- there's simply nothing to sell.. That's exactly what the graph is for: the concept of SST. If you need a label for "arbitrary units," just plug in time, distance, stress, work, etc. It's arbitrary for a reason -- it can be compared with anything relating to work. I'm sure Andy wouldn't damage his reputation by throwing together an "infomercial" graph that has no merit.

You cynics done? How about just enjoying the fact that this information is available to you for free and without a coach? I'm sure thankful for it...

People are using a training system based on a graph that has one axis labeled "Arbitrary units"? One day it's pieces of leftover Halloween candy consumed, the next drops of sweat per minute- just insert any unit there and the system works? I'd say, "Wow," but I see exercise systems like this advertised on late night TV all the time- buy the gizmo, do hardly any work, and in two weeks you'll have six-pack abs.

They're as arbitrary as the units to used to measure base and the vast majority of cyclists consider building base their main goal.

I'm surprised (well, maybe not) by all the animosity over someone trying to share some training tips. It's not like he posted a training plan someone was selling. The graph shows up in a lot of power-based books (like Allen/Coggan), and besides the graph is just meant to illustrate a concept, showing training intensity/volume offsets to locate a range of intensity that improves power at threshold. A lot of cyclists intuitively train at around this level (so-called level 3 rut if it's the only level one trains in) and the sweet spot concept is supposed to illustrate what benefits it confers.

For those thinking it's somehow snake oil, almost all training is more art than science in the sense that the bulk of it is based on best practices rather than science (the latter involving controlled experimental settings, randomization, etc.).

I probably deserve the contemptuous replies...but, nonetheless, I shall respond.



The SST theory has been around for years before it was given a name, and Frank did not invent it. He simply wrote a very power-based article on it. I skimmed it, but didn't even read it since I'm already familiar with it. All of the information I wrote in my post is stuff I already knew from previous readings on many, many other websites, articles, personal contact with other coaches, and emails. In fact, Frank never mentioned anything about SST with HR, did he? The numbers I posted are directly from my current training. The picture is from pezcsdycling (right click on photo for "source") and the picture was made available by Andy Coggan -- so credit goes to him on this.

If there is anyone else you forgot to cite, except Andy Coggan and Frank Overton, now would probably be the time.

I don't have anything invested in this, except well, morality.

I'm surprised (well, maybe not) by all the animosity over someone trying to share some training tips.

I'm not. Look at the signatures of the two offenders here. I wish they would get in their "troll mobiles" and go away. Actually mountain bike review has a pretty good system set up for just these kinds of trolls and flame baiters. They have the Recycle Bin board.

If there is anyone else you forgot to cite, except Andy Coggan and Frank Overton, now would probably be the time.

I don't have anything invested in this, except well, morality.

"Morality"? :rolleyes: Your snide cynicism was quite enough. Bloated self-righteousness puts you well over the top.

Obviously, your biggest investment in this discussion is your delicate ego.

People are using a training system based on a graph that has one axis labeled "Arbitrary units"? One day it's pieces of leftover Halloween candy consumed, the next drops of sweat per minute- just insert any unit there and the system works? I'd say, "Wow," but I see exercise systems like this advertised on late night TV all the time- buy the gizmo, do hardly any work, and in two weeks you'll have six-pack abs.

Trust me, there is nothing about power-based training zones and the intensity levels they represent that is a "get fit quick" scheme. Structured training takes an awful lot of discipline and commitment. Lazy recreational riders need not apply, which is perhaps why you have an issue.

"Morality"? :rolleyes: Your snide cynicism was quite enough. Bloated self-righteousness puts you well over the top.

Obviously, your biggest investment in this discussion is your delicate ego.

Eh, I'll give you the morality thing was over the top. :D

thanks iliveonnitro and whoever else helped with this. it's interesting info i'll have to look more into.

I probably deserve the contemptuous replies...but, nonetheless, I shall respond.



The SST theory has been around for years before it was given a name, and Frank did not invent it. He simply wrote a very power-based article on it. I skimmed it, but didn't even read it since I'm already familiar with it. All of the information I wrote in my post is stuff I already knew from previous readings on many, many other websites, articles, personal contact with other coaches, and emails. In fact, Frank never mentioned anything about SST with HR, did he? The numbers I posted are directly from my current training. The picture is from pezcycling (right click on photo for "source") and the picture was made available by Andy Coggan -- so credit goes to him on this.



At first, I was also critical. However, no one can benefit monetarily from making SST up -- there's simply nothing to sell.. That's exactly what the graph is for: the concept of SST. If you need a label for "arbitrary units," just plug in time, distance, stress, work, etc. It's arbitrary for a reason -- it can be compared with anything relating to work. I'm sure Andy wouldn't damage his reputation by throwing together an "infomercial" graph that has no merit.

You cynics done? How about just enjoying the fact that this information is available to you for free and without a coach? I'm sure thankful for it...

My response wasn't meant to be terribly cynical- more smart a$z- I really found it funny that an axis on a working graph could be labeled "arbitrary." Truthfully, I thought it was just a typo- some generic graph form that should have been labeled, "Insert data units here," or something but maybe due to a translation problem got labeled "arbitrary."

fyi, arbitrary units is standard scientific notation. It is used often in scientific plots and isn't problematic for scientists. In this case, you want to show the relation between training intensity and time, but the time dimension isn't well-defined in the sense that there's no defined function that plots training intensity as a function of specific units (minutes etc) but you know the general shape of the function so you plot it against time without defining the specific units (that is, you haven't collected data for a real sample of cyclists). If you specified the units, you would be indicating that each value (say intensity at time x) is well-defined, which is wrong, so arbitrary units is actually the correct way to plot it.

Thankfully not all of it, lately!

There was a few rainy weeks on the 35mm's, but for Seattle we have had a week and a half of eerily nice weather, so I pulled back out the skinny tires for a few last rides. I even got to head up to British Columbia and ride up Mt Seymour, Cypress, and some other stuff. That was a fun ride. Both climbs are in the 45 minute range, and it was all in the upper part of the "sweet spot."

Hey,

I can appreciate the reasoning for SST, but how does it stack up against the theory of avoiding excessive training time in that "grey zone" which is too high for optimal development of the aerobic system and too low for optimal development of capacity at threshold. It seems to be that SST would put me right in that "grey zone."

I have an open mind, just seeking explanation.

Thanks!

I've never heard of going too hard for optimal aerobic development except in the case of anaerobic work. In fact, it's usually better to go hard, causing the body to overreach.

I like to define the gray zone as too "easy" AND short to elicit significant aerobic changes, but too hard to promote recovery. For example, cruising in low-L3 (under SST, but not quite all-day pace) is great if you have a 3-4+hr ride in front of you. Riding at low-L3 for an hour or two isn't causing the body to over-reach and thus adapt to training stress -- because there really isn't any significant stress.

