Excess Cardio Is A Joke???

[buddy]

A trainer gave this article to my wife. What do you think?

Excess Cardio Is A Joke
by Craig Ballantyne

Tis' the season for cardio horror stories.

One woman wrote, "I started out doing 5 hours of cardio per week. No results. So I upped it to 7 hours per week. Still nothing. Do you suggest I do more? I'm worried if I use your program, I won't get
any results because you don't even have an hour of interval cardio per week. Please help!"

And from a gentleman on the Men's Health forum, "I took up running and didn't take up stretching until it was almost to late and almost destroyed a knee. What happened was that my IT bands got
really tight and my inner quads didn't gain any strength so my knee cap got pulled out of place. I had an MRI done on my knee and have found that my knee cap has bruised my femur. "

Cardio horror stories are a dime-a-dozen. So here's the bottom line on cardio...


Long slow aerobic training remains the biggest practical joke in fitness. Marathon running for the average overweight person? Why don't you just tell someone to go play in traffic...oh wait, that's exactly what they are doing - all while crushing their joints with excess weight and repetitive pounding.

If you do long, slow cardio, its only a matter of time before you end up in a physiotherapist's office with all the others that do too much of the same thing...whether its running or spin classes,
overuse injuries are far too common in the cardio world.

After all, what's easier to overdo, total body strength training done 3 times per week for 20 minutes, or the same cardio activity done for 6-9 hours per week?

Heck, I once knew a physiotherapist who was so addicted to spin classes that she had overuse injuries that prevented her from walking normally! Physio, heal thyself!

What a joke that cardio is...

But cardio fits our "more is better" mentality, doesn't it? We go right from a 3000 calorie meal at the Outback Steakhouse to our 60 minute cardio confessional sessions on the elliptical. More, more,
more, more. And yet get less results?

There is a better way.

Take a peek at the weight room when you are in a gym. Then compare the bodies there to the bodies on the elliptical. You'll find the sculpted, toned physiques lifting dumbells and doing pushups, and the plump, "never changing physiques" spinning their tires over on the cardio equipment.

No matter what the city, no matter where the gym, its the same old story.

Burn fat, get lean, and boost your metabolism with resistance training. Finish with short interval training or even bodyweight circuits and you are off to the fat burning races.

Or get left behind on the cardio equipment that is getting you nowhere.

Craig Ballantyne

[kuan]

He's an idiot.

[asgelle]

Since the goal of the training is never stated, it's hard to argue that one method or another is more effective in achieving this (unknown) goal. First you have to clearly define the purpose of the training, then you can develop a plan to reach these ends. To believe there's a single one size fits all training plan is idiocy.

[Al.canoe]

Since the goal of the training is never stated, it's hard to argue that one method or another is more effective in achieving this (unknown) goal. First you have to clearly define the purpose of the training, then you can develop a plan to reach these ends. To believe there's a single one size fits all training plan is idiocy.

I think the vast majority of folks have an unspoken goal of longer life and maintaining full functionality to death do them part. The aerobics keeps you alive and the resistance training maintains functionality.

Those of 25,341 men that could maintain about 16 minutes on a treadmill test had an age adjusted death rate 1/6 of those who could tough it out for only 3 minutes and 1/2 the death rate of those who could do it for 8 minutes. That's the scientifically established benefit of aerobics.

Source: Physical Activity and Health edited by Bouchard, Blair & Haskell, page 150, figure 9.5.


Al

[bac]

Since the goal of the training is never stated, it's hard to argue that one method or another is more effective in achieving this (unknown) goal.

Right. However, if the goal is to improve at an endurance sport like cycling, his advice is crap.

... Brad

[buddy]

The trainer that gave this article to me is a "body builder" who thinks everyone wants to have a body like his. Most of his clients are more concerned with "body sculpting" than they are with good fitteness. We have a running debate when I am training for an event he wants me to eat only protein rather than a balance diet leaning more towards complex carbohydrates. When I first started riding in ignorance I listened to him and litterally it almost killed me (I blame my gout on him). The first triatholon I did he had me eat 6 eggs and no carbohydrate so that I could stay "in the fat burning mood" at the end of the event I was in the "throw up mood" and the "massive headach mood". Luckly I found this forum and Chris Carmichael book Fitness Cycling.

[DScott]

Take a peek at the weight room when you are in a gym. Then compare the bodies there to the bodies on the elliptical. You'll find the sculpted, toned physiques lifting dumbells and doing pushups, and the plump, "never changing physiques" spinning their tires over on the cardio equipment.



