TT training question

Have a look at the best TT'ers in the world. Fabian, Lance, Jan, Ivan, Zabriskie, Vino, Rogers, David Millar etc. There all roadie's...They do the TT training whilst training for road races without realizing it. A lot of them will do a specific prep for the worlds TT champs but besides that just normal training.

Anyone who tries to tell you an Aerobic base is not important has been smoking something illegal. Ive heard Alexander Popov (50m freestyle swimmer) would spend up to 8 hours a day doing aerobic training. His events were about 20 seconds long!

If my aerobic endurance is poor I feel [censored] on the bike and can't perform well at anything especially TT's.

Do not just focus on FT...yes your FT is your end goal for a 40km TT but simply riding as many hours at FT per week won't improve your FT as quick as it should.

What you say about those cyclists is certainly true, but cycling does not revolve around time trials (they would probably train a little differently throughout the year if there was only 1hr or so time trials), so maybe its better to think about other sports like running and swimming. I've definitely read lots of training articles that suggest spending the majority of training time (for running) under 80% of mhr (of course they do not have the luxury of power meters so its harder to say what that really means, but it certainly isn't hard intervals). runnersworld.com has a virtual coach which will give you a simple training plan based on how many mile a week you currently run, a race result, how much time until your race, and the race length you are competing at. The training coach advocates mostly easy days, with one long run per week, one tempo run, and one day of intervals. It varies depending on the week in ways that you would expect, it starts out with more base and then near the race it focuses more on intervals (so at the beginning there might be one day of intervals or tempo each week, so 4-5 days of easy runs).

Of course running is much different than cycling, in that slow runners are much much slower than slow cyclists compared to those who are fast (a 3 hour marathon is impressive to me, but it is a full hour slower than what a world class runner could do), so in that sense aerobic endurance is maybe a little more important in running, so perhaps that is why the training coach advocates so many easy runs.

I think maybe I just misunderstood certain threads on this board (for example the its killing me thread). I think most cyclists do a long slow ride a week (with allowances for periodization), and that is probably the most important thing for aerobic endurance. Maybe all the cries on this board for the importance intervals implicitly assumes that everyone already does a long aerobic workout each week, and that is probably why I am confused. Is there a good way to understand the benefits of a large aerobic base scientifically?

I should point out that I'm mainly interested in this subject from an intellectual point of view. But I do rely on these forums for training advice (though my main goal is just to improve my conditioning in a general sense since I just started riding and don't have the skills to race safely). I just want to try to understand the science better. Most arguments on this board over the value of training at lower intensities don't really resolve themselves very well. Usually someone will say, as you did, that the pros do lots of low intensity training, so it clearly is beneficial. Then someone else will say, well not everyone can train for so many hours, and the pros have extremely long races. So I wanted to pose a question that couldn't be answered saying that the pros have extremely long races or that regular dudes don't have very much time.

I guess its really important to understand the context of the training tips that are given out on this board. It seems to me that people on this board are successful with all kinds of different training plans, so maybe I'm overanalyzing.

GIH said:

What you say about those cyclists is certainly true, but cycling does not revolve around time trials (they would probably train a little differently throughout the year if there was only 1hr or so time trials), so maybe its better to think about other sports like running and swimming. I've definitely read lots of training articles that suggest spending the majority of training time (for running) under 80% of mhr (of course they do not have the luxury of power meters so its harder to say what that really means, but it certainly isn't hard intervals). runnersworld.com has a virtual coach which will give you a simple training plan based on how many mile a week you currently run, a race result, how much time until your race, and the race length you are competing at. The training coach advocates mostly easy days, with one long run per week, one tempo run, and one day of intervals. It varies depending on the week in ways that you would expect, it starts out with more base and then near the race it focuses more on intervals (so at the beginning there might be one day of intervals or tempo each week, so 4-5 days of easy runs).

Of course running is much different than cycling, in that slow runners are much much slower than slow cyclists compared to those who are fast (a 3 hour marathon is impressive to me, but it is a full hour slower than what a world class runner could do), so in that sense aerobic endurance is maybe a little more important in running, so perhaps that is why the training coach advocates so many easy runs.