The idea is to go hard on the hard days and easy on the easy days. SST isn't easy, but it's at an intensity that allows you to physically last ~1-3hrs. Psychologically lasting 3hrs at 90-95% of your 1hr power is another story...

Thanks for your response.

I know it's "old school", but I've been used to the argument that you need to stay below a certain threshold to optimally develop the aerobic capacity and at or above a certain threshold to optimally develop anaerobic capacity. It follows that training in between has dubious benefits, hence the argument about going easy enough (and long enough) some days and hard enough on others.

I'm not committed to this argument! Now it's cold and dark, I'm set for daily hours on a trainer. If I'll get better results by going a little harder to allow a little less time, I'll do it. Tonight, I listened to Coach Troy telling me to stay 10 bpm or more below LTHR. With a max of 199 and a LTHR or 185, that would mean 175 or less, which is way above the 160 I try to observe as an upper limit for aerobic workouts. Into the 170s is a harrrrrd workout. I know HR numbers are very variable, but I think they raise interesting questions.

Again, thanks for any constructive comments This is an interesting thread.

I think Nitro has it pretty much right. Basically the concept is that 3-4 hours of L2-L3 work can be crammed into a shorter period if you turn up the intensity. That does result in a lot of work in the "grey zone" or "no mans land" or "junk miles"* or even the "L3 Plateau." The benefit is that you turn up the intensity just enough to build aerobic capacity, but not so much that it leaves you worked for several days.

This stuff really works primarily because you can do long aerobic sessions day after day after day. Well n=1, it has for me anyway.

* there are no junk miles, but as Nitro suggests, there are rides where the intensity is so low and the duration so short that you aren't really doing much, but it's not a recovery ride either.

Thanks for your response.
Tonight, I listened to Coach Troy telling me to stay 10 bpm or more below LTHR. With a max of 199 and a LTHR or 185, that would mean 175 or less, which is way above the 160 I try to observe as an upper limit for aerobic workouts. Into the 170s is a harrrrrd workout. I know HR numbers are very variable, but I think they raise interesting questions.

When "Coach Troy" (who is that?) said to stay under 175, that would be 95% of your LTHR. Based on my above HR training zones, this is at the upper end of SST. You could go as low as 165bpm and still stay in your SST zone. Like I said above, not easy, but not impossible.

Here is yesterday's SST trainer ride for me. As you can see, the HR zones fall right between L3/L4 on the graph.
FTP: 261w
SST: >222w.
Avg Power: 238w for this 1.5hrs
Avg HR: 162/199 = 81% of max = 90.5% of LTHR (=179bpm)
Intensity factor: 0.91
TSS: 125

PS, I think you need to recheck your HRmax.
PPS, ignore my ending HR spike and the Max HR I achieved. I was playing with my HR strap at the end by tapping on it with my finger.

THANKS for the responses and for that interesting graph, Nitro.

Why do you suggest that I should recheck my max HR? As a Cat 4, very very soon to be 40 something, I've flogged myself to 199 in the last year. I can hold 191-4 very painfully through a 15 min TT.

LTHR was not calculated in a lab but on a test advised by a Wenzel coach, but it could well be lower than 185.

Anyway, it's interesting that IF we have similar max HR, your SST workout averages 162 bpm, whereas I peg 160 as the "back off" point for upper end pure aerobic work: maybe we're talking about the same thing with different words!

Again, thanks for your input into this interesting thread.

Use your calculation of FT HR instead of Max HR.

Max HR blows.

Why do you suggest that I should recheck my max HR? As a Cat 4, very very soon to be 40 something, I've flogged myself to 199 in the last year. I can hold 191-4 very painfully through a 15 min TT.

This is why. As far as I know, holding a HR of 194 (of max=199) for 15min isn't possible. Evidence suggests that there is a good chance both your LTHR and HRmax are higher than you tested. I would guess your LTHR closer to 190, if anything. I'm reluctant to guess (because that's exactly what it is) what your max HR could be, but if I had to, I would say closer to 210, perhaps.

Anyway, it's interesting that IF we have similar max HR, your SST workout averages 162 bpm, whereas I peg 160 as the "back off" point for upper end pure aerobic work: maybe we're talking about the same thing with different words!

Which is why I said that SST isn't easy. You can hold the 160+ for a long time, it just takes a good amount of mental fortitude.

Spunout -- the software likes to use HRmax, so I use HRmax. In reality, all my calculations are based off power...with a backup based off my LTHR of 179 (for posts like this).

Hey!.....This dude stole my plan. I've been doing this for years now. I guess that I should have wrote a book.

I really won't start doing this again until February (indoors) and mid April (outdoors)

This is a great thread! OK, so I did my test and I came up with a lthr of 164, or about 88% of my age based HR (I know, I know) I am an expert mtb racer, and when I wear a hr monitor in a race, I can sustain 90-91% for an hour, but that involves adrenaline, and it's outside, so I'm going with 164 since I will be doing a lot of training inside anyway (upstate NY) I figured out my zones and all of that. My question is : Do we have a concensus here that the "grey zone" ,which looks like the upper half of zone 2 and all of zone 3, provides no real cardiovascular training benifit? Obviously you can loosen up, get your sweat on, and burn calories, but it is more efficient to focus on either sustained sweet spot efforts, intervals, or zone1/2 recovery/ base miles. I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding any of this. My aerobic capacity is my weekness, as I am always racing @90%+ for the first lap, recovering for half of the second, and then cramping at the end of the third. It's frustrating because I am one of the better technical riders in my class, so I just need my climbing to catch up to my DH abilities.

Chris charmichael suggests doing your base miles at anything up 86% of lthr, which is right at the top end of zone 2! OK, so now I'm thinking it's really more like there are two grey zones, the upper end of zone 1, and pretty much all of zone 3. Low/mid zone 1 for recovery, zone 2 for base, zone 4 for tempo/ LT training, and zone 5 for lactic acid clearing and sprint intervals. I'm seeing now that in the past I've done my base miles at too low of an intensity, and really I should be at 70-75% of MaxHR. Um...right?

No, not quite. For the record, most physiologists do not believe in a "gray zone." I explained this in an above post. No matter what your workout is, you are getting some benefit. The question is, is it the most benefit you can achieve given your time constraints? If not, that is the gray zone.

Riding in low L3 is a rough all-day pace, and it's exactly the level at which most pros train. Why? Because they often do 4-5hrs every ride. You can't do SST for 4-5hrs. If you have 15-20+hrs/wk to train, by all means, skip SST until closer to the season. But for the rest of us, intensity is key. Skip Carmichael's ideas -- they're not practical for most people. Follow the guidelines from the website and from my first post.