This is his goal. It ain't mine, that's for sure.

[Carbonfiberboy]

In fact, though Mr. Ballantyne stretches his points in order to get attention, he is correct. In case you haven't noticed, interval training is gaining a lot of attention in the field of scientific training. And, in case you haven't been to a gym lately, the people with the low body fat are more often found in the weight room than on the cardio machines. And, in case you've never taken a spin class, the whole point of spin class is interval training, not LSD. You might read this for a starter:
http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/392/

then google "long steady distance interval training" for more of the same.

I still do a good bit of LSD. I think it helps to support one's ability to do intervals. If I cramp during a hard day's ride full of intervals, I think I haven't done enough volume. But I do think that the emphasis should be on intervals and resistance training, rather than LSD.

[Someday_RN]

In fact, though Mr. Ballantyne stretches his points in order to get attention, he is correct. In case you haven't noticed, interval training is gaining a lot of attention in the field of scientific training. And, in case you haven't been to a gym lately, the people with the low body fat are more often found in the weight room than on the cardio machines. And, in case you've never taken a spin class, the whole point of spin class is interval training, not LSD. You might read this for a starter:
http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/392/

then google "long steady distance interval training" for more of the same.

I still do a good bit of LSD. I think it helps to support one's ability to do intervals. If I cramp during a hard day's ride full of intervals, I think I haven't done enough volume. But I do think that the emphasis should be on intervals and resistance training, rather than LSD.

To add to what you are saying:
Endurance exercises can cause testosterone levels to decrease whereas strengthening exercises for short periods of time can cause an increase in testosterone levels to increase adding to strength and endurance. This may be why intervals are so effective. As well, they severely tax the whole body in a short period of time thus toughening up the body so it can resist the rigors of long rides. Massive amounts of cardio can be unproductive and in some cases counterproductive.

Add variety to your workouts and do different things. There are many other ways to become a better cyclist aside from cycling all the time. If you can increase your fitness by hitting your body at different points and on different levels you will be a better cyclist due to the synergistic effect of a complete exercise and nutrition programme.

Another bonus of different activities that focus on strength as well as endurance is that you will keep your mind sharp. Neurologically, every time you involve yourself in a different type of physical activity your brain will have to adjust to accommodate the new movement and coordination of different muscle groups. This further adds to the synergistic effect that different types of training will have. To improve your cycling sn endurance do weights, and to improve in the weight room, cycle.

[Machka]

"Long slow aerobic training remains the biggest practical joke in fitness."

There is some truth in this ... I've seen the people at the gym on the cardio equipment. Pedal ..... flip the page in the magazine ... pedal .... gaze at the TV .... pedal ...... at an RPM of about 5. And I've heard some who have done this for half an hour or so tell their friends that they've burned enough calories to go have a large sticky pastry and a latte at the local coffee shop. Yeah right. They've barely burned more than they would have if they just stood their breathing. And they wonder why they can't lose weight. The woman who upped her cardio from 5 to 7 hours a day in the article above could have been one of these!

The US Institute of Medicine issued a statement a few years back that in order for people to lose weight their recommendation was that people spend 60-90 minutes doing moderate exercise (not just cardio) every day. Moderate. Not slow. Moderate so that you're breathing a bit harder and cracking a sweat. And every day ... no rest days!

From my own experience as a long distance cyclist. In the summer, when I'm riding 300+ kms a week, which for me equals about 15 hours a week, or just over 2 hours a day, I can eat whatever I want and I will lose weight. In fact, when my riding starts heading up into the 400+ kms a week range, I find eating a huge pain because it is really difficult to eat enough. I feel like I'm eating all the time, and I'm not that fond of eating in the first place. And I lose weight. Some summers I've lost 20 to 30 lbs. But in the winter, my quantity of exercise drops. Right now, I'm walking (briskly of course) just under an hour a day during the week, and cycling about an hour a day on the weekends. That's only 7 hours a week. I'm maintaining my weight ... but I'm not losing.

There is also a lot of evidence that the more muscular you are, the more calories you'll burn. Therefore, weighlifting is not a bad idea. It's also good for the bones ... which is something us cyclists need to pay attention to. In fact, my ex-husband was able to lose 75 lbs one year by working with a bodybuilder on a weights program with about 30 minutes of cardio a day. The combination of the weights program and the cardio would have added up to about 90 minutes of exercise a day. In addition, he ate properly (for the first time in his life, I think), and the weight just dropped off.

