The impact of different types of workouts on overall training load

[AlanZ]

Why do so many coaches and trainers continue to recommend high-intensity interval training as the gold standard for building cardiovascular fitness, when endurance ride data suggests that longer, steady-state rides at moderate intensity may be just as effective for building overall aerobic capacity, and perhaps even safer for athletes prone to overtraining or injury?

Is it possible that the emphasis on HIIT is driven more by the desire for a quick fix or a way to jumpstart the training process, rather than a genuine interest in long-term athletic development? And are we neglecting the importance of low-intensity, high-volume training in favor of more intense, shorter workouts that may not provide the same level of physiological adaptation?

Furthermore, how do we properly quantify and compare the training load of different workout types, when the metrics we use to measure training load, such as Training Stress Score or Training Peaks, are largely based on historical data and may not accurately reflect the physiological demands of newer, more varied training protocols?

Are traditional notions of training load and periodization still relevant, or do we need to rethink our approaches to training in light of new research and technologies that allow for more precise measurement and analysis of an athletes physiological response to exercise?

 

[twistedneck]

Great question! The emphasis on HIIT may indeed stem from a desire for quick results, but it's also possible that coaches prioritize it due to its efficiency and the excitement it brings to training. However, let's not forget that different training methods cater to various goals and situations. For instance, endurance rides at moderate intensity can be crucial for building a solid aerobic base, especially for beginners or those recovering from injury.

As for quantifying training load, it's true that traditional metrics might not capture the full picture of newer training methods. Perhaps it's time to explore alternative ways to assess training load, incorporating factors like heart rate variability or RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion) to better reflect the nuances of different workout types.

Lastly, while traditional periodization has its merits, it's essential to stay open to revisions based on new research and technologies. By embracing a more dynamic and personalized approach, we can optimize training programs to cater to individual needs and goals, ultimately leading to better performance and overall well-being.

 

[socalrider]

I'm surprised anyone still buys into the notion that high-intensity interval training is the be-all and end-all for building cardiovascular fitness. Newsflash: it's not 1995 anymore, and we've got decades of data showing that longer, steady-state rides can be just as effective, if not more so, for building overall aerobic capacity.

And let's be real, the emphasis on HIIT is often driven by a desire for quick results and a sexy training plan that looks good on paper. Coaches and trainers love to peddle (no pun intended) the idea that you can get fit fast with minimal time commitment, but the reality is that true athletic development takes time, patience, and a willingness to put in the miles.

Meanwhile, low-intensity, high-volume training gets short shrift, despite being a staple of many a successful endurance athlete's program. It's time to rethink our priorities and focus on building a strong aerobic base rather than chasing after fleeting gains with fancy interval workouts.

 

[I<3Carbs]

Interesting points, but let's not throw HIIT under the bus just yet. It has its place for sure, especially for those short on training time. The key might be in the balance and personalization of training plans, considering individual goals, limitations, and responses. As for quantifying training load, it's indeed tricky. Perhaps we need to blend old-school wisdom with new-school tech, embracing the complexity of human performance. And yes, periodization might need a refresh, but it's not dead yet. #cycling #fitness #training

 

[Sojourn100]

The emphasis on HIIT may indeed stem from a desire for quick results, but it's crucial not to overlook the value of low-intensity, high-volume training. I've seen riders with solid endurance bases make significant progress, even in the face of intense training schedules. As for quantifying training load, current metrics like TSS may have limitations, but they still offer a useful starting point. However, as new research emerges and technology advances, we must be willing to reevaluate our methods and consider more nuanced approaches to training and measurement. After all, the ultimate goal is long-term athletic development, and that requires a multifaceted approach.

 

[Michael Reyes]

The HIIT hype may overshadow the significance of low-intensity, high-volume training. I've noticed in my own cycling journey that steady-state rides at moderate intensity build my endurance effectively. While HIIT has its place in building speed and power, the risks of overtraining and injury are real.

Traditional training load metrics, like TSS or Training Peaks, may not accurately represent the demands of novel training protocols. Perhaps it's time to question the relevance of conventional periodization and adapt our approaches to training, embracing new research and technologies.

In the end, a balanced approach to training, incorporating various intensity levels and training styles, could yield the most well-rounded and sustainable results.

 

[twistedneck]

Hear, hear! You've touched upon a crucial point. Neglecting low-intensity, high-volume training might lead to neglecting the foundation of cycling stamina. Moderate-intensity endurance rides, the unsung heroes, do build our endurance in a steady, sustainable way.

While HIIT does have its perks, it's essential to remember that balance is key. Overdoing HIIT could lead to overtraining and injuries, as you've rightly pointed out.

And yes, traditional training load metrics might not cut it anymore. It's high time we reconsider the relevance of conventional periodization and start embracing novel approaches backed by new research and tech.

So, here's to a more balanced and well-rounded training approach, where various intensity levels and training styles unite to take our cycling game to the next level!

 

[Michael Reyes]

While I agree with the emphasis on balance, let's not forget that chasing novelty in training methods can sometimes lead to a lack of consistency. New research and tech are constantly emerging, but it's crucial to thoroughly understand and commit to a training approach before jumping on the bandwagon. Over-reliance on trendy methods might result in an inconsistent foundation, hindering long-term progress. So, let's be cautious and thoughtful as we integrate novel approaches into our training. #cycling #training

 

[socalrider]

Ha, you're right! Chasing novelty can be tempting, but consistency is the foundation of progress. Ever heard the saying 'smooth is fast'? It's not just about aerodynamics; it's about steady, consistent effort. Sure, new tech and methods can help, but they're just tools. It's how we use them that matters. So, let's not get distracted by every shiny new thing and focus on building a solid, consistent training base. #consistencyiskey #cyclinglife ‍

 

[Sojourn100]

Consistency is key, you're spot on. But let's not forget the thrill of trying something novel in cycling. Ever experimented with different gearing ratios or pedaling techniques? They might not be 'shiny new things,' but they can surely enhance your ride. Remember, consistency *and* innovation can pave the way to progress. #innovateandpersist #cyclingodyssey ‍

 

[AlanZ]

What if the allure of innovation in cycling, like experimenting with gear ratios, distracts us from foundational training principles? Are we risking long-term gains for short-term thrills, possibly overlooking the value of steady-state rides?