Weekly cycling workouts for climbers

[Psychler]

Is the notion that climbers should focus solely on high-intensity interval training (HIIT) during the base training phase a myth, or is there actually some scientific basis behind it? Whats the optimal ratio of HIIT to steady-state training for a climber looking to improve their lactate threshold, and are there any specific workouts or protocols that have been proven to be more effective than others in terms of building sustainable power output? Would a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of steady-state:HIIT be a more effective way to build endurance, or would that not be enough to elicit the necessary physiological adaptations? Should climbers even bother with low-cadence, high-torque workouts, or are those a waste of time when it comes to building actual power output? Are there any studies or scientific research that support the idea that a specific weekly workout schedule or protocol can actually improve a climbers performance on the road?

 

[BikeBarronBob]

HIIT alone for base training? Ridiculous. Both steady-state & HIIT have merits. A 2:1 ratio of steady-state to HIIT could be a solid starting point, but it's highly individual. Don't forget the importance of low-cadence, high-torque workouts for building power. As for a specific weekly plan, research is mixed. It's not one-size-fits-all, sadly.

 

[TrailTracker]

The idea that climbers should focus solely on HIIT during the base training phase is a contentious one. While HIIT can be beneficial for improving endurance and power output, it's not the only training method that should be considered. A balanced approach, incorporating both HIIT and steady-state training, is likely to yield better results.

A 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of steady-state to HIIT could be an effective way to build endurance, but it's important to remember that everyone responds differently to training stimuli. What works for one person may not work for another. It's also worth noting that low-cadence, high-torque workouts can be beneficial for building power output, but they should be used judiciously and not over-relied upon.

As for a specific weekly workout schedule or protocol, there is some evidence to suggest that structured training can improve a climber's performance on the road. However, it's important to remember that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The most effective training program will be one that is tailored to the individual's needs, goals, and preferences.

In conclusion, while HIIT can be a valuable tool in a climber's training arsenal, it should not be the sole focus during the base training phase. A balanced approach, incorporating both HIIT and steady-state training, is likely to yield the best results. And remember, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to training, so it's important to find what works best for you. :kissing\_heart:

 

[BBBBiker]

Ha! You're asking about the great HIIT vs. steady-state debate! Now, I'm no scientist, but I can tell you that I've seen climbers try all sorts of training ratios. Some swear by a 2:1 steady-state to HIIT ratio, while others prefer 3:1. But let me tell you, the real secret to building sustainable power output is not in the numbers, but in the saddle time!

And as for lactate threshold, well, I've heard it's best to find a friendly local brewery and test your limits there. Just kidding! (or am I?)

But seriously, folks, there's no one-size-fits-all answer here. It's all about finding what works best for you and your body. So, keep experimenting, and don't forget to share your findings with the rest of us!

 

[Hopworks]

Climbers, consider a balanced approach to training. HIIT alone may not suffice for base phase. A 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of steady-state to HIIT could be beneficial for endurance. Low-cadence, high-torque workouts can have merit, but shouldn't overshadow sustainable power output development. Regarding weekly schedules, research supports structured, periodized plans for improved performance. Remember, it's about quality over quantity. :climber:

 

[Interlink2010]

The idea that climbers should focus solely on HIIT during the base training phase is indeed debatable. While HIIT can be beneficial for improving power output and lactate threshold, it may not be sufficient for building endurance. A 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of steady-state to HIIT might be more effective for endurance, but it may not provide the necessary physiological adaptations.

Moreover, low-cadence, high-torque workouts, although often recommended, may not be the most effective way to build power output in climbers. Research has shown that sweet spot training, where cyclists train at 88-93% of their functional threshold power, can be just as effective, if not more so.

Additionally, a specific weekly workout schedule or protocol has not been proven to significantly improve a climber's performance on the road. While structured training can certainly help, individual responses to training can vary greatly. Therefore, it's essential to monitor progress and adjust training plans accordingly.

In conclusion, while HIIT can be beneficial, it should not be the sole focus of a climber's base training phase. A balanced approach that includes steady-state training, sweet spot training, and other forms of low-intensity training may be more effective in the long run.

 

[Psychler]

The discussion around HIIT versus steady-state training raises an interesting point: how do individual physiological differences impact the effectiveness of these training methods? Could personalized training regimens yield better results for climbers?

 

[Hopworks]

Personalized training regimens could indeed be the key to unlocking a climber's potential. It's not one-size-fits-all, and genetics play a role in how our bodies respond to training. Some may thrive on HIIT, while others may see greater gains with steady-state.

However, it's crucial not to overlook the importance of consistency and discipline in any training program. Physiological differences might influence the method, but the commitment to regular, quality training is universal.

So, the question becomes: how can climbers accurately identify their unique physiological strengths and weaknesses, and tailor their training accordingly?

 

[Interlink2010]

You're right, personalized training matters. But how do you pinpoint those unique strengths and weaknesses? It's not like we can all afford personal trainers or lab tests. And genetics? Please. Most of us don't even know our family tree beyond grandma's apple pie recipe.

Sure, some may love HIIT, but others might find it as appealing as a flat tire. Some might thrive on steady-state, but for others, it's about as exciting as watching paint dry. It's not a one-size-fits-all, but it's also not rocket science.

Here's a thought: try different training methods, see what works, and adjust accordingly. Keep a training log, track your progress, and listen to your body. It's not perfect, but it's a start. And remember, commitment and discipline are key, no matter the method. So, let's stop obsessing over the perfect plan and start pedaling.

 

[Psychler]

How can climbers effectively track their unique responses to different training methods without access to specialized equipment? Are there specific indicators—like rate of perceived exertion or recovery times—that can help tailor their training approach?

 

[BikeBarronBob]

Monitoring climbers' responses to training without specialized equipment can be challenging. RPE & recovery times are valuable indicators. However, they're subjective & can vary. Objective measures, like power output or heart rate, provide more accurate data.

Climbers should consider using a power meter or heart rate monitor if possible. These tools can offer insights into intensity, endurance, and recovery. However, they're not always accessible due to cost or availability.

In such cases, climbers can still track progress by keeping a detailed training log. Note the type of workout, duration, intensity, and perceived exertion. Over time, patterns may emerge, revealing how the body responds to different training methods.

Remember, though, that individual responses can be complex and influenced by many factors, including nutrition, sleep, stress, and genetics. Therefore, it's crucial to approach training with patience and flexibility, adjusting as necessary based on the body's responses.

Lastly, consider seeking advice from experienced climbers or coaches. They can provide valuable insights and help interpret subjective and objective data. :climber:

 

[Psychler]

Tracking progress without fancy gadgets is a pain, but how do you differentiate between genuine improvement and just wishful thinking? What specific metrics should climbers prioritize to ensure their training isn’t just a shot in the dark?