[Terex]

"Long slow aerobic training remains the biggest practical joke in fitness."

There is some truth in this ... The woman who upped her cardio from 5 to 7 hours a day in the article above could have been one of these!

Or could be one of the crazies I see at the gym destroying their joints on treadmills and spin classes. I ride quite a bit, and in the winter, do spin classes 2-3x per week. I am always extremely sensitive to proper form, warmup, and stop or modify my routine if I perceive even a hint of knee pain.

We've got one spin instructor who doesn't include proper warmup, encourages the other crazies to go all out, all the time, and is always telling the class to rock their bodies back and forth in the climbing position. When I ride my bike, and I climb standing, I may rock the bike back and forth, which is totally different than rocking your body on a spin bike. It really destroys knees and hips.

Bottom line - some people always overdo things, some always underdo things. I just try to do things safely and effectively. You guys are a big help!

[kuan]

Long slow workouts are still the backbone of all endurance sports. All marathon plans have you do your long run slow. Cross country skiers typically do one long slow workout per week at Level I. Cyclists do their long weekend rides at Level I as well. Until some marathoner or other endurance athlete manages to crack the elite level without long slow workouts I'm inclined to believe that long slow workouts work much better than hammering it everyday at just below LT.

From my experience, such as this past winter, I've managed to drop eight pounds already since I've started these 10+ hour weeks even though I've been eating like a horse. I never miss my long workout, and sometimes they're five days apart.

[asgelle]

Until some marathoner or other endurance athlete manages to crack the elite level without long slow workouts I'm inclined to believe that long slow workouts work much better than hammering it everyday at just below LT.

Would you consider winning the Route de France cracking the elite level?

[ZXiMan]

Long slow aerobic training is different than cardio training. If you can't burn fat and lose weight when you get into your target heart rate for fat burning, then you need to eat less.

I agree, the writer is a moron, in my opinion. I lost 57 pounds just from riding a bicycle 4-5 days a week. I did it in exactly 52 weeks. I didn't even diet.

A trainer gave this article to my wife. What do you think?

Excess Cardio Is A Joke
by Craig Ballantyne

Tis' the season for cardio horror stories.

One woman wrote, "I started out doing 5 hours of cardio per week. No results. So I upped it to 7 hours per week. Still nothing. Do you suggest I do more? I'm worried if I use your program, I won't get
any results because you don't even have an hour of interval cardio per week. Please help!"

And from a gentleman on the Men's Health forum, "I took up running and didn't take up stretching until it was almost to late and almost destroyed a knee. What happened was that my IT bands got
really tight and my inner quads didn't gain any strength so my knee cap got pulled out of place. I had an MRI done on my knee and have found that my knee cap has bruised my femur. "

Cardio horror stories are a dime-a-dozen. So here's the bottom line on cardio...


Long slow aerobic training remains the biggest practical joke in fitness. Marathon running for the average overweight person? Why don't you just tell someone to go play in traffic...oh wait, that's exactly what they are doing - all while crushing their joints with excess weight and repetitive pounding.

If you do long, slow cardio, its only a matter of time before you end up in a physiotherapist's office with all the others that do too much of the same thing...whether its running or spin classes,
overuse injuries are far too common in the cardio world.

After all, what's easier to overdo, total body strength training done 3 times per week for 20 minutes, or the same cardio activity done for 6-9 hours per week?

Heck, I once knew a physiotherapist who was so addicted to spin classes that she had overuse injuries that prevented her from walking normally! Physio, heal thyself!

What a joke that cardio is...

But cardio fits our "more is better" mentality, doesn't it? We go right from a 3000 calorie meal at the Outback Steakhouse to our 60 minute cardio confessional sessions on the elliptical. More, more,
more, more. And yet get less results?

There is a better way.

Take a peek at the weight room when you are in a gym. Then compare the bodies there to the bodies on the elliptical. You'll find the sculpted, toned physiques lifting dumbells and doing pushups, and the plump, "never changing physiques" spinning their tires over on the cardio equipment.

No matter what the city, no matter where the gym, its the same old story.

Burn fat, get lean, and boost your metabolism with resistance training. Finish with short interval training or even bodyweight circuits and you are off to the fat burning races.

Or get left behind on the cardio equipment that is getting you nowhere.

Craig Ballantyne

[Carbonfiberboy]

Cyclists do their long weekend rides at Level I as well. Until some marathoner or other endurance athlete manages to crack the elite level without long slow workouts I'm inclined to believe that long slow workouts work much better than hammering it everyday at just below LT.
Too bad you're so far away. You could come out on my ride on a Sunday. Believe me, we don't ride zone 1. We may not make it down into zone 1 at all, during the whole ride, which we keep under a century.

