[quote="BullGod"]
ric_stern/RST
There's no real reason to always exercise at a low intensity over the winter. This type of base training has no basis in fact.
ric[/QUOTE said:
I just planned my winter training from Nov 1 to end of year. As Ric says, due to time pressures and suspicion of "base training" I am looking at a 3 week block of training then a weeks rest per month. In each week I will have 3/4 x 90 minute sessions on the trainer - with a mix of 30/40 second intervals, 5 minute intervals, 10 second sprint intervals and recovery rides (all on seperate evenings). On the weekends I will try and get out for some long tempo rides if the weather permits. Also throw in some weight training 2x a week.
out of curiousity, what's the purpose the weights?
Quoted post said:
I believe in 3 week blocks of training with a weeks rest then repeated. I also plan to gradually raise the intensity during each training block, and for the next one. I can do this with the power reading on my Taxc flow, which although not accurate, does give me an idea of how I am progressing.
there's no evidence to suggest that you need a 3 on 1 off week idea (but if it works for you, that's cool).
Quoted post said:
Another point Ric raised that interested me is the comment about losing weight by exercising at the *highest* intensity possible for as long as can be sustained. I was of the understanding that there is a "fat burning zone" at lower HR intensity that is more efficient for losing weight? My concern is to try and avoid weight loss, and I had always assumed that upping the intensity but reducing the overall volume ensured this. I'm sure I'm wrong.....
there is a common misnomer that there is a "fat burning zone". That is, fat oxidation occurs greatest at low(est) intensity, as at higher or highest intensity it carbohydrate oxidation that occurs.
This latter point, has led some people to conclude, that exercising at low intensity where fat oxidation is greatest is best for weight loss.
however, under the laws of thermodynamics, weight loss occurs when there is a negative energy balance. In other words you expend more energy than you consume. Where you expend it (i.e., the substrate mix) is of little importance in the grand scheme of things.
however, as exercise intensity increases (i.e., power output goes up) we expend more energy than at lower intensity. That's because work done is equal to power * duration. So, by exercising harder more energy is 'burnt' and greater weight loss can occur.
obviously, there is some cross over point, though. That is, if you go out and cane it for a kilometre until you puke, you might go home and put your feet up for the day absolutely shattered, but having only completed say 10-mins of exercise. On the other hand, you could out for a gentle spin for 5 hrs and expend more (total) energy than the 1k effort (although per unit time it is less).
of course, though, in the above if you ride at a hard, but sustainable effort for 5 hrs you'll expend more energy than the 5 hrs gentle ride.
one of the reasons, why the "fat burning" myth still perpetuates is simply, that at the low intensity it is easier to get untrained people involved in exercise and get weight loss to occur (rather than throwing them into some regime that is 'brutal'😉.
this is where having a power meter can be very handy to assess total work done, and what, if any effect it'll have on weight management
ric