I think maybe I just misunderstood certain threads on this board (for example the its killing me thread). I think most cyclists do a long slow ride a week (with allowances for periodization), and that is probably the most important thing for aerobic endurance. Maybe all the cries on this board for the importance intervals implicitly assumes that everyone already does a long aerobic workout each week, and that is probably why I am confused. Is there a good way to understand the benefits of a large aerobic base scientifically?

No some people think base training is totally unecessary :eek: . I think this is just to be alternative and "out there" so they get "respect" on the forums. Im deadly serious here! some people on this forum focus almost no attention on aerobic training. They still think they can increase there FT quicker without it :p . I guess thats why NO professional cyclists ever spend any more than 10 hours a week on a bike (sarcasm).

Without Aerobic Endurance you simply cannot hit a great peak. Peak performance is like a pyramid. The bigger "base" you have the higher and more stable the pyramid can be, Admittedly some people spend all there "stone" on building a base and have no intensity work so of course there pyramid will just look like a big pile of rocks. Work out how much stone (hours) you have to play with and then focus on building the pyramid...Build the base first and then keep adding layers (intensity). If you have no base and all intensity it will fall over and you are left with a big pile of rubble again.

Like my analogy??? :p

I have a polar performance training plan I could give you in a PM. Ill try and find this graph that basically sets up your season...I just gave this plan to my coach and he reckons it looks awesome so I follow this POLAR plan and he kind of watches over my training and gives advice.

sorry i cant get this thing to copy paste. probably protected or something like that

GIH said:

I should point out that I'm mainly interested in this subject from an intellectual point of view. But I do rely on these forums for training advice (though my main goal is just to improve my conditioning in a general sense since I just started riding and don't have the skills to race safely). I just want to try to understand the science better.

If you want to understand the science better, etc., then you're best bet is to ask the people that study the science of exercise, or to read their comments (on this forum). For e.g., on this forum we have sports scientists (of which i am one, as well as a coach), and exercise physiologists. In the case of the latter, we're extremely fortunate to have a leading expert who spends a lot of time with us - Andrew Coggan. Andy, has many peer reviewed publications in the field of exercise physiology and related subjects, and is an extremely well respected physiologist. You can search Pub-Med for his research, or check a few pages back on here where he listed his papers.

We've also had/have a few other sports scientists, physiologists, and coaches on the forum.

Of course you could also just follow what the pros do, some of which include some dubious practices (e.g., smoking to "open the lungs", taking drugs, etc).

Not all the pros train for very long periods of time (i coach/work with some pros). Most of your questions have been answered (by the people that matter). It just may require some searching.

Ric

If you send it to me it would probably help me out, but don't spend too much time trying to get it to paste if its not working. I do have a copy of Friel's Training Bible so I'm not totally in the dark.

I get the impression that there is a lot more periodization than in other endurance sports like running. Maybe I'm totally wrong but I assume that this is because cyclists need to have anaerobic endurance (while a Marathon runner wouldn't). So a cyclist who does road races pretty much needs to have good abilities in all levels (in whatever levelling scheme, Dr. Cogan's for example) in their most important races, hence the emphasis on peaking.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is less the case in running because the anaerobic systems don't need to be highly trained, so a runner can have a more balanced set of training loads than a cyclist. In the case of our theoretical pro time trialist, he wouldn't ever need to train at greater than VO2 max, since he doesn't need to sprint. This would help him keep peak form for longer, I assume, because he could maintain his aerobic endurance, functional threshold, and VO2 max at the same time much better than if he was road racing.

My guess from intuition would be that if this guy was clever he could maintain his fitness fairly well throughout the year and not lose that much strength in the off season, since he doesn't have to abandon his focus on endurance, VO2max, or FTP for a long time, so that his training might be much less periodized than a normal cyclists. But I'm just guessing.

Yeah, I guess if I want to learn enough so that I can think independetly about training I should just bite the bullet and do a literature search, but generally I associate those with frustration (I'm a grad student in physics so I have to do it all the time). I'll be sure to check it out, I'm sure its interesting stuff. I just hope my background in science is good enough so that I can understand whats going on (I know statistics, but not very much biology).

Thanks

GIH said:

I spend a lot of time reading about training advice on this site an elsewhere on the internet, and I think I'm gaining a better understanding of training as a result. Naturally I understand that most people on this board myself included don't have that much time to train, and that much of the training advice is geared with that in mind. Also my general understanding is that professional cyclists train for extremely long hours everyday, and this is justified because they have the time and because their races are often extremely long.

Assume for a moment that there is a professional cyclist who only wants to be a time-trialist. They have all the time in the world to train, but their training goal is to complete a 40k time trial as fast as possible, or perhaps break the hour record. So clearly they want to maximize their FTP. How many hours would they train per day, and what would their training be like? Would they solely focus on the 3X20 type intervals around FTP that are advertised on this board? I assume they would do some kind of periodization. Would they spend lots of time (say more than 3 hours at once) working at L2 or L3, or would that be counterproductive for them?

I bring this up because the usefullness of extremely long L2-L3 type rides is debated often on these boards. Also I imagine the answer to this question might have applications to training for running, specifically races like the 10K and half-marathon, so I would appreciate any input from those who know a lot of running (what does a professional runner train like, and what is the benefit to them of doing long slow runs which I see advocated in lots of running publications?).

Sorry for the long post,
Thanks,

If you look at Andy C's powerpoint presentation on how his wife trained for the pursuit nationals on the fixed gear fever forum, it shows that even for 4 minute events, let alone 60 minute events, a lot of aerobic conditioning is needed. I don't think anyone disagrees on that. What some people are getting onto is that there is a certain equivalency between spending a long time at a low power level and a bit less time at a higher power level.

I don't think the answers would apply directly to running, as running tends to be far more destructive to the muscles due to the eccentric contractions and this limits training volume. If you wanted to add volume to running programs, it might be a good idea to do it by finding a long hill you can run up and walk down.

GIH said:

I think maybe I just misunderstood certain threads on this board (for example the its killing me thread).

I think you did.

GIH said:

I think most cyclists do a long slow ride a week (with allowances for periodization), and that is probably the most important thing for aerobic endurance.

Most people do. Though I'm not sure that a long slow ride is the most important thing for aerobic endurance.

GIH said:

Is there a good way to understand the benefits of a large aerobic base scientifically?

The best favor science could do to us, regarding this issue, have been to allow us to compute the "aerobic base" (as well as the other training phases) with precision.

HR based approach to this is called TRIMP. Power based approach obviously is called Performance Manager Chart (http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/pmc_summit.pdf)

Most "cries" you hear on this forum often want to highlight the fact that the "aerobic base" is broad spectrum, made of every "minute" engaged in a "mostly aerobic" activity. Mathematical models created to quantify the training load take into account that all "minutes" spent in improving one's aerobic base aren't equal. 1 minute spent at L3 should weight a little more than one minute spent at L2.

There's enough substance in these scientific concepts to reconcile athletes with the usefulness of aerobic base.

This chart here (part of the aforementionned pdf file) clearly illustrates it. The blue line represents the overall work capacity (mostly aerobic). The pink line represents the accute fatigue, in other words the cost of having increased the work capacity. The yellow line represents expected fitness curve.

BTW, effort up to threshold power is considered "aerobic" as well. 😄

GIH said:

I spend a lot of time reading about training advice on this site an elsewhere on the internet, and I think I'm gaining a better understanding of training as a result. Naturally I understand that most people on this board myself included don't have that much time to train, and that much of the training advice is geared with that in mind. Also my general understanding is that professional cyclists train for extremely long hours everyday, and this is justified because they have the time and because their races are often extremely long.

Assume for a moment that there is a professional cyclist who only wants to be a time-trialist. They have all the time in the world to train, but their training goal is to complete a 40k time trial as fast as possible, or perhaps break the hour record. So clearly they want to maximize their FTP. How many hours would they train per day, and what would their training be like? Would they solely focus on the 3X20 type intervals around FTP that are advertised on this board? I assume they would do some kind of periodization. Would they spend lots of time (say more than 3 hours at once) working at L2 or L3, or would that be counterproductive for them?

I bring this up because the usefullness of extremely long L2-L3 type rides is debated often on these boards. Also I imagine the answer to this question might have applications to training for running, specifically races like the 10K and half-marathon, so I would appreciate any input from those who know a lot of running (what does a professional runner train like, and what is the benefit to them of doing long slow runs which I see advocated in lots of running publications?).

Sorry for the long post,
Thanks,

BlueJersey said:

BTW, effort up to threshold power is considered "aerobic" as well. 😄

Ummm... that would be up to VO2max.

Ric

Far out, I think I have a better idea now. Thanks.