The no-mans-land is probably at a low L2 pace, I guess. This will only stress your system enough to prevent recovery, but will not stress it enough to cause physiological adaptations. It's a good starting warm-up pace, though.

Also, skip anaerobic efforts until ~2mo before your first big event.

Did I answer all your questions?

grey zone = old school myth, right up there with "no intensity till you put in 1000 miles." Aerobic training is a long continuum, not descrete zones which only have benefit if you stay in them. The whole SST concept in this thread is based around the premise that people can generally train at SST levels day after day after day, without much recovery. Go slower, you can surely go longer. But if you have limited time and can't go longer, you're going to have to go a little harder. Too hard though, and you'll probably need recovery. So SST is basically another way of saying "just right" for your given time to train (more time = lower output/less time = higher output).

But it's not like this concept (or any HRM based protocol) is precise enough that all benefit evaporates as you cross a 1% output threshold. In other words 84%=86%=88%=close enough.

A pet peeve of mine is doing winter training rides with people who've set their HRM with an aerobic "I'm going to explode" alarm. Yes, you shouldn't go all out for long durations (unless you're building in some recovery time too), but a foray into the red zone now and then isn't going to kill you, and in fact will at least keep you mentally prepared for what that feels like.

Thanks. I was planning to stay away from zone 5 until at least late febuary. I'm thinking I will try to get in some 3.5+ hour rides at low3 in december, and then switch over to more 30-90 min. sst trainer rides in Jan. At mid. Jan. I want to be starting an interval program I stole from Bicycling magazine a couple of years ago that I had a lot of luck with. I will replace the long cardio rides in that program with shorter SST rides, which is great, because those were hard to do in 20 degrees, or in the living room. For the record, my season is from late april to mid october, with most of the racing in june/july and september

Thanks. I was planning to stay away from zone 5 until at least late febuary. I'm thinking I will try to get in some 3.5+ hour rides at low3 in december...

But if you happen to stand up to get over a roller and hit z5 for 20 seconds, that's perfectly OK. No need to be overly anal about it.

(Can you tell I've done some winter training with those types?)

:p So have I . I know exactly what you mean!

it's not clear to me what the basis is for staying away from higher intensity training until close to event time. This too seems like a myth based on extrapolating training methodology from pros. If you face a season of 100+ race days with 200km stages/days, then it makes sense to have a long period of rest and work on aerobic endurance since you're going to have a huge training-race volume to tune other systems. But, aerobic endurance isn't that big of a limiter in most US races (even for pros), since the majority of races most amateurs will do aren't that long and the training/race volume will never be anything like a pro sees. Why not incorporate training during the winter that includes work on limiters like anaerobic capacity, neuromuscular power etc? You can simply control the peaks by periodizing and the total work volume. Otherwise, it seems like you're just detraining a bunch of systems. It's OK to lift weights, but that's essentially non-specific neuromuscular power, which is maybe of direct cycling benefit. Why not do that on the bike in neuromuscular drills, for example--almost every US amateur racer could do with more top-end power/speed,

1. Coach Troy im assuming is the Spinerval video guy.

2. Your LTHR will raise as you get in better shape. *proven*

3. You must build a good aerobic engine for cycling. Everything we do including LTHR riding and sprints depends on this engine.

4. What "zone" are we refering to here? There are about a dozen different coaches that have different HR and power for each zone.



For me im training 9 days straight then one day rest. There is no way I could do SST work every day (or even one) during this peroid of 9 on and 1 off. Currently I stay between 145 and 165 HR (LTHR of 188ish) to build a solid aerobic base. After 6 weeks I am seeing results. My weight is dropping, my legs are getting bigger and more toned, and my average speed on the same courses/trainer has gone up every week while staying in the same HR range.

SST work wont start for me till I add in more rest days.

But, aerobic endurance isn't that big of a limiter in most US races (even for pros), since the majority of races most amateurs will do aren't that long and the training/race volume will never be anything like a pro sees. Why not incorporate training during the winter that includes work on limiters like anaerobic capacity, neuromuscular power etc?

That first statement is just, well, wrong. Aerobic endurance is definitely the biggest limiter in bike racing. Just try racing after boosting your threshold power by 5-10% and see whether you concur. IME, it's a whole lot more fun not being crosseyed just to stay on.

And definitely yes, you do need to work on anaerobic stuff. It's not all or nothing. This time of year, though, there is not much use for anaerobic conditioning, given its detrimental impact on being able to train the aerobic stuff repeatedly. That anaerobic stuff is like the point on the stick. Better to put a point on a big stick than a little one.

what you're referring to isn't aerobic endurance, but threshold power. You won't train that by doing aerobic endurance base 2 training as discussed in the thread. At least the SST to increase power at threshold. My point was that the biggest limiters in shorter, US racing is anaerobic-bridging a gap, accelerating out of corners etc. A lot of racers can sit in a pack but can't make these jumps and disappear at the end. There's a big difference between these coming during a 1-2 hour race (most US races even at cat2) and a 5-6 hour race.

what you're referring to isn't aerobic endurance, but threshold power. You won't train that by doing aerobic endurance base 2 training as discussed in the thread.

Yes, as a matter of fact, you likely will train threshold power. Threshold power is aerobic. So is SST so is L2. Any aerobic work is going to have a positive impact on threshold power (assuming you haven't already honed it). You don't need to ride AT threshold to INCREASE threshold.

EDIT: see below, I'm not making this up.... effects of L2 and L4 are the same, the magnitude is just less...

107858

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp

My point was that the biggest limiters in shorter, US racing is anaerobic-bridging a gap, accelerating out of corners etc. A lot of racers can sit in a pack but can't make these jumps and disappear at the end. There's a big difference between these coming during a 1-2 hour race (most US races even at cat2) and a 5-6 hour race.

That's because those racers aren't recovering as fast. Their thresholds are lower and thus to stay on, they are digging deep into L5 while the guys dictating the race are coming back down to their threshold power, which they can do for a long long time. If the guys getting popped off the back had higher threshold power they'd stay on. It's usually not the single surge that snaps off the slow guys, but the cumulative effect of waves of those surges.

By definition, L5 is not a power output that ANYONE can do for a long time. Threshold, yeah, you can do that for a long time. Work on threshold, raise the floor, THEN put the point on the stick.

Wow s-d, that last bit sounds cool.

But can you put it all into one metaphor? And you've got to call threshold something clever and analogy-like...

That anaerobic stuff is like the point on the stick. Better to put a point on a big stick than a little one.

And the sharper the point, the quicker the stick wears down.

Anerobic training will always come at a cost to aerobic capacity, which is why in the off season doing any serious anerobic training is just counterproductive.

Put the point on the stick right before you need it to poke someone.

Wow s-d, that last bit sounds cool.

But can you put it all into one metaphor? And you've got to call threshold something clever and analogy-like...

Busted. What is this, English class?

