the value of base training??

robkit said:

its seems there are very conflicting views on the worth of "base" training.

one school of thought says that an entire seasons form is largely dependent on the amount of base miles put in over the winter.

yet the other says that all of this low intensity work is a waste of time, causes undue fatigue/boredom/burnout (inc physcological) and that the most valuable training is that which best increases power at threshold - the more effect for the least time in the saddle, the better. I have also seen studies suggesting that some groups have seen better improvement in V02 max using short turbo workouts with intervals, than those focussing on big miles of base training.

see for example:
http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/base.htm

then add to these arguments what is known about the trainng habits of the pros - perhaps 6 hours a day on at least 3-4 days a week.

so which is the right approach?! i'm getting confused!

I'm pretty sure base training is necessary to achieve high aerobic efficiency and endurance. I don't think the pros would waste their time riding 4-6 hours a day at 65% max HR for nothing. When they talk about 15-20K miles per year of training, my impression is much of that is at base endurance levels. After all, much of the TdF is ridden at base levels of intensity day-in and day-out. So for a stage-race pro, base training for 4-6 hours/ day really simulates race conditions.

But, base training has nothing to do with improving power at LT, or VO2 max; that's a different training regiment. My concept is that base training itself doesn't make you faster, but rather trains your aerobic energy systems. It enables you to complete long rides with maximum aerobic efficiency, conserving muscle glycogen for when you really need to put the hammer down on the competition. You could have a great VO2 max test number, but if you don't get to the final hill or sprint with some fuel left in the legs, you're not going to be able to go anaerobic when needed to win races.

robkit said:

its seems there are very conflicting views on the worth of "base" training.

one school of thought says that an entire seasons form is largely dependent on the amount of base miles put in over the winter.

yet the other says that all of this low intensity work is a waste of time, causes undue fatigue/boredom/burnout (inc physcological) and that the most valuable training is that which best increases power at threshold - the more effect for the least time in the saddle, the better. I have also seen studies suggesting that some groups have seen better improvement in V02 max using short turbo workouts with intervals, than those focussing on big miles of base training.

see for example:
http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/base.htm

then add to these arguments what is known about the trainng habits of the pros - perhaps 6 hours a day on at least 3-4 days a week.

so which is the right approach?! i'm getting confused!

If you are predominatly a 45 minute Crit racer then the value of thousands of base miles is not the same as if you are a classics stage road racer. Your training should reflect the events you are interested in competing in. If you are interested in multi-day stage races then you'd better be logging plenty of base miles and then some. If you want to compete in 10 mile TT events then it probably isn't of much value to do endless base miles.

They are valuable. Last year was my first year as a cat4. Around this time I overtrained. I was fooling around with the trainer during the Winter and hardly they were considered "base miles." My intervals weren't even long during my "build period" but I felt tired easily. Added that I was riding less than 100 miles a week, I lacked endurance, speed, and power. It took me a month for me to be motivated again, mentally and physically to ride again.

I began this season by starting off the base miles around 11/04. I rode to work when it was snowing and raining and cold (still do) and logged closed to 1500 miles by Feb. Got a powertap around the same time and did my first 20 minutes interval. Although it was difficult but I felt great. Ever since Feb I have been doing 2x20 TT interval once a week. Around May, I switched to a longer TT interval of 30 minutes once a week. My power has been increasing gradually and pleatued around June. I did take a mid season break for about 2 weeks. Just last week I did another harder 16 minutes TT test. Power has gone up slightly and my effort (HR) remained consistent, around 180 to 181. Today, I did some hill climbing interval with faster cadence. I am happy that I can sustain 290w (weight 130lb) on a 6 minutes climb.

If it wasn't for the base miles, that is no way I can increase so much work load than last year without losing my form or overtrained.

robkit said:

its seems there are very conflicting views on the worth of "base" training.

one school of thought says that an entire seasons form is largely dependent on the amount of base miles put in over the winter.

yet the other says that all of this low intensity work is a waste of time, causes undue fatigue/boredom/burnout (inc physcological) and that the most valuable training is that which best increases power at threshold - the more effect for the least time in the saddle, the better. I have also seen studies suggesting that some groups have seen better improvement in V02 max using short turbo workouts with intervals, than those focussing on big miles of base training.

see for example:
biketechreview.combase.htmOpen ↗

then add to these arguments what is known about the trainng habits of the pros - perhaps 6 hours a day on at least 3-4 days a week.

so which is the right approach?! i'm getting confused!

robkit said:

its seems there are very conflicting views on the worth of "base" training.

one school of thought says that an entire seasons form is largely dependent on the amount of base miles put in over the winter.

yet the other says that all of this low intensity work is a waste of time, causes undue fatigue/boredom/burnout (inc physcological) and that the most valuable training is that which best increases power at threshold - the more effect for the least time in the saddle, the better. I have also seen studies suggesting that some groups have seen better improvement in V02 max using short turbo workouts with intervals, than those focussing on big miles of base training.

see for example:
http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/base.htm

then add to these arguments what is known about the trainng habits of the pros - perhaps 6 hours a day on at least 3-4 days a week.

so which is the right approach?! i'm getting confused!