I tried the LSD thing one winter, and man, how I got dropped when it was hammer time! Pitiful. OTOH, who rides just below LT? Best to recover in high (endurance) zone 2, climb and do rolling paceline at or above LT, and sprint and do short hills as hard as you can. Hard + Not Hard is the thing. I'll do a shortish zone 1 ride once/week, but I'll usually add some one-legged pedaling or fast spin intervals in the middle of that one. Those are muscular coordination intervals and don't get the HR higher than zone 2, so that counts as recovery. I also count anything under 80% of LT as recovery. So it's either go hard or recover.

If I hike, snowshoe, or ski, that's all zone 1. One day a week of that is nice, and can make one surprisingly sore, because a cyclist can go pretty hard in those sports and still stay in zone 1.

I believe the point of the article is that you don't need to do all that LSD any more. Intervals and high intensity training (HIT) works better, causes less wear on the body, and takes less time. That may be hard for you to believe. But remember, my HS coach told me not to drink water, either. Thinking changes. Give it a try. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[BP302]

I see lot's of people at the fitness center I belong to that don't break a sweat during their cardio workout. Most are their for 30 minutes tops and then leave. Three quarters of the people I see in spin class are pathetic. They like to get by with little effort. No wonder there are horror stories.

Lazy people never achieve their goals but, are the first to make excuses.

[UmneyDurak]

From my own experience as a long distance cyclist. In the summer, when I'm riding 300+ kms a week, which for me equals about 15 hours a week, or just over 2 hours a day, I can eat whatever I want and I will lose weight.

Well everyone is different. I ride around 200-220 miles a week, and I can't loose weight unless I watch my diet very carefully. Even then it's very very difficult.
If I ever heard anyone telling me what that guy wrote I would run away very very fast. Problem is most people on those machines way over estimate how many calories they burn, so they eat more. "Oh I can have an extra pastry I worked out in the gym" Problem is that pastry is 500 calories, they burned 200. Another problem is some people go from no activity to a lot (but still low intensity) that leads to injuries.

[kuan]

Too bad you're so far away. You could come out on my ride on a Sunday. Believe me, we don't ride zone 1. We may not make it down into zone 1 at all, during the whole ride, which we keep under a century.


You're probably just way fitter than me. I can't do that every day. I can't do it for four hours without my HR shooting sky high.

[Machka]

Long slow workouts are still the backbone of all endurance sports. All marathon plans have you do your long run slow. Cross country skiers typically do one long slow workout per week at Level I. Cyclists do their long weekend rides at Level I as well. Until some marathoner or other endurance athlete manages to crack the elite level without long slow workouts I'm inclined to believe that long slow workouts work much better than hammering it everyday at just below LT.




According to: http://www.cptips.com/hrmntr.htm


Zone 1 65% of MHR (recovery rides)
Zone 2 65-72% of MHR (endurance events)
Zone 3 73-80% of MHR (high level aerobic activity)
Zone 4 84-90% of MHR (lactate threshold(LT,AT); time trialing)
Zone 5 91-100% of MHR (sprints and anaerobic training)


I'm an endurance cyclist and I hardly ever ride at Zone 1. Zone 1 is what I might do the day after a randonnee when I'm going out for a 20 km recovery spin. My long weekend training rides, centuries, brevets, etc. are usually in Zone 2.


But even so, in Zone 1 you'd still be working harder than most of the people I see in the gym. If they got their heart rates above 100 bpm it would be a miracle (unless they are quite obese, in which case their heart rates are always high).

That's the problem with telling people to do long slow distances. As soon as people hear that, they slow down to a plod and figure they're doing good ... and then can't figure out why they aren't losing weight or getting fit. That's why I talk about long steady distance.

I define long steady distance as riding at the fastest speed which you can maintain (without having to slow down to recover now and then) for about 6 or 8 hours. It will vary from person to person, of course. For me, 20 - 22 km/h is probably about the maximum speed I can maintain for that distance, or longer distances. And my heart rate is in about Zone 2 to do it. But I feel comfortable there, and can keep going at that pace all day long ... any slower and I don't think I'd get much benefit at all.

[kuan]

OK maybe I'm getting the zones and lingo mixed up.