My question was really, is there good evidence that cyclists should be doing low intensity base type training throughout the winter. The question is, what are the specific physiological adaptations? Is large volume, low intensity exercise really the best way to spend the winter?

Some indications that it is not: may actually decrease cross-sectional profile of type I fibers, decreases hormones related to positive adaptation (testosterone, growth hormone, thyroid hormone), and evidence that in well-trained athletes endurance is improved through higher intensity intervals. Michael Ross appears to be one of the few sports doctors presenting this against low-intensity base training.

The idea that zone 2 long training rides have a positive effect on threshold power, VO2 max, etc. is in part due to conflating findings on untrained subjects. On the other hand, there is substantial evidence that higher intensity training has a positive effect on endurance performance. Laursen, one of the researchers doing interesting work on this, puts it as follows:

"While significant improvements in endurance performance and corresponding physiological markers are evident following submaximal endurance training in sedentary and recreationally active groups, an additional increase in submaximal training (i.e. volume) in highly trained individuals does not appear to further enhance either endurance performance or associated physiological variables [e.g. peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), oxidative enzyme activity]." Laursen, Paul B, and David GJenkins. "The scientific basis for high-intensity interval training: optimising training programmes and maximising performance in highly trained endurance athletes." Sports medicine 32.1 (2002):53-73.


In terms of relative improvements in endurance performance, higher intensity intervals is better than low intensity. In addition, purely anaerobic training such as weight training will improve endurance by delaying the recruitment of type II fibers during performance. THis is the effect of higher intensity training as well. In addition, higher intensity training will improve the oxidative capacity of type II fibers, resulting in less fatigue (as measured by lactate accumulation).

Other sources:

Laursen, Paul B, et al. "Interval training program optimization in highly trained endurance cyclists." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 34.11 (2002):1801-7.

Wsfarjani, Fahimeh, and Paul Laursen. "Manipulating high-intensity interval training: effects on VO2max, the lactate threshold and 3000 m running performance in moderately trained males." Journal of science and medicine in sport 10.1 (2007):27-35.

Midgley, Adrian W, Lars RMcNaughton, and MichaelWilkinson. "Is there an optimal training intensity for enhancing the maximal oxygen uptake of distance runners?: empirical research findings, current opinions, physiological rationale and practical recommendations." Sports medicine 36.2 (2006):117-32.

Meyer, T, et al. "Effectiveness of low-intensity endurance training." International journal of sports medicine 28.1 (2007):33-9.

My question was really, is there good evidence that cyclists should be doing low intensity base type training throughout the winter. The question is, what are the specific physiological adaptations? Is large volume, low intensity exercise really the best way to spend the winter?



There is over 40 years of data and studies that say low intensity/tempo work is key during the winter months. This method is proven to work best for the vast majority of athletes. Everybody is different and there are a few that have a natural aerobic base that excel with harder efforts year round. The cyclist that train this way are far and few between. Put it to you this way, you will find more cyclist that say they tried going hard year round and it failed than will say it works for them.

Going hard during the winter is not a new idea as these coaches would have you think. There have been several books throughout the past 40 years that pushed this method. Only reason you hear about it more today is because of the internet IMHO.

Just because somebody has a PHD and writes a book saying its gospel (or that it works) dosent mean it does. Trial and error trumps all IMHO and i'm doing whats worked for millions of cyclists for years.

My question was really, is there good evidence that cyclists should be doing low intensity base type training throughout the winter. The question is, what are the specific physiological adaptations? Is large volume, low intensity exercise really the best way to spend the winter?

Nice strawman! Who was advocating that in this thread? SST is not large volume low intensity exercise.

And the sharper the point, the quicker the stick wears down.

Anerobic training will always come at a cost to aerobic capacity, which is why in the off season doing any serious anerobic training is just counterproductive.

Put the point on the stick right before you need it to poke someone.
is this true? anaerobic development comes at a cost of aerobic capacity?

this never has made sense to me. and, while it is often repeated, I have not seen it supported.

From what science I've read (as in, science, not the received wisdom of the ages, which has huge question marks), developing anaerobic capacity in February is not recommended because it is unnecessary and it comes at a mental cost, not because it is detrimental to aerobic development. I didn't think that aerobic metabolism ever is supplanted by anaerobic metabolism, just that it occurs in addition to aerobic metabolism. Otherwise I wouldn't be breathing so hard.

But I also have heard the opposite enough so that I might be missing something. What have you got? Does anaerobic development hurt aerobic capacity or development?

1. Coach Troy
Coach Troy McClure (aka Phil Hartman, RIP).

is this true? anaerobic development comes at a cost of aerobic capacity?

this never has made sense to me. and, while it is often repeated, I have not seen it supported.

From what science I've read (as in, science, not the received wisdom of the ages, which has huge question marks), developing anaerobic capacity in February is not recommended because it is unnecessary and it comes at a mental cost, not because it is detrimental to aerobic development. I didn't think that aerobic metabolism ever is supplanted by anaerobic metabolism, just that it occurs in addition to aerobic metabolism. Otherwise I wouldn't be breathing so hard.

But I also have heard the opposite enough so that I might be missing something. What have you got? Does anaerobic development hurt aerobic capacity or development?

I can only speak from my own experience (which spans a few years), and the experiences of the few competitive cyclists I've monitored (I'm no coach).

For a loooong time I've tracked the building of aerobic capacity pretty closely in early season, years ago by recording TT speeds and/or speeds over fixed loops, more recently by means of power. What I've seen is a steady build in aerobic capacity up until the point where anaerobic training/training races are started in early season. What happens next is a large buildup in anaerobic power while aerobic capacity remains relatively the same. As more and more anaerobic work is done during the season, aerobic capacity gradually diminishes. At peak, during early and mid season, because of the tremendous boost in anerobic capacity, overall performance for most events is greatly improved, but as the season wears on, it has become obvious to me that so long as I continue hard anaerobic work, my capacity for pure aerobic work (TTs) diminishes. At the end of the season, unless I've cut out anaerobic work and specifically trained just for TTs, every test I've ever done shows a diminished aerobic capacity. The good news is that after a couple of months of hard but purely aerobic work, I'm back up to what (in this late stage in my game) is probably my aerobic potential.

I've read somewhere that the by-products of anaerobic work are damaging to muscle function (acidosis destroys mitochondria?), but I'm not hanging my hat on that idea, I'm just basically reporting what I've personally observed.

Interesting thread.
Is SST worthwhile for middle-aged recreational riders just looking to keep up with the A group next year? I did the indoor trainer thing last winter 30-45min 3-4x/wk at HR ~140 (approx 85% LTHR) along with some moderate free weights 2-3x/wk. I averaged about 1 outdoor ride/wk (30-40mi) as weather permitted. Felt OK early last spring but no significant improvement. Then again- maintaining fitness on so little time ain't too bad either. Would trying 2-3 60-90min sessions/wk at increased intensity (90-95% LTHR) be a better strategy for my trainer time this winter?

