Sweet Spot Training, a guide to building a powerful aerobic engine - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 124
  1. #51
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,095
    1. Coach Troy
    Coach Troy McClure (aka Phil Hartman, RIP).

  2. #52
    What? Me worry?
    Reputation: StillRiding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by bill
    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.

  3. #53
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,236
    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?

  4. #54
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: shawndoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldteen
    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.

  5. #55
    Impulse Athletic Coaching
    Reputation: iliveonnitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,576
    Quote Originally Posted by bill
    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.

  6. #56
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: shawndoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonnitro
    "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.

  7. #57
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: stevesbike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,610
    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.

  8. #58
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,095
    "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.

  9. #59
    Impulse Athletic Coaching
    Reputation: iliveonnitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,576
    Quote Originally Posted by stevesbike

    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.

  10. #60
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: shawndoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by bill
    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.

  11. #61
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,236
    Quote Originally Posted by shawndoggy
    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.

  12. #62
    Impulse Athletic Coaching
    Reputation: iliveonnitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,576
    This is where TSS (training stress score) comes in. Do you have a power meter or just a HR monitor?

  13. #63
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by shawndoggy
    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!

  14. #64
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: shawndoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by bill
    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.

  15. #65
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    126

    Didmy first sst ride!

    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.

  16. #66
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,095
    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.

  17. #67
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: shawndoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by bill
    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.

  18. #68
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,236
    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonnitro
    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.

  19. #69
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,095
    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.

  20. #70
    Impulse Athletic Coaching
    Reputation: iliveonnitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldteen
    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

  21. #71
    No Crybabies
    Reputation: Fixed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,683

    limiting factors / trade-offs

    Quote Originally Posted by bill
    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.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    When my fist clenches, crack it open
    Before I use it and lose my cool
    When I smile, tell me some bad news
    Before I laugh and act like a fool

  22. #72
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: shawndoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixed
    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.

  23. #73

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by guava
    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?

  24. #74
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by Albino
    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.

  25. #75

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    61

    Friel suggesting higher intensity during base period

    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

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.