Zone 1: Can talk and tell stories
Zone 2: Can talk 5-6 words at a time
Zone 3: Can't talk much, yes, no, slow down
Zone 4: Can't talk at all
Zone 5: 2 minutes max of all out torture

So maybe my long distance is really between zone 1 and 2 then.

[DScott]

And we all agree that it's long STEADY distance, not long SLOW distance that LSD refers to, right?

Chris Kostman emphasized that here, in a discussion of trainer use: http://www.ultracycling.com/training/lsd_training.html

[ZXiMan]

And we all agree that it's long STEADY distance, not long SLOW distance that LSD refers to, right?

Chris Kostman emphasized that here, in a discussion of trainer use: http://www.ultracycling.com/training/lsd_training.html

Yep, and I follow up a base period of around 1,000 miles with plenty of hill/sprint/speed intervals... so I can actually ride pretty fast when motivated to do so.

The LSD period just prepares me for the torture of early spring, otherwise I have a tendency to get into an overtraining condition way before I should if I ride all year round at high intensities.

I feel great with heart rate averages from 155-165 bpm for an entire 40 mile tempo ride. My MHR is 190 bpm. It's when I push up to 170+ that I start to feel it!

[austropithicus]

A trainer gave this article to my wife. What do you think?

Excess Cardio Is A Joke
by Craig Ballantyne

He's right. Sprint running or running up hill is much more beneficial than chugging away at a steady pace. Effective exercise shocks the system by tearing up muscle cells which are then rebuilt stronger than they were before. Muscle mass burns calories.

[Carbonfiberboy]

OK maybe I'm getting the zones and lingo mixed up.

Zone 1: Can talk and tell stories
Zone 2: Can talk 5-6 words at a time
Zone 3: Can't talk much, yes, no, slow down
Zone 4: Can't talk at all
Zone 5: 2 minutes max of all out torture

So maybe my long distance is really between zone 1 and 2 then.My lungs aren't very good, but I'd make it:

Zone 1: Can talk and tell stories. Recovery. Ego will not allow this pace outside at all.
Zone 2: Can talk, but may have trouble being very coherent as attention is elsewhere. 200 mile pace.
Zone 3: Can talk 5-6 words at a time. 50 mile pace.
Zone 4: Can't talk much, yes, no, slow down. Can maintain for at least 45 minutes, but it's gonna hurt.
Zone 5: Can't talk at all, but can maintain for at least 10-12 minutes

[sfrider]

People who are serious about endurance sports don't train at the gym, at least not if they have a choice. They go on runs and rides with their clubs, or get their swimming instruction and lap practice elsewhere. If they have the money they go to places like Breakaway Performance Center (http://www.breakawaysf.com/). If not, they wing it on their own. You will only rarely if ever catch them on an elliptical at the gym!

Serious body builders however go to the gym. It's to them what the pool is to a swimmer. You won't find body builders in the pool, and if you do - let's just say they're not the most impressive performers. I often go to a pool that's part of a gym (it's open 24hrs, its main redeeming quality), and there's a mix of good swimmers, non-swimmers, rank beginners - and the occasional weight trainer. You can immediately tell who is going to churn up the storm of the century on their 'fast paced' 1:00min 50m lap, then stand around. Churn another half lap. Stand around. Then get out and leave because they're exhausted. (Meanwhile the competent swimmers turn 35-45sec laps for an hour.) It's like a tradition. These are usually also the only people who won't talk to the serious lap swimmers, like they look down on us or something. Everyone else is pretty nice and friendly.

[Carbonfiberboy]

You're probably just way fitter than me. I can't do that every day. I can't do it for four hours without my HR shooting sky high.What I'm saying, man. Whole point of this thread.

[ZXiMan]

My lungs aren't very good, but I'd make it:

Zone 1: Can talk and tell stories. Recovery. Ego will not allow this pace outside at all.
Zone 2: Can talk, but may have trouble being very coherent as attention is elsewhere. 200 mile pace.
Zone 3: Can talk 5-6 words at a time. 50 mile pace.
Zone 4: Can't talk much, yes, no, slow down. Can maintain for at least 45 minutes, but it's gonna hurt.
Zone 5: Can't talk at all, but can maintain for at least 10-12 minutes

Zone 5 for 10-15 minutes? Good lord. :eek:

Zone 5 for me is 185-190 bpm in an all out sprint... I can hold that for about 45-60 seconds before I colapse!

I can't sprint for 10 minutes using 100% effort. My zone 5 is 90-100% of my MHR.