Would trying 2-3 60-90min sessions/wk at increased intensity (90-95% LTHR) be a better strategy for my trainer time this winter?

Since you're current durations on the trainer have been pretty short (30-45 min), I would increase the duration to 60, then 75, then 90, before cranking up the intensity. Get used to handling the longer duration, then start building intensity. I think doing both at the same time will leave you too worked over to do this stuff repetitively, and the value of SST is the ability to keep on doing it.

is this true? anaerobic development comes at a cost of aerobic capacity?

this never has made sense to me. and, while it is often repeated, I have not seen it supported.

From what science I've read (as in, science, not the received wisdom of the ages, which has huge question marks), developing anaerobic capacity in February is not recommended because it is unnecessary and it comes at a mental cost, not because it is detrimental to aerobic development. I didn't think that aerobic metabolism ever is supplanted by anaerobic metabolism, just that it occurs in addition to aerobic metabolism. Otherwise I wouldn't be breathing so hard.

But I also have heard the opposite enough so that I might be missing something. What have you got? Does anaerobic development hurt aerobic capacity or development?

Sorry I couldn't respond sooner to this thread. I'm in the middle of midterms.

The reason anaerobic ability is detrimental to your winter training is because it has a much higher mental and physical strain. Doing a ride that incorporates anaerobic work is usually short: ~30min of actual hard efforts, at most. Thus, it comes at a cost of overall volume. Decreasing volume will cause the body to naturally taper, and eventually, you will peak. This is bad for your overall training -- aerobic ability is sacrificed for anaerobic ability.

The body responds fastest to neuromuscular stress, ~10 days. Anaerobic is usually about 1-2 months, and aerobic development takes years. Thus, it is better to hold off anaerobic workouts until a couple months before your priority races. Aerobic ability is also lost slower than anerobic.

"Always fit" training means you do not have particularly large aerobic ability, or particularly large anaerobic ability. Thus, you are forever in mediocrity...sort of. Periodization fixes this "problem" by building the slowest developing system first, and working the quicker adapting systems later.

"Always fit" training means you do not have particularly large aerobic ability, or particularly large anaerobic ability. Thus, you are forever in mediocrity...sort of. Periodization fixes this "problem" by building the slowest developing system first, and working the quicker adapting systems later.

You'll also likely be pleasantly surprised to find that by increasing aerobic capacity, all of those other numbers creep up or stay the same without even focusing on them (save for pure anaerobic sub 1M power).

By raising the floor, the ceiling kinda raises itself. It's not an all or nothing proposition. When the time comes to focus on raising the ceiling, watch out.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but am interested in whether some of the advice being presented is really based on empirical evidence with some rigor or is more a matter of ancedotal evidence.

I'm not trying to set up a strawman--I'm interested in why people advocate only submaximal (relative to threshold) training during the winter. It's not the case that these systems respond in 1-2 months if that means they are optimally trained in that amount of time. For one, track sprinters, both cycling and track and field, train these systems basically year round for years before reacing their potential. And, before base training was in vogue, top road cyclists (in Merckx's era) spent the winter doing 6-days on the velodrome, easily as intense as road racing (Zabel and others still do). Overall training volume may go down, but training load (say using TSS with a power approach) usually goes up and athletes have to worry more about overtraining with intensity. You could ride submaximal almost forever--look at the volumes ultra-endurance (RAAM) athletes put in with training.

Also, what is the evidence that anaerobic systems respond better to training after a long period of submaximal training? The opposite is likely true, as large volume training reduces the hormones involved in adaptive response to anaerobic training. You would never catch a sprinter (velodrome/track and field) doing large volumes of aerobic training. These are different energy/muscle groups, so what's the relation? In fact, a 100m track and field sprinter works first on maximal speed and then only worries about endurance (which for them means maintaining that speed once they've reached it for the duration of the 100m). Advocates of weight training for cyclists in the winter are advocating anaerobic training, since most of these training programs utilize anaerobic substrates.

Lastly, the research I've looked at suggests that aerobic endurance is not improved following submaximal performance in already trained-athletes (e.g., Laursen's 2003 review in Sports Medicine) and only improves with high intensity training. Is there anything other than anecdotal evidence to suggest otherwise. Maybe protour riders are really just de-training over the winter to rest from the enormous training loads they'll encounter during the year and are a poor model for basing amateur training programs on.

"Always fit" training means you do not have particularly large aerobic ability, or particularly large anaerobic ability. Thus, you are forever in mediocrity...sort of. Periodization fixes this "problem" by building the slowest developing system first, and working the quicker adapting systems later.

this has never made sense to me. how could "always fit" translate into "not all that fit"?

I mean, what you're saying makes sense only if I accept the premise that one hurts the other, or comes at the cost of the other. I understand that I can't spend all my time doing sprints and then expect to hold up in five hour races, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a year-round, balanced program that is fun as hell because I love to ride my bike.

I'm interested in why people advocate only submaximal (relative to threshold) training during the winter. It's not the case that these systems respond in 1-2 months if that means they are optimally trained in that amount of time. For one, track sprinters, both cycling and track and field, train these systems basically year round for years before reacing their potential. And, before base training was in vogue, top road cyclists (in Merckx's era) spent the winter doing 6-days on the velodrome, easily as intense as road racing (Zabel and others still do). Overall training volume may go down, but training load (say using TSS with a power approach) usually goes up and athletes have to worry more about overtraining with intensity.

You would never catch a sprinter (velodrome/track and field) doing large volumes of aerobic training. These are different energy/muscle groups, so what's the relation? In fact, a 100m track and field sprinter works first on maximal speed and then only worries about endurance (which for them means maintaining that speed once they've reached it for the duration of the 100m).

Lastly, the research I've looked at suggests that aerobic endurance is not improved following submaximal performance in already trained-athletes (e.g., Laursen's 2003 review in Sports Medicine) and only improves with high intensity training.

I like your post :) Although it may seem like I know everything about this, I will be quick to admit that I do not. But, I will try to answer with the best of what I know (or think I know). Nobody fully understands the body, and endurance sports are one example where practice usually comes before theory.

I first want to you to realize that none of this training is submaximal. These levels are based off one's 60 minute maximal power/FTP/60MP, NOT off one's lactate threshold power. That is, your LT power is much lower than your FTP. SST trains above your LT power, which is why it's only possible to do for a couple hours. Also, aerobic, anaerobic, etc capacity all go up with years of training. The idea is to break up your training into smaller cycles (periodized) that will give you the most benefit for your sport, given the dates of your race season. If you only worked on aerobic ability, you won't win a field sprint. If you only work anaerobic ability, you won't make it to the field sprint. Finding the optimal balance between these two, year after year, is the key to training and winning.