There maybe some need for some riders to do lots of long, low intensity riding (i.e., pros), but how many people can get in 6 hrs a day, three to five times a week?

Additionally, your fitness may not improve much doing this type of training (and may actually decrease).

VO2max is best increased with training intensities that come close to VO2max, and that are sustained for at least 3-minutes.

Doing lots of long steady riding, is probably best for conditioning your backside, making you feel at one with your bike, and helping with weight management.

ric

dhk said:

But, base training has nothing to do with improving power at LT, or VO2 max; that's a different training regiment. My concept is that base training itself doesn't make you faster, but rather trains your aerobic energy systems. It enables you to complete long rides with maximum aerobic efficiency, conserving muscle glycogen for when you really need to put the hammer down on the competition. You could have a great VO2 max test number, but if you don't get to the final hill or sprint with some fuel left in the legs, you're not going to be able to go anaerobic when needed to win races.

Sparing muscle glycogen (and therefore incurring more fat oxidation) is a function of how fit you are -- it's related to your LT and VO2max. Therefore, to spare muscle glycogen it makes sense to specifically increase your L and VO2max, which is done with moderate to intensive training and not steady base training

ric

robkit said:

see for example:
http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/base.htm

...

i'm getting confused!

Great question and great article. I share your confusion. As a somewhat serious but solidly recreational/Cat 5 rider, I hope the author of the article is correct.

He does seem to make one assumption, though, that I wonder if anyone can either validate or counter.

In short, Mr. Willet argues that our mean power vs. duration curve undergoes a sharp inflection at about 20minutes, varying steeply at power levels that can be maintained for less than 20 minutes and relatively shallowly at power levels that can be maintained longer than 20 minutes. I think I can relate to this notion in my own riding. He goes on to say, though, that because of the shape of this curve, our objective in training should be to move that 20 minute inflection point up. While this clearly will give great benefit in handling climbs, surges, etc., he argues that it will also translate into improved endurance power as well. The assumption he makes is that the lower intensity parts of the curve will move up along with 20 minute power, keeping the same slope out to longer durations.

I really hope he's right, because I just don't have time in my life for long base miles, but it seems quite possible to me that moving the 20 minute power up would just change the shape of the curve, making it fall off a little steeper as the duration is increased with no substantial change in long duration endurance performance.

I didn't read the references listed at the bottom of the article. Maybe this question is addressed there, but does anyone know of any study in this area, or have any thoughts or personal experience in training that might shed some light?

Like I say, I don't have time to train for long miles. 2 hours is long ride for me and treat I can squeeze in only every couple weeks. Someday, though, I'd like to move up into Cat 3/4 racing from Cat 5 and the races get longer when you move up. So, I hope Mr. Willet is right. It would be nice to know that the training I'm doing now for 35-40 mile RRs will benefit me sometime next season or the season after when I hope to be racing 50-70 miles.

Great thread!
J

ric_stern/RST said:

Sparing muscle glycogen (and therefore incurring more fat oxidation) is a function of how fit you are -- it's related to your LT and VO2max. Therefore, to spare muscle glycogen it makes sense to specifically increase your L and VO2max, which is done with moderate to intensive training and not steady base training

ric

Ric, am I wrong to think that LT can be raised by training around or even marginally below LT power? Which can be sustained for ~3 hours or perhaps longer for some people? While different from traditional LSD, this doesn't sound so far divorced from some conceptions of base training I've heard.

Roadie_scum said:

Ric, am I wrong to think that LT can be raised by training around or even marginally below LT power? Which can be sustained for ~3 hours or perhaps longer for some people? While different from traditional LSD, this doesn't sound so far divorced from some conceptions of base training I've heard.

assuming that you are talking about the same LT as me (1mmol/L above baseline or 2.5 mmol/L) then yes you would get fitter at that level but it would take time

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

There maybe some need for some riders to do lots of long, low intensity riding (i.e., pros), but how many people can get in 6 hrs a day, three to five times a week?

Additionally, your fitness may not improve much doing this type of training (and may actually decrease).

What is the reasoning behind advocating this training for pro's? What adaptations does it foster and how do you decide whether or not to recommend it for a given individual.

That's because of the race distance for the Pros cat1 and 2. I know a cat1 who regularly races in France and a true believer in base miles (2000+ miles) even before hitting the interval stuff. First, if you are not a pro or cat1 or 2, you don't have to worry about riding 400 miles a week or spending 4 to 5 hours a day riding. Even if you try, without the necessary cycling years under your legs, you can't. 140 to 200 miles or 10 to 14 hours is enough to be competitive even up to cat2 given that you also work full time. You just have to make good use of your time. When you go out to train for hill interval, you train for hill interval only. I have a teamate who rode something like 50 miles to the nearest hill and spent maybe 25 minutes climbing it and rode back home another 50 miles. He did 100+ miles that day but less than 10% of the time/miles working on the hill.