I can however ride 40 miles at 165 bpm (average) but typically I ride 40-50 miles at 154-155 bpm average. That's riding tempo solo. If I'm in a fast moving paceline I don't work as hard, obviously.

[Carbonfiberboy]

Zone 5 for 10-15 minutes? Good lord. :eek:

Zone 5 for me is 185-190 bpm in an all out sprint... I can hold that for about 45-60 seconds before I colapse!

I can't sprint for 10 minutes using 100% effort. My zone 5 is 90-100% of my MHR.

I can however ride 40 miles at 165 bpm (average) but typically I ride 40-50 miles at 154-155 bpm average. That's riding tempo solo. If I'm in a fast moving paceline I don't work as hard, obviously.I said 10-12 minutes - should not have said "at least." With training, you should be able to hold 95% for the same length of time I can. I'm nothing special, no talent, just desire. You have to work up to it, both training-wise and during the ride. Notice the yellow jersey group in the last kilometers before the pass. They're all riding over LT, but they don't start the pass like that. They start riding tempo, then gradually increase it to LT, hold that for a long time, then move out. That's how you can do it, too. It's not a sprint, just a high level of effort. The guys who attack early usually get caught and passed. LA being an exception!

When you sprint, your heart rate comes up more slowly than your effort, so you may not even hit max HR if you start low down. But if you have a good leadout man, you'll hit it. I can't sprint for more than 45 seconds, either. Usually less - that's a very long sprint. Pros sprint for 200 meters at over 40 mph. That's only 10 seconds or so. That's more normal.

[CdCf]

According to: http://www.cptips.com/hrmntr.htm


Zone 1 65% of MHR (recovery rides)
Zone 2 65-72% of MHR (endurance events)
Zone 3 73-80% of MHR (high level aerobic activity)
Zone 4 84-90% of MHR (lactate threshold(LT,AT); time trialing)
Zone 5 91-100% of MHR (sprints and anaerobic training)



Mind the gap! :D

You apparently forgot zone 3.5: 81-83%! ;)

[Machka]

Mind the gap! :D

You apparently forgot zone 3.5: 81-83%! ;)

Hmmm ... interesting. I just did a copy/paste from the site I linked.

[kopid03]

maybe 81-83% is a grey zone where no benefit can be had. just try to stay out of it i guess

[agarose2000]

I'm more of a runner than a cyclist, but I'm pretty well versed in aerobic improvement after plateauing on the run for 15 years while training hard intervals quite often, but not logging enough LSD miles. (I ran on average 4-5 miles every day.)

It has been WELL established that the key to long-term success in endurance sports is a balanced program which incorporates speedwork, strengthwork, and slow distance work. The factor that most people vastly underestimate is the slow distance work, or LSD pace.

How fast can you run a mile? 7mins? 6 mins? I've met literally dozens of hotshot male runners who run between 6-7min/mile, and confidently tell me that they can run 10 minutes per mile "all day long." I take 'em at that pace for 90 minutes, and they can't even walk the next day. Try marathon running - even if you ran sub-5 minutes per mile, but never ran longer than 10 miles at a shot for your longest training run, you'd be forced to a walk probably halfway through the marathon.

That LSD run is CRUCIAL for continued long-term gains. For example, say someone returns to cycling or running after a long time off. They're pretty slow to start, but then they start improving VERY fast. Those gains are "VO2" type gains, which come fast, and are fun, but also level off fast. Within 6-8 weeks, this same person is still improving pretty well, but a LOT slower. This is the "lactate" improvement phase, where there is improved efficiency of fuel burning. After 3-4 months of this, the ONLY way to make substantial gains over a long term is to increase the aerobic base by more LSD work. This is why endurance athletes at the elite level will cycle 5-6 hours per day or run 140 miles per week. If sprints or intervals were all it takes, these athletes would NOT be investing this amount of time to run all those slow easy miles.

From my personal experience, I plateaued at a 20:00 5k run from high school to age 32 while running quite hard in training. I thought I could go no faster, and gave up 2 years ago. I switched to marathon running, and cut my speedwork to only once per week, and ran over half of my weekly miles at 10 minutes per mile. Of course, I ran a LOT more easy miles - taking my weekly mileage from 40 to 80. If you don't think that plan works - within 1 year, I dropped my 5k time to 18:30, and ran a half marathon (13 miles) in 1:25, or 6:30/mile - which was the same pace I used to run 5ks (3miles)!