I took a look at your article (HIIT by Laursen and Jenkin). For one, none of us are "trained athletes." Also, SST is not low-intensity. His article advocated 40mins of on-power intervals at 85% of your VO2max. Guess where this lies in terms of training levels? The upper end of SST!

Pros train very differently than amateurs. They do base rides basically all the time because stage races are long and hard enough to cause overtraining if done in conjunction with HIIT. Hell, just ask argentius. Their idea of peaking tends to be: choose a stage race 3-4wks before your A-race (ie Dauphine Libere for Tour de France like Lance), recover/focus on weaknesses, taper, peak.

this has never made sense to me. how could "always fit" translate into "not all that fit"?

I mean, what you're saying makes sense only if I accept the premise that one hurts the other, or comes at the cost of the other. I understand that I can't spend all my time doing sprints and then expect to hold up in five hour races, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a year-round, balanced program that is fun as hell because I love to ride my bike.

How about this... if you could build your aerobic capacity (FTP) it would grow more than it will under a balanced program. Then, without really losing much FTP, you can turn to focus on the shorter stuff right before a race. At that point in time, when the planets align, you WILL be faster. And even before the planets align, unless you are regularly doing long mountain climbs, the SST stuff will probably increase your overall fitness to a surprising degree, because most people just don't train at long intervals near FTP. The standard group ride, for instance, has VERY little threshold work.

Does that mean not doing every group ride you can? Probably. Does it mean really suffering through some difficult intervals before the peak? Yep. Can those things make riding your bike seem like a chore rather than something fun? Fo sho. If that leads to not riding as much or having reduced motivation, does this program suck for you? Yes, absolutely.

Since you're current durations on the trainer have been pretty short (30-45 min), I would increase the duration to 60, then 75, then 90, before cranking up the intensity. Get used to handling the longer duration, then start building intensity. I think doing both at the same time will leave you too worked over to do this stuff repetitively, and the value of SST is the ability to keep on doing it.

Sorry I did not explain myself well. I'm a reasonably fit middle aged recreational rider (6'/165#/4k mi annually inc. multiple centuries, 100k's) looking to minimize fitness loss over my Midwest winter. I realize winter is a good time to refresh both mentally and physically, but obviously we can't/won't stay off the bike for 3 months. Like most, long trainer sessions hurt me more mentally than physically which is why most of my sessions last year were so short. I did have some longer (60-90min+) trainer rides which watching sporting events (football & hockey), but I tend to get wrapped up in the game rather than watching my intensities ;).
I guess I was wondering how off-season session durations (e.g. 30 vs 60 vs 90 min) and frequency (# sessions/wk) were determined for SST in the individual cyclist, and if there was a different formula for maintenance vs building.

This is where TSS (training stress score) comes in. Do you have a power meter or just a HR monitor?

How about this... if you could build your aerobic capacity (FTP) it would grow more than it will under a balanced program. Then, without really losing much FTP, you can turn to focus on the shorter stuff right before a race. At that point in time, when the planets align, you WILL be faster. And even before the planets align, unless you are regularly doing long mountain climbs, the SST stuff will probably increase your overall fitness to a surprising degree, because most people just don't train at long intervals near FTP. The standard group ride, for instance, has VERY little threshold work.

Does that mean not doing every group ride you can? Probably. Does it mean really suffering through some difficult intervals before the peak? Yep. Can those things make riding your bike seem like a chore rather than something fun? Fo sho. If that leads to not riding as much or having reduced motivation, does this program suck for you? Yes, absolutely.
I think we understand each other, and I appreciate your appreciation for what I am saying.

I get that under the overarching, can't beat it with a stick, paramount rule -- you are what you train to be -- if you train long steady hard efforts, the rising waters will float all boats, and then you'll have that much more gas come crunch time when the sprint winds up or the jump comes or the break goes. Although we tend to train such efforts with rest in between, because they suck so tremendously, that's not when they tend to come in competition.

I think I get it. And, even on group rides now, I am trying to be the one at the front, towing, to keep that sustained effort going, rather than sitting in for shorter, harder efforts. Although what I really need to improve is my sprint!

I think I get it. And, even on group rides now, I am trying to be the one at the front, towing, to keep that sustained effort going, rather than sitting in for shorter, harder efforts. Although what I really need to improve is my sprint!

Unless your group rides are significantly different from mine, though, even that get-to-the-front-and-kill-it strategy is probably more of a VO2max effort than a true threshold effort. The pulls are probably less than 5 minutes, right? Well, I know that that's how it works on my group rides, unless I'm riding with a small group and we've agreed on a training goal in advance.

But I've found that after a winter full of SST, I'm chomping at the bit to do some group rides and racing, and that by racing "stupid" I can get a really good VO2max type workout with minimal psych strain (as opposed to grinding out a set of 5x5min @115% of FTP, which are very difficult for me mentally). Plus, with all of that build in aerobic fitness, throwing down on a group ride with the intent to work on 2+ minute efforts as race season approaches can be a hoot.

Sprinting is a different animal (and thread) altogether. One part is physical -- must be able to put out the watts for the short bursts -- but the other part is a zen thing... reading the race, following wheels, timing the jump, etc. The first part can be trained for sure, the second, well... another good rationale for doing a group ride or group sprint session. SST, IMHO, will do NOTHING to improve your sprint.

I used the numbers from last weeks test, and after an 8 min. warmup, did :35 min. on the trainer @80-85% of MAXHR, or about 90-95% of my LTHR acording to the test (164). My avg. HR for the ride was 152. I am doing a cyclocross race on sunday, and I lifted last night, so I'm not trying to kill myself. It's only november. I figure I will do whatever i feel like for the rest of the month, treating this weekend as a peak, and then start doing a lot of :45-1:15 sst rides on the trainer, and as many 3+ hr rides as I can tolorate in winter conditions( I'm guessing once a week). I will start doing some intervals in mid January. I need to be fast in mid may to early july, and sept.to eary october.

SST, IMHO, will do NOTHING to improve your sprint.
I have to believe, though, that the higher level of power that you can put out aerobically at crunch time won't give you a sprint but will save you with the most upper end to sprint, no?
the irony of this debate is that I somehow naturally -- either because of my physiology or the way I like to ride or both -- have the ability to maintain a pretty high level of exertion steadily for long periods of time. I can lay out 300 watts for, well, I'm not sure for how long, but at the end of one group ride, after which I'm going home solo, I'll try to maintain that for twenty minutes or so on flat ground. That's not my limit; that's just where the flat ground is. That's not that hard for me. My club does a regular route with about a half hour relatively flat paceline, and that's usually the easiest part of the ride, for me. Lots of other guys get dropped.

