Aerobic "base" training is BS

Quadsweep said:

I understand that the current "train of thought" is that one needs to develope a "certain" level of "base" aerobic fitness through endurance riding before trying to focus on building sustainable power at threshold.

Are you kidding? On this forum? You'd be more likely to be ducking flames from *encouraging* base.

IMO, "base" is a stale, overused, word. Yes, as an endurance cyclist you should work on aerobic fitness. No, you don't need to limit intensity to do that.

It's distracting, in my mind, to think of volume/intensity (below threshold) as two separate training methods. Any "plain-jane endurance training" (as Andy Coggan recently referred to L2-4) is pretty much a trade off between volume and intensity. It's more on point to think of "volume" in terms of TSS/CTL, since that combines both volume and intensity in one metric.

[quote="whoawhoa"]Are you kidding? On this forum? You'd be more likely to be ducking flames from *encouraging* base.

Really[img]cyclingforums.comconfused.gifOpen ↗[/img] Gee I guess the dudes here don't like Carmichael and Friel and their HUGE focus on building this so called "big aerobic engine" with tons of moderate level endurance riding.

[quote="Quadsweep"]

whoawhoa said:

Are you kidding? On this forum? You'd be more likely to be ducking flames from *encouraging* base.

Really[img]cyclingforums.comconfused.gifOpen ↗[/img] Gee I guess the dudes here don't like Carmichael and Friel and their HUGE focus on building this so called "big aerobic engine" with tons of moderate level endurance riding.

whoawhoa said:

Are you kidding? On this forum? You'd be more likely to be ducking flames from *encouraging* base.

IMO, "base" is a stale, overused, word. Yes, as an endurance cyclist you should work on aerobic fitness. No, you don't need to limit intensity to do that.

It's distracting, in my mind, to think of volume/intensity (below threshold) as two separate training methods. Any "plain-jane endurance training" (as Andy Coggan recently referred to L2-4) is pretty much a trade off between volume and intensity. It's more on point to think of "volume" in terms of TSS/CTL, since that combines both volume and intensity in one metric.

nice reply. 🙂

Quadsweep said:

Really[img]cyclingforums.comconfused.gifOpen ↗[/img] Gee I guess the dudes here don't like Carmichael and Friel and their HUGE focus on building this so called "big aerobic engine" with tons of moderate level endurance riding.

Nope. 😉 Search the forums for several threads to that effect, as Whoawhoa states.

In reality, there's probably nothing wrong with 'base' endurance training ala Friel. The problem is that people who don't have 20 hr/wk attempt to scale it down to their 6 hr/wk without understanding that the intensity needs to be scaled up to keep the aerobic impact significant. 6 hr/wk of long, slow duration just isn't going to build any fitness, base or otherwise.

frenchyge said:

Nope. 😉 Search the forums for several threads to that effect, as Whoawhoa states.

In reality, there's probably nothing wrong with 'base' endurance training ala Friel. The problem is that people who don't have 20 hr/wk attempt to scale it down to their 6 hr/wk without understanding that the intensity needs to be scaled up to keep the aerobic impact significant. 6 hr/wk of long, slow duration just isn't going to build any fitness, base or otherwise.

Damn...I liked your reply frenchy. And Whaowhao's too.

Seems like Carmichael and Friel are stuck on the old classic Russian Periodization approach to training which lost popularity in the late 70's I think.

whoawhoa said:

IMO, "base" is a stale, overused, word. Yes, as an endurance cyclist you should work on aerobic fitness. No, you don't need to limit intensity to do that.

Why not forget about moderate level aerobic rides altogether ,save to warm up and cool down, and build the aerobic engine with progressive volume of threshold intensity and then VO2 max as racing approaches? Of course the intensity would limit volume to a great degree.
What builds a bigger aerobic engine then these two things?

Quadsweep said:

Damn...I liked your reply frenchy. And Whaowhao's too.

🙁 and all those PM's...

Quoted post said:

Seems like Carmichael and Friel are stuck on the old classic Russian Periodization approach to training which lost popularity in the late 70's I think.

OMG! Blkhotrod is gonna be sooo annoyed with you for saying that 😄

ric

Quadsweep said:

Why not forget about moderate level aerobic rides altogether

boredom?
mental stress?
weight management
etc

(not suggesting you need to do lots of moderate aerobic rides...)

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

🙁 and all those PM's...

OMG! Blkhotrod is gonna be sooo annoyed with you for saying that 😄

ric

YES...Ric is good enough to answer a lot of PM's from me[img]cyclingforums.combiggrin.gifOpen ↗[/img] Here is a public statement of thank you.[img]cyclingforums.comsmile.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Quadsweep said:

Seems like Carmichael and Friel are stuck on the old classic Russian Periodization approach to training which lost popularity in the late 70's I think.

It seems to work fine for pros and people with plenty of time on their hands. Each person needs to consider their own goals, needs and schedule when developing their training plan, rather than just taking something out of a book and applying it.

Quadsweep, the answers to a lot of your training questions would be best addressed by a coach who is familiar with your particular needs and goals. You might consider looking into some coaching, if you're not already.

Yes, the word "base" has so much meanings. When I tell others I am working on my base miles by doing 2 hours of subthreshold work at 85% of FT, they didn't understand. People who haven't been training on power or to have the understand the concept of "sweet spot" training won't appreciate the amount of intensity and volume needed to cause adaptation. Working at your threshold for the whole off season can be too much or not possible or sustainable. I know because I found myself having problem completing a full 1 hour effort during the late season. In May, I can whip out 2 to 3 threshold sessions per week. I am working on high tempo (80% to 85% of FT) for 2 to 3 hours per session right now until Feb. The only threshold work I will do is doing "mountain repeats." Climbing at threshold.

Quadsweep said:

Now that you have the flame throwers ready please take the time to read before letting me "have it".[img]cyclingforums.comwink.gifOpen ↗[/img]

I understand that the current "train of thought" is that one needs to develope a "certain" level of "base" aerobic fitness through endurance riding before trying to focus on building sustainable power at threshold. Nobody really knows what the "ideal" amount is I think. As you know the idea is that the muscles and cardiovasular system need to adapt to this in order for one to have much success, or at least best success, building threshold power. So it is thought that ultimate threshold power is dependant to some degree on a big aerobic engine and the muscular adaptation that takes place from lots of endurance rides.[img]cyclingforums.comrolleyes.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Maybe, just maybe, all the endurance hours we log are a total waste of time, except to burn fat perhaps.[img]cyclingforums.comfrown.gifOpen ↗[/img]

I got thinking on this when a Jelly Belly pro told me that he is doing quite well on only 13 hours a week for a yearly average training time.[img]cyclingforums.comeek.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Why not just start trying to build threshold power from scratch with little aerobic training base ? This way time on the bike can be quite minimal from the "get go" and you can focus on the most important element of road racing, which as you know is sustainable power at threshold.. [img]cyclingforums.comredface.gifOpen ↗[/img]

***After all threshold training certainly works the aerobic energy system and must certainly build a big aerobic engine too! What better way to make the muscles and aerobic system adapt to threshold training than to focus on threshold training for a big portion of the year, starting in the Fall.[img]cyclingforums.comcool.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Perhaps one could develope good sustainable power at threshold even faster and to a higher level training in this way.[img]cyclingforums.comconfused.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Ah, but some will say that too much threshold focus is very stressful and that a rider will over train or go stale by focusing on threshold work too long. I say that maybe not IF one takes a recovery week every 4th week and more importantly allows for LOADS of recovery time during each training week.[img]cyclingforums.comsmile.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Perhaps two months before ones first races one could fit in some tough group rides.
Latter on and perhaps a month before ones first races one could focus on peaking with anaerobic intervals and VO2 max intervals.[img]cyclingforums.comrolleyes.gifOpen ↗[/img]

ie: you could focus on threshold riding like this, and in blocks.[img]cyclingforums.combiggrin.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Day 1. Toughest day: 15 minutes endurance....then Sprints for an hour, then threshold climbing for a total of 45 minutes. Then 30 minutes endurance.

Day 2. 15 minutes endurance followed by 60 minutes of threshold work motor pacing and 30 minutes endurance.

Day 3. 15 minutes endurance and then 45 minutes of threshold work on the trainer followed by 30 minutes endurance.

Day 4 and 5 recovery spin for 45 minutes each day
Day 6 or 7 depending on how one feels, start the cycle all over again but with a little more time at threshold and all along increases power output as you can.

[quote="Quadsweep"]

whoawhoa said:

Are you kidding? On this forum? You'd be more likely to be ducking flames from *encouraging* base.

Really[img]cyclingforums.comconfused.gifOpen ↗[/img] Gee I guess the dudes here don't like Carmichael and Friel and their HUGE focus on building this so called "big aerobic engine" with tons of moderate level endurance riding.

Quadsweep said:

Why not forget about moderate level aerobic rides altogether ,save to warm up and cool down, and build the aerobic engine with progressive volume of threshold intensity and then VO2 max as racing approaches? Of course the intensity would limit volume to a great degree.
What builds a bigger aerobic engine then these two things?

Because the adaptations in l2-4 are all really the same, it's just a tradeoff of intensity vs. duration (e.g., 60 minutes l4 is better than 60 minutes l3, but you can do significantly more l3). I suggest you check out the "sst" thread on the power forum. By limiting intensity somewhat, you can do much more duration and rack up the tss points.

Isn't it also a matter of conditioning the connective tissues, developing mental fortitude, working out nutrition and equipment requirements, strengthening core muscle groups, and growing a thicker skin on your ass?

kuan said:

Isn't it also a matter of conditioning the connective tissues, developing mental fortitude, working out nutrition and equipment requirements, strengthening core muscle groups, and growing a thicker skin on your ass?

Yes- and in my case losing a little of that ass. 😄 Im trying to convert from football player build to CAT 5 racer by next summer. So I need to strip weight off my upper body and ummm..ass.... long "base" type rides seem to burn the calories, muscle, fat and all. I try to work in some power sessions as well....down from 204 to 197 in seven weeks.....

Frenchyge, Solarenergy, Whoawhoa.

Threshold work and VO2 work do all that moderate level endurance work does for the cardio vascular system and muscular adaptation plus more. So again why bother with lower intensity and higher volume training at all. Is this not based on tradition and perhaps a bit of fear. Is there really any physiological reason to do such training even if "out of shape"....unless you are so far out of shape that threshold riding might cause injury even in low doses.[img]cyclingforums.comrolleyes.gifOpen ↗[/img]

I talked with Kirk Albers captain of Jelly Belly and he doesn't do anything below Tempo intensity and only avaerages 13 hours a week in training and this is a pro rider that does some darn long single day and stage races. He calls moderate endurance rides "JRA ,or just riding around"[img]cyclingforums.combiggrin.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Give this some thought. If you can do a threshold climb for one hour non stop don't you think you would have the cardiovascular power and muscular endurance to do a 3 hour race, especially after working on VO2 max intervals for a period of time before racing?

So far Ric's answer is best. The long moderate endurance rides are done out of boredom, to relive mental stress and for weight management.

Is Andy Coggan out there [img]cyclingforums.comredface.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Quadsweep said:

Frenchyge, Solarenergy, Whoawhoa.

Threshold work and VO2 work do all that moderate level endurance work does for the cardio vascular system and muscular adaptation plus more. So again why bother with lower intensity and higher volume training at all.

Did you read my post? Sorry if it was a bit confusing.

Basically, because time @ FT is limited. By definition, you can only ride at that intensity for an hour. An doing that too often is a great way to get mentally burnt out (try 7 40k tt's in a week). But, if you ratchet down on the intensity a bit, you still get the same adaptations. Now, the magnitude of the adaptations for an hour of l3 are going to be less than that of an hour at FT. But, I can go ride l3 for three hours, no sweat. Looking at it from a tss perspective (hopefully you read the power 411 on cyclingpeaks) you can't rack up more than 100 tss points per day at FT levels (plus 20-30 of JRA for warmup, cool down, rest intervals). But, I can basically rack up as much tss (metabolic stress) as I can take in 2.5-3 hours.

Now, of course, this approach still takes a moderate amount of training time, and notice that it doesn't require much l2 time. Personally, I only do l2 as part of longer group rides, because they're fun, and you get the same benefits as higher power work, just less efficiently. For a working stiff I would still suggest mostly l4 work during the week when time is limited followed by longer l3 rides on the weekend.

whoawhoa said:

Did you read my post? Sorry if it was a bit confusing.

Basically, because time @ FT is limited. By definition, you can only ride at that intensity for an hour. An doing that too often is a great way to get mentally burnt out (try 7 40k tt's in a week). But, if you ratchet down on the intensity a bit, you still get the same adaptations. Now, the magnitude of the adaptations for an hour of l3 are going to be less than that of an hour at FT. But, I can go ride l3 for three hours, no sweat. Looking at it from a tss perspective (hopefully you read the power 411 on cyclingpeaks) you can't rack up more than 100 tss points per day at FT levels (plus 20-30 of JRA for warmup, cool down, rest intervals). But, I can basically rack up as much tss (metabolic stress) as I can take in 2.5-3 hours.

Now, of course, this approach still takes a moderate amount of training time, and notice that it doesn't require much l2 time. Personally, I only do l2 as part of longer group rides, because they're fun, and you get the same benefits as higher power work, just less efficiently. For a working stiff I would still suggest mostly l4 work during the week when time is limited followed by longer l3 rides on the weekend.

I see. So what you are saying is that you can get the same adaptation with less intensity and more volume and you base that on a work load point system. Maybe, but where is the physiology behind that, the studies? Why didn't our good physiologist Ric mention this?
How far can you go with this. ie: if 3 hours at Tempo gives the same adaptation as one hour at threshold(which I do doubt) then maybe 7 hours at moderate endurance intensity will give you then same adaptations as 1 hour at threshold.
Not saying you are wrong and in fact you might be right.

ANDY[img]cyclingforums.comrolleyes.gifOpen ↗[/img] RIC[img]cyclingforums.comrolleyes.gifOpen ↗[/img]