If you want to have truly long-term gains over years, you absolutely need those LSD runs, even though they feel butt-slow. You do need a lot of those miles, but that's the only way to capture long-term gains of aerobic efficiency and economy. It doesn't matter how hard or how many gutbusting repeats you do - those will cap out fast, and do NOT improve the pure endurance and economy aspects of the sport.

[kuan]

My experience is about the same as agarose's. This is from skiing and running. In skiing we call it our overdistance workout. It's a weekly 3-3.5 hour easy distance. I know a coupla guys who ran a marathon last year on one 16 mile long run. They finished, not very well, but they finished. I had three 20 milers under my belt and still almost decided to quit.

It's kinda funny when you're marathon training and just starting out. You're used to running these eight milers and the day of your first 12 miler you're all of a sudden hurting like crazy at mile 10. Reality check!

[Carbonfiberboy]

Of course distance is a good way to increase endurance, and a certain amount of distance is an absolute necessity. That's a given. You can't even begin to do intensity without the endurance to get through the workout.

I was never a LD runner, though I used to ski XC competitively, so I can't comment on any of that. I do know cycling, though, and it's very different. I love to ride fast 200 milers, but I almost never ride more than 80 miles in training, or more than 200 miles/week. It's the intensity of that 10 hours of training that makes a fast 200 possible, while still having another 100 miles in my legs. If I rode that 10 hours as LSD, I wouldn't make it 50 miles.

OTOH, if I rode 20 hours or 400 miles/week, I would be some faster. No doubt about it. That is, however, impossible for two reasons: I simply don't have the time, and I'm too old to recover from almost daily centuries. I think I do the best I can.

The reason the pros and top amateurs ride 5-6 hours/day is to get that last 2% improvement, without which they wouldn't be competitive. And they're young enough to handle the volume. I ride with a bunch of randonneurs, meaning they ride 1200k in the mountains as non-stop as possible. Their training volume is very high. I enjoy riding with these guys very much. I'm slower than some and faster than most.

I don't believe that one "plateaus" after 3-4 months of intense training, and that more LSD is the only way to make further progress. I've been training for 12 years at about the same training volume and I'm still getting faster, as I learn to train smarter. Training smarter is the thing.

[agarose2000]

I disagree that 5-6 hours a day is only good for the last "2% of improvement." In the numerous studies of elite athletes by Tim Noakes in Lore of Running (an excellent scientifically based book by Tim Noakes, MD - an elite sports physiologist), he supports that long steady slower runs are critical for continued improvement, far and above the caps placed by VO2 and lactate returns.

If "quality" was all that was required to reap 98-99% of the gains, you would see every coach out there recommend for amatuer athletes to do the bulk of their workouts at high heart rates and rapid intervals. This is NOT the case, and is actually the completely opposite of what most elite/strong coaches recommend, at all levels. There is a place for short hard training to maintain Vo2/lactate/speed, but it is only a small percentage (less than 35%) of a balanced workout plan. Going out hard every single workout , or even doing more than 50% of your weekly workouts at a hard pace, is a suboptimal plan and I have never seen such a workout recommended by any experienced coach.


From an elite/advanced running standpoint, Pete Pfitzinger, author of "Road Racing for Serious Runners" and "Advanced Marathoning", never exceeds 30% of weekly miles as fast tempo work, even for races as short as 5k runs, or 15-19 minute races. Same is true with Daniels (Daniels Running Formula), as well as Noakes (Lore of Running).

I'm not discounting the critical importance of fast, hard speedwork. It's essential to have a balanced program for continued gains - you can't ride slow ALL the time and expect to get faster. However, imost of the published sports literature do document that most of the large gains after an initial plateau come from endurance/running economy, and not continued strong improvement in VO2. The rapid plateau of VO2 gains with 3-6 months of hard training is EXTREMELY well documented. (can be found in a Google search of VO2.)

I'll also acknowledge that for pure sprint distances (<2 minutes of maximal effort), LSD workouts are likely to NOT substantially help performance. Sprint physiology is sufficiently different that you do need to train for it differently. From a running standpoint though, even a race as short as a mile is still 80%+ aerobic by most research estimates, so LSD will still help a lot. Probably for anything 400m or less for running, you'd not benefit as much from the LSD distances.

[Carbonfiberboy]

Agarose - Of course no one recommends doing nothing but intense workouts! It's impossible. Out of 10 hours of my spring training, I like to see 1.5 hours of LT work and 20 minutes of over LT. That's a very intense week for me. Most of the rest of the time is spent on recovery and various strength workouts. I couldn't possibly manage 35% LT work.

I wish I could find the study that found that doubling training volume without increasing the volume of intensity gave only tiny gains in time-to-exhaustion. It's out there. Can't seem to find it.

Yes, of course gains in VO2 are quickly maximized. Not my argument. But here's the study that started this whole revolution in training philosophy, and some of its children. I wish I could get the whole thing, but it's a subscription thing. So:
http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/abstract/586/1/151
http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/short/575/3/901
http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/05/10.htm
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:16288109
http://books.google.com/books?id=2KNM0cW87eYC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=doubling+training+volume+intensity&source=web&ots=jp4yRsn-1V&sig=ClxKgW7mqj5OSe0yxei5tkPA1HY
http://www.health24.com/fitness/SSISA_corner/16-1479,28143.asp

"Several studies have shown that it takes over double the amount of training time to attain the same fitness gains with a low-intensity training programme as with a high-intensity training programme.
While increasing intensity has been associated with improved performance in a number of investigations, a significantly increased training volume (mileage) has been associated with a decrement in performance and symptoms of over-training. This is good news for people with busy schedules, because a high-intensity, low-volume training programme not only improves your fitness more than a high-volume, low-intensity programme, it also takes less time. "

I understand that these references are not the conventional wisdom in training today. But this thread is all about introducing people to what is now unconventional wisdom. Remember when googling "global warming" brought up 95 denier websites for every scientific one? Times change.

[agarose2000]

Good points carbonfiberboy - I don't disagree at all. Our plans actually sound pretty similar.

As I mentioned above, balanced programs are key. I'm 100% with you in that riding slow ALL the time, even at huge volumes, will not lead to as strong gains as if you had included some speedwork in there. Perhaps some of the articles you mentioned are dealing with this populace - I'm more referring to people who are plateauing in performance despite 4-6 months of solid training WITH a balanced training plan with moderate to low overall volume.

We may be just dithering over semantics here since I believe we both would set up similar exercise plans, but I find it hard to imagine how one can "train smarter" or "train with overall increased intensity" as you describe WITHOUT adding some sort of additional speed workouts or going yet harder on the already hard tempos if you have been on a balanced training program to begin with (my suggestions apply to people who are plateaued AND on a balanced training program.) I suggest for these folks to to add more of those LSD miles, and not make any dramatic changes to speedwork quantity or quality until some of the LSD gains kick in.

The articles you cite are intriguing and current, but despite my respect for scientific/medical literature (I'm a MD PhD myself and have published original research myself), you always need to consider the application of the knowledge. I will trust the accumulated historic research of thousands, if not more, of elite runners and coaches in the past 20 years, far more than the thought-provoking results of a few articles. In sports performance in particular, lab results do NOT necessarily correlate with good race results - Tim Noakes always strikes a balance in his book to compare/contrast both scientific studies AND elite performance practice. If you think that nobody has ever attempted to create low-volume / high intensity training programs, you'd definitely be wrong. (If I were an editor of that journal, I would have hesitated to even accept that article for publication since it does not provide enough of a sample size to justify rethinking overall practice standrads. Of course, that's probably why it's in a smaller journal, and not in big-time journals such as Nature or Science.) In fact, most high school track programs are based entirely around these low-volume/high intensity programs, with coaches being very wary of letting young athletes exceed 50 miles of running per week, even when performing at near-elite levels.


Of course, if someone has been doing little/no speedwork, I'd recommend as you said - pump up the quality, even at the cost of volume. However, I know from practice that the (vast?) majority of people training for a new PR race, it's the opposite. Most folks believe that they have too little time to train, and thus will prefer to try and "compensate" by cramming in faster workouts and faster paces on the aerobic/easy days. (It's actually unusual for someone to willingly commit to substantially higher training volume at LSD paces on their own.) Training "smarter" for these folks is definitely NOT to do that, but to go slower and longer on the appropriate days. My race results (and numerous other marathoners shorter distance race results) reflect this reality.

[firetrev]

Is it just me ? I think a valuable point has been missed here. Read any coaching manual of any aerobic based sport and I would think 80 - 90 per cent of them will emphasize the need for both long steady distance and high intensity training. The main goal of LSD being to build the base for the high intensity to build upon. A program that has high intensity early in proceedings sounds like a recipe for injury to me.
Just some random musings.

[Machka]

Is it just me ? I think a valuable point has been missed here. Read any coaching manual of any aerobic based sport and I would think 80 - 90 per cent of them will emphasize the need for both long steady distance and high intensity training. The main goal of LSD being to build the base for the high intensity to build upon. A program that has high intