Training progression by bonking?

skipping_chain said:

This may be an outright silly idea that goes against all conventional training wisdom, but I've noticed several times that whenever I bonk on a long ride, I see a significant increase in sustainable power 3-4 days afterwards (sorry, no real data, just anecdotal). By bonking I mean only being able to noodle forward at 10-12mph on the flats while still being an hour away from home. Usually, the only thing that keeps me going is the thought of all stuff that I am going to eat once I get home.

I have two theories:

(1) Rides on which I bonk just happen to be harder rides with more training adaptation.

(2) Bonking is really good for you. In fact, when I used to ride my bike as a 17-year old, my regular training rides were metric centuries, and I used to do those on water only. The first few rides of the year were always really hard, but after bonking several times, you would get used to this type of training. I am sure there is an increase in time to glycogen depletion as a response to this training, but why in the world should you get faster under this kind of a training load of repeated bonking?

Okay, is bonking good for you or not? Are there any positive physiological changes stimulated by bonking? Any theories?

Skip

P.S. Does anyone know the elevation gain of the Moody Rd climb from the hairpin at the bottom to the intersection with Page Mill? It's about 11-12% and 100m elevation gain (not sure exactly) and it's great for those 3-4 minute intervals if you live on the SF Bay Area Peninsula.

Bonking (running out of muscle and liver glycogen as opposed to sex) is *bad* for you, as it causes to bonk on a more regular basis, which may predispose you to diabetes.

It tends to happen to most athletes, and there's certainly occassions where it will happen (e.g., went training ill prepared and forgot to take enough food with you, etc) but to induce it on purpose is *bad*

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Bonking (running out of muscle and liver glycogen as opposed to sex) is *bad* for you, as it causes to bonk on a more regular basis, which may predispose you to diabetes.

Wow. Really? Diabetes? Yeesh. Can I ask you for a source for that piece of data? I can imagine a correlation, but it's hard for me to imagine causality going in that direction (i.e., I can see a predisposition to diabetes causing you to bonk, but it's harder for me to imagine bonking causing a predisposition to diabetes).

Bonking bad. Bery bery bad.

Seriously, catabolism (despite my handle) is not a good scene. You may have noticed that when you got home, stuffed your face, then had a shower, that you smelled ammonia?

That's the byproduct of muscle-tissue breakdown. Your body ran out of glycogen and started to look to muscle tissue for energy.

*shudders*

very bad.

bonking, like overtraining, is a subjective term, meaning different things to different riders.
the term rate of perceived exertion is simular, we must listen to our own bodies, this is the key to riding imrpovements, and the ultimate goal to be interpreted by any coach or anyone self-coached.
the true bonk is to be avoided, as it is so non-productive and uncomfortable that i do not wish it on any rider..."runnin' on empty" indeed. i personaly feel set back than improved (most times?) after these experiences with the abyss of the bonk.
but, sometimes, and this has happened to many at one time or another, and if it hasn't yet, keep riding and it may, you can "bounce back" from the brinks and actually feel pretty good. periodicaly this could be beneficial as it provides a progressive demand on the organism which can then be recovered from to reach a new level.
for the most part though, steady consistency beats steady forced intensties, as it will keep you within your abilities to recupe and progress.
but i keep thinking of the racers that climbed 2000 ft after the district 40km tt...must be close to bonkin',
then there were the riders from my team who do another 70 after crit simulations,
and as a beginning racer, i was startled to see my team mates of the higher categories gather 'round to "go for a ride" after a race,
witness the racers in the know rollin' around after a rr,
and a team mate of mine, he claims to benefit from going on a three hr ride w/NO food. and he was coached at an international level.
ya just gotta experiment and know for youself what works best.

skipping_chain said:

This may be an outright silly idea that goes against all conventional training wisdom, but I've noticed several times that whenever I bonk on a long ride, I see a significant increase in sustainable power 3-4 days afterwards (sorry, no real data, just anecdotal). By bonking intervals if you live on the SF Bay Area Peninsula.

Interesting post hypnospin.

I am in complete agreement.

Actually being aware of your own body, what it needs and how you are feeling is to be favoured over heart-rate and power metering. Of course, each have their place, and I wouldn't reject them out of hand, but a slavish adherence to such is to be rejected.

So many riders are caught in the numbers game of metering. What a great way to burn out fast.

yeah, thinking about it, it seems crucial to know the diff between glycogen depletion and glycogen exhaustion.
one of the most winning racers i have known has a motto "avoid riding to exhaustion". right, like that is gonna happen to him! seriously, he thrives on shorter HIGH intensity rides, and has been known to lap the field.
for me though, the cruel truth is miles, always miles, then intensity, always do it.

as for the numbers game, i am reminded of the post from the guy who is watt meter happy, then goes on to describe training 40 or 70 sets of intervals. the metering does not get it right in and of itself, esp. if the basics are not met.
the basics of training, nutrition, and recovery being equal in measure.

the winningest sprinter from a team a while back did "only" 20 sets...

Catabolic_Jones said:

Interesting post hypnospin.

I am in complete agreement.

Actually being aware of your own body, what it needs and how you are feeling is to be favoured over heart-rate and power metering. Of course, each have their place, and I wouldn't reject them out of hand, but a slavish adherence to such is to be rejected.

So many riders are caught in the numbers game of metering. What a great way to burn out fast.

skipping_chain said:

.... but I've noticed several times that whenever I bonk on a long ride, I see a significant increase in sustainable power 3-4 days afterwards (sorry, no real data, just anecdotal)......

Hi, I'm kinda new on that site. Found your question very interesting.

Even though I agree with most of what have been said so far. Training sessions that lead to bonking are probably not planned on purposes by good coaches.

I still feel that your question deserve a simple anwser. YES, it is normal to see an increase in sustainable power after such a workout. BUT you can acheive pretty much the same results by better planning the number AND the nature of intense sessions per week, per month, per year.

Actually, during one of these workouts, that lead to bonking, you may have :
- train near your Lactate threshold
- Overload your aerobic system (VO2Max) for a while
- And considerably lower your sugar level

Not to mention the stress on CNS

Of course your body adapt to that stress, and become stronger:
- Lactate removal from your muscle cells will improve
- VO2Max MAY improve AND ensyme and other chemical activity will improve
- Sugar level pool MAY get greater (if you don't loose to much muscle mass in the process :eek: )

But if you Isolate each of the above, you can stimulate them one at the time
(anyway that's what coaches will try to plan for you):
- Lactate threshold (could be a fast and steady tempo, 15 to 20k for example)
- Overload (could be interval based session)
- Lower your sugar level (could be your weekly long ride Zone2 and 3)

You will acheive even better results than trying to rush all of the above within a single ride. 😎