Over the years my approach to building aerobic fitness has changed. I used to believe that long, slow distance (LSD) was the most important type of training for aerobic system development. But in the last few years, experimentation with the athletes I coach has led me to believe this is not enough. By itself LSD will not fully develop the aerobic system. A bit higher intensity is needed. Rather than just noodling along at a relaxed, 1-zone effort, I believe that one must challenge the aerobic threshold in training to see complete aerobic development.
hmmm ... not if you go by power guidelines 65% of "CP30" is roughly 68-70% of FTP. Squarely L2 isn't it??
You could be right, in my excitement I kinda got lost in all those thresholds and relative math. Still, it's a postive step from noodling along at a relaxed zone-1 effort. I smell another book coming! 🙂
... I kinda got lost in all those thresholds and relative math. Still, it's a postive step from noodling along at a relaxed zone-1 effort. I smell another book coming! 🙂
I did the same thing, started playing with Ant and Aet and backing off 20-30 bpm and figured my HR curves must be really different than his typical athlete's since that advice put me down in low L2. Then I caught the note that in power terms he's targeting 65% of 30 minute MMP.
So it seems like he's opening up to the idea of more intense "base" work but still very reluctant to move away from LSD. Funny, but his current recommendations remind me a lot of the way Eddie B tried to redefine LSD from Long "Slow" Distance to Long "Steady" Distance in his book nearly 25 years ago. A small step away from old school base training but a long way from SST work.
SST has been around since the late 70s. Even Lemond's book went over what we call now SST training zones and that was released back when.. early 90s? Late 80s? Keep in mind its about building a new, stronger base for next year not about keeping your base level from last.... lots of zone 2 work wont build much if anything at all.
I have Friels book but dont find it of much use for the way I train but its always a good idea to read what others think.
I always recommend Friel for people training seriously for the first time. He really gives you the nuts and bolts of periodization. I usually tell those people that Friel is a bit old school and they shouldn't necessarily follow his advise in the second year.
To me Friel always seemed to be geared towards triathletes...the programs lack intensity. I also get frustrated over his near paranoia about overtraing. In my opinion, very few real people have enough time to train to worry so much about overtraining.
By the way, is it Friel that is so worried about training in the red zone (ie Friel's zone 4)? In my opinion, that is where we should be training the most.
Having just completed my first season of racing, I've found Friel's program to be invaluable in establishing structure in my training plan and in conveying the periodization concept. As long as the reader is able to read past the ideas they disagree with (in my case the lack of offseason intensity and the ease of overtraining), it's a great tool.