I have to believe, though, that the higher level of power that you can put out aerobically at crunch time won't give you a sprint but will save you with the most upper end to sprint, no?

Sure, with 2K to go you may now be in the mix where you were previously getting popped. But if your best 5s power is 800w and the guy on your wheel with 200m to go can do 1300, I don't care if you've got a threshold 20% higher than his, my money's on him every time. Now can you use your better threshold power to ensure that he's not there at 2K to go? Yeah, that's the fun part.:)


I can lay out 300 watts for, well, I'm not sure for how long, but at the end of one group ride, after which I'm going home solo, I'll try to maintain that for twenty minutes or so on flat ground.

Now consider how much pain you'd be able to inflict if you could hold 330 indefinitely instead of 300...

Have you ever done a 40K TT? Sounds like you might be pretty good without even knowing it.

This is where TSS (training stress score) comes in. Do you have a power meter or just a HR monitor?

I'm using just a HR monitor. I'm still trying to understand how HR%'s grossly relate to various %Powers. And I know these are 2 different and imperfectly related parameters. For example- with no change in the aerobic engine an orthopedic injury could drive power down and HR up (e.g. due to pain). Since my goals are 'only' fitness related, I figure that HR is reasonable to follow, along with perceived exertion, as a general guide to overall cardiopulmonary stress.

you know, I never have done a TT. they just didn't interest me. but I'm going to give it a go next season, particularly since I'll be racing age 50 next year, and I might could do pretty well in my age group. although we have a couple of disturbingly monstrous 50 plussers. should be good for some points, anyway.

I'm using just a HR monitor. I'm still trying to understand how HR%'s grossly relate to various %Powers. And I know these are 2 different and imperfectly related parameters. For example- with no change in the aerobic engine an orthopedic injury could drive power down and HR up (e.g. due to pain). Since my goals are 'only' fitness related, I figure that HR is reasonable to follow, along with perceived exertion, as a general guide to overall cardiopulmonary stress.

That's basically how I do it while outside. The only problem for you is that you do not know how power relates to PE in most cases, where-as I have a general understanding due to occasionally using a PT and often using my power-trainer.

It's amazing how having a 93%(of max) HR w/PE=8 can easily result in a power output far, far below what you may expect. You understand this though.

You can still be realistic with this style of training. To give you an idea, my FTP HR is ~90% of my max = 261w. 82% of my max HR yields 235 watts (all steady state), with the law of diminishing returns ensuing any further than that. I also notice that, while standing at the same PE, my HR will rise ~2-3% and my power often drops slightly. All of which are things to consider.

bill -- rock on :thumbsup:

this has never made sense to me. how could "always fit" translate into "not all that fit"?

I mean, what you're saying makes sense only if I accept the premise that one hurts the other, or comes at the cost of the other. I understand that I can't spend all my time doing sprints and then expect to hold up in five hour races, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a year-round, balanced program that is fun as hell because I love to ride my bike.

This one is a hard one for me, too, but here's how I see it.

Let's consider an extreme, a RAAM racer. Let's say the training plan for the RAAM racer involves 500 mile (or more) weeks, with a 200 mile endurance ride once a week. If the RAAM'ster would go out and starting doing anaerobic intervals on Saturday, he may not be able to complete his 200 miles on Sunday; or vice versa, if he does 200 miles on Saturday, the intervals on Sunday won't be very fast. So, if recovery is the limiting factor, you just can't fully train in both modes at once.

However, for most of us, *time*, not recovery, may be the limiting factor. If I have 10 hours a week to train, maybe 4-5 days a week, I can probably do some intervals and do some endurance rides and not sacrafice quality for either. If that's the case, then am I better off doing 10 hours of just aerobic training all winter, or, assuming I can recover and get in quality workouts for both, am I better off staying a bit sharper and doing some intervals, hard climbs, hard group rides as well as some endurance work? I tend to think I am.

However, for most of us, *time*, not recovery, may be the limiting factor. If I have 10 hours a week to train, maybe 4-5 days a week, I can probably do some intervals and do some endurance rides and not sacrafice quality for either. If that's the case, then am I better off doing 10 hours of just aerobic training all winter, or, assuming I can recover and get in quality workouts for both, am I better off staying a bit sharper and doing some intervals, hard climbs, hard group rides as well as some endurance work? I tend to think I am.

You didn't read the article that Nitro linked that started the thread, did you? If you had, I think you'd see that your plan fits squarely into the SST game plan. You've picked up on the two biggies -- 1) it's time to train, not ability to recover, that is the most common limiter, and 2) with not much time to train, you've got to make the time you have count by riding "kinda hard"** all the time. That, in a nutshell, is SST.

** hard enough to produce a training effect (within the time allotted) but not so hard that you can't do it again tomorrow.

The only risk I see with using a plan like this all year long is that it may be hard to build enough of a training load to back off and peak, because by backing off without first overextending you won't be recovering from anything and will just see the fitness you have melt away. It can also be frustrating to see those who are using a more periodized plan be able to put the wood to you "in season," when they can afford to sacrifice some aerobic fitness for vo2max and anaerobic power.

I used the numbers from last weeks test, and after an 8 min. warmup, did :35 min. on the trainer @80-85% of MAXHR, or about 90-95% of my LTHR acording to the test (164). My avg. HR for the ride was 152. I am doing a cyclocross race on sunday, and I lifted last night, so I'm not trying to kill myself. It's only november. I figure I will do whatever i feel like for the rest of the month, treating this weekend as a peak, and then start doing a lot of :45-1:15 sst rides on the trainer, and as many 3+ hr rides as I can tolorate in winter conditions( I'm guessing once a week). I will start doing some intervals in mid January. I need to be fast in mid may to early july, and sept.to eary october.

Yeah, what if we race cyclocross all winter? What genre of training does this fall into? It's short and aerobically demanding but requires high intensity and sprinting nearly the entire race.

Also, where should road, TT or MTB training begin after cross season? What training basics have been taken care of if any? Are there too many variables in each individual racer to consider forming an answer?

Yeah, what if we race cyclocross all winter? What genre of training does this fall into? It's short and aerobically demanding but requires high intensity and sprinting nearly the entire race.

Also, where should road, TT or MTB training begin after cross season? What training basics have been taken care of if any? Are there too many variables in each individual racer to consider forming an answer?

Obvious by this thread that theres not one correct answer.

Doing any workout in HR zone 2 and above will make you stronger though working in this low zone all winter wont make you that much stronger than you are now. Ridng zone 4 and higher in winter gives the best results but nobody could ride in these zones every day in the week and recover properly...so these folks would need to take 3+ recovery days per week.. This also wouldnt give you the best bang for the buck in order to make maximum gains during the winter as theres too much downtime.

So whats a rider to do?

