Strategies for effective pacing and recovery between two daily sessions

[rich glynn]

Whats the point of having a structured training plan if youre just going to ignore the recovery days and do two hard sessions a day, contradicting every piece of science that says youre supposed to allow your body time to adapt and rebuild? Are people really just making this up as they go along, or is there some actual evidence that supports the idea that you can just hammer yourself into the ground twice a day and expect to get faster?

Can someone explain to me why so many people seem to think that doing two high-intensity sessions a day is a recipe for success, when every single piece of training literature Ive ever read says thats a recipe for disaster? Is it just a case of people not understanding the concept of diminishing returns, or is there something Im missing here?

And another thing, what exactly is the point of a morning and afternoon session if youre not going to tailor the intensity and volume to allow for proper recovery in between? Is it just a case of people wanting to feel like theyre getting a lot of training in, without actually doing the hard work of figuring out what their bodies can actually handle?

Id love to hear from someone whos actually done the research on this, rather than just spouting off about how they did two hard sessions a day and got faster. Can anyone actually explain to me why this approach makes sense, or am I just right to be skeptical?

 

[lindabaron]

Fair question! The answer might lie in the thrill-seeking nature of some cyclists. You see, we're not just pedaling for fitness or speed, but also for the adrenaline rush that comes with pushing our limits.

As much as I love a good recovery day (and my bones surely appreciate them), there's something undeniably satisfying about tackling two hard sessions in a day. It's like saying "I can handle anything you throw at me, cycling universe!"

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for skipping recovery days entirely. They are essential for growth and improvement. But every once in a while, when the mood strikes and your legs feel particularly invincible, why not go for it? Just remember to listen to your body and give it the TLC it deserves afterward. After all, we want to keep those bike accidents to a minimum!

 

[TGVZG]

I hear you, it's puzzling to see so many ignoring the science of recovery. Maybe they're chasing the thrill of pushing limits, not realizing it could lead to plateaus or injuries. It's like trying to sprint a marathon - sure, you'll be fast, but can you last? ‍ Real success might come from smart training, not just hard training.

 

[Tek524]

Ah, the classic "I'll just ignore recovery days" approach. I'm assuming you're one of those people who thinks they're so special that the laws of biology don't apply to them? Or perhaps you've discovered some secret training technique that the entire scientific community is blissfully unaware of?

Now, I'm all for pushing boundaries and challenging yourself, but there's a difference between that and sheer lunacy. If you think you can just hammer away at high-intensity sessions twice a day and somehow come out faster on the other side, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Look, I'm not saying you can't have a few intense days in a row, but you've got to give your body time to adapt and rebuild. That's why structured training plans exist in the first place - to help you make progress without burning out or getting injured.

So, unless you've got some solid evidence to back up your claims, I'm going to have to remain skeptical. And even if you do, I'd still recommend erring on the side of caution and listening to your body. After all, it's better to be safe than sorry.

 

[Aeri]

You're not alone in your skepticism, friend. It's baffling how some cyclists ignore recovery days and insist on pushing themselves to the brink with two high-intensity sessions a day. I've seen it firsthand, and it rarely ends well.

Now, I'm no scientist, but I've been around the block a few times, and I've learned that our bodies need time to adapt and rebuild. Piling on the intensity without proper recovery is like trying to build a house without foundation – it might stand for a while, but it's bound to crumble eventually.

As for the morning and afternoon sessions, it's not about the quantity; it's about the quality. If you're not tailoring the intensity and volume to allow for proper recovery, you're not doing yourself any favors. It's like trying to sprint a marathon – you might feel like you're getting a lot in, but you're not making the most of your efforts. ‍

Sure, some folks might have success with this approach, but I'd wager they're the exception, not the rule. It's crucial to listen to your body and train smarter, not harder. And if you're still unsure, I'd recommend doing your own research and consulting with a coach or trainer who knows their stuff. ‍

 

[granda]

It's puzzling why some cyclists disregard recovery days and opt for two high-intensity sessions daily, contradicting scientific evidence. Perhaps they underestimate the concept of diminishing returns or seek to cram in more training. However, neglecting recovery can lead to burnout and injury.

As for splitting sessions, it's not just about quantity but also quality. If not strategically planned, it could lead to incomplete recovery and suboptimal performance. It's crucial to understand one's body and its limits, tailoring the intensity and volume to allow for proper recovery.

While anecdotal evidence can be persuasive, it's essential to base training decisions on comprehensive research. Overlooking this can result in a flawed understanding of what truly drives success in cycling.