Roadie_scum said:

What is the reasoning behind advocating this training for pro's? What adaptations does it foster and how do you decide whether or not to recommend it for a given individual.

BlueJersey said:

That's because of the race distance for the Pros cat1 and 2. I know a cat1 who regularly races in France and a true believer in base miles (2000+ miles) even before hitting the interval stuff. First, if you are not a pro or cat1 or 2, you don't have to worry about riding 400 miles a week or spending 4 to 5 hours a day riding. Even if you try, without the necessary cycling years under your legs, you can't. 140 to 200 miles or 10 to 14 hours is enough to be competitive even up to cat2 given that you also work full time. You just have to make good use of your time. When you go out to train for hill interval, you train for hill interval only. I have a teamate who rode something like 50 miles to the nearest hill and spent maybe 25 minutes climbing it and rode back home another 50 miles. He did 100+ miles that day but less than 10% of the time/miles working on the hill.

I race cat 2 and have finished ahead of plenty of pro's, so what I am looking for is the physiological argument in terms of the costs and benefits of longer training rides. What do they achieve? When is this necessary? What are the trade-offs (apart from time)?

I know plenty of riders in my own category and above so what I am not looking for is anecdotes about the large or small miles x, y or z pro/1/2 is riding (unless you can furnish me with the complete training program of a protour rider including target races and power levels as well as info on who wrote the program - I'd be very interested to see that).

I don't think there are that many cat 1/2 riders hitting 400 miles a week, unless they live somewhere flat with minimal wind.

You have to do base training for endurance...

So bringing this back into practical terms now, in so far as I see it for the average amateur rider involved in only 1 to 2 hour road races or crits...

Assuming we've all got plenty of tolerance to cycle training in our legs, as a result of riding for at least the entirety of the 2005 season, would it not be better to spend the whole winter doing interval sessions (V02max, LT, etc) than maybe 10 hours a week of level 2?

Roadie_scum said:

What is the reasoning behind advocating this training for pro's? What adaptations does it foster and how do you decide whether or not to recommend it for a given individual.

there's several reasons to do steady volume training
1) weight management
2) the more training you do, the more you can do
3) you can't expect to do top end work all year round (on a daily or almost daily basis)
4) it may be more interesting/fun to do steady rides
5) it conditions you for doing long races (which obviously some people do)

there's probably other reasons as well

however, the mistake that many people make is to do all or too much of one type of riding (e.g., all steady volume, or all high intensity work), and you need a mix of both types for all riders. there may, however, be certain times when one type of training only is completed at the exclusion of other types (e.g., in people who do lots of races, they may need a good recovery period at the end of the season, for e.g., a month)

ric

robkit said:

So bringing this back into practical terms now, in so far as I see it for the average amateur rider involved in only 1 to 2 hour road races or crits...

Assuming we've all got plenty of tolerance to cycle training in our legs, as a result of riding for at least the entirety of the 2005 season, would it not be better to spend the whole winter doing interval sessions (V02max, LT, etc) than maybe 10 hours a week of level 2?

probably not. see my previous post

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Sparing muscle glycogen (and therefore incurring more fat oxidation) is a function of how fit you are -- it's related to your LT and VO2max. Therefore, to spare muscle glycogen it makes sense to specifically increase your L and VO2max, which is done with moderate to intensive training and not steady base training

ric

Useful to bring up that alleged LSD guru Arthur Lydiard did not think of aerobic training as long slow distance. His 100 mile a week for any runner from 800m to marathon was based on maximum aerobic steady state. He added that if one had time then they could do as much easy running as they could handle.

He also stressed that when one wanted to perform then they needed to do speed work. No results without it! Also no weight training just strength work through uphill bounding. On the bike it would be doing uphill sprints or on the track held starts staying in the saddle on larger gears (French Sprint Team use these).

Hamish Ferguson

robkit said:

So bringing this back into practical terms now, in so far as I see it for the average amateur rider involved in only 1 to 2 hour road races or crits...

Assuming we've all got plenty of tolerance to cycle training in our legs, as a result of riding for at least the entirety of the 2005 season, would it not be better to spend the whole winter doing interval sessions (V02max, LT, etc) than maybe 10 hours a week of level 2?

My feel is that it is important to take some recovery time - whether complete time off or extended time at low intensity. After that, I think it makes sense to mix up the intensities a little, but not to ride exclusively or even many intervals sessions. More to include a smattering of faster workouts amongst your level 2 and 3 rides, though not as frequently as you might as build up. Perhaps someone with more expertise can comment... (Ric?)

Roadie_scum said:

My feel is that it is important to take some recovery time - whether complete time off or extended time at low intensity. After that, I think it makes sense to mix up the intensities a little, but not to ride exclusively or even many intervals sessions. More to include a smattering of faster workouts amongst your level 2 and 3 rides, though not as frequently as you might as build up. Perhaps someone with more expertise can comment... (Ric?)

this is what i'd recommend. often, non pro cyclists have to work during the day (!) and at night in the winter would need to ride their trainer/turbo. these sessions are generally moderate to intensive, while weekend outdoor rides can be longer lower intensity

ric