You need to find a balance between intensity and easy rides so that you are riding 5 to 6 days a week with proper recovery. You want to tax your body just enough so that it gets stronger while at the same time is rested enough for the next days workout.

Someone posted this on another forum. Paragraph 4 it looks like Friel is advocating for a little more intensity during the base period. I thought this was interesting.

http://www.ultrafit.com/newsletter/november07.html#AA

You want to tax your body just enough so that it gets stronger while at the same time is rested enough for the next days workout.

That is the idea with riding at high L3, Low L4. This is of course in Coggan's Zones. I am not sure exactly how it would translate to different HR zones. I have been able the last couple weeks to put 4-5 days in with at least 1hr per day in the SST range. My legs actually feel pretty good.

.

That is the idea with riding at high L3, Low L4. This is of course in Coggan's Zones. I am not sure exactly how it would translate to different HR zones. I have been able the last couple weeks to put 4-5 days in with at least 1hr per day in the SST range. My legs actually feel pretty good.

There not Coggans zones :) .... well he coined them but its not his idea


This so called SST training has been around... and used by top coaches and athleetes (Lemond for one) since the late 70s. HR and power zones do differ but there close enough for most to use as a guide when trying to balance work thats too taxing vs getting the biggest bang for their buck. Not like power and watts didnt exist before powertaps :)

Far as staying in those SST zones I can handle 1-2 hours while on the trainer in that zone (2x20 or 1x60 tempo intervals). I am doing 6 days a week of of SST zone work right now (7th day of the week is at recovery pace for 1h).

Ideally, you have to choose which season you want to do really well in, or 2 seasons you want to do well in. Really well in 1 season with a true periodized peak (usually the middle of summer), well in 2 season (spring and fall for a double peak), or "always fit" which usually isn't the best method in higher categories. If this means doing well in the spring/early summer in road and again in cross, there is a tradeoff when most of the races are (July/August for road/mtb). Double peaking is a pretty difficult concept to do correctly.

wfrogge - How many hours/wk is that for you? How long have you been doing them for? Any signs of wanting to give up because of the mental exhaustion from the trainer? Just my curiosity poll.

Hey nitro, I ain't him, but I'm doing between 6000 and 7800+ Kj / week on about eight hours, with a weekly TSS load of about 600. I've been doing this for about 10 weeks now. Three rides have been outdoors.

YMMV and all that, but with the right mental stimulus (tv/movie/audiobook -- try Harry Potter or Artemis Fowl, really), it shouldn't be that hard to tune out for a while. If it's really difficult, try reducing the intensity by 10-15w.... you'll get very close to the same benefit.

Oh I know, it's just my second season on the trainer and the fun wore off a long time ago. I started Nov. 1st with the trainer rides (Chicago doesn't have any riding). I'm lucky to hit 7hrs/wk at a TSS of about 550-600. Usually I'm at 400TSS with 4 rides at 5hrs/wk, though these past 2 weeks were brutal (TSS ~200) due to finals.

I'll get a solid amount of L2/L3 work in 2 weeks when I find my way to Austin, TX for a cycling trip :) TSS of 200+/day for 4 days.

Anyone else tracking TSS who wants to comment on how they are managing it?

People are using a training system based on a graph that has one axis labeled "Arbitrary units"? One day it's pieces of leftover Halloween candy consumed, the next drops of sweat per minute- just insert any unit there and the system works? I'd say, "Wow," but I see exercise systems like this advertised on late night TV all the time- buy the gizmo, do hardly any work, and in two weeks you'll have six-pack abs.

These are not arbitrary units. What we are measuring here is training effect and 100 means maximum possible training effect one can get from any kind of training.

What the chart then says is that training in the upper L2 to lower L4 effort (sweet spot) level produces maximal training effect and cycling performance improvement.

L2 is your endurance effort (typical 3 hr or more effort), L4 is time trial effort (typically one hour). L5 is aerobic work capacity (5 min effort), L6 is anaerobic work capacity (1 min effort) and L7 is the short 15 second all out burst.

L1 is recovery pace. So, the gist of it is train one a half hour in SST and you see max gains.

Ideally, you have to choose which season you want to do really well in, or 2 seasons you want to do well in. Really well in 1 season with a true periodized peak (usually the middle of summer), well in 2 season (spring and fall for a double peak), or "always fit" which usually isn't the best method in higher categories. If this means doing well in the spring/early summer in road and again in cross, there is a tradeoff when most of the races are (July/August for road/mtb). Double peaking is a pretty difficult concept to do correctly.

wfrogge - How many hours/wk is that for you? How long have you been doing them for? Any signs of wanting to give up because of the mental exhaustion from the trainer? Just my curiosity poll.

Last year was my first year back after a very long layoff from racing (or doing anything really) so im pretty fresh.... From past history it takes me 3 years of constant training before I start feeling burn-out and need a winter break.

Im riding 10-14 hours a week depending on if I can get outside and ride or if im riding the trainer. My off-season started mid Sept and ive been doing the above hours every week since then. I'm not going to say its mentally easy to ride like this but I try not to think of the negative..... One key thought ill say to myself is that somewhere in my region there is a guy thats riding today.... If I decide to take a day off that will give him the edge next season. In reality thats prob not the case. Taking one day off wont really hurt overall but those slack days add up. Now im not talking about riding through pain or sickness cause if something is really wrong either ill have an easy ride that day or just take time off the bike.

Everybody has to find their own edge and learn how to "ride the line" between overwork and underworking. For me my sweet spot is 10-14 hours a week during the winter. Once race season is two weeks out ill start cutting back to around 8 and replace some LTHR work with V02 and higher workouts. At that time ill be racing just about every weekend and that will keep me in shape. If everything works out right I will hold a peak for around a month in May and another in Aug.

For a loooong time I've tracked the building of aerobic capacity pretty closely in early season, years ago by recording TT speeds and/or speeds over fixed loops, more recently by means of power. What I've seen is a steady build in aerobic capacity up until the point where anaerobic training/training races are started in early season. What happens next is a large buildup in anaerobic power while aerobic capacity remains relatively the same. As more and more anaerobic work is done during the season, aerobic capacity gradually diminishes. At peak, during early and mid season, because of the tremendous boost in anerobic capacity, overall performance for most events is greatly improved, but as the season wears on, it has become obvious to me that so long as I continue hard anaerobic work, my capacity for pure aerobic work (TTs) diminishes. At the end of the season, unless I've cut out anaerobic work and specifically trained just for TTs, every test I've ever done shows a diminished aerobic capacity. The good news is that after a couple of months of hard but purely aerobic work, I'm back up to what (in this late stage in my game) is probably my aerobic potential.

My experience is very similar to yours.

Also 'stillriding' (since 1974)...

Coach Troy McClure (aka Phil Hartman, RIP).

You may remember me from.............................................. .............

Bump for the mid-season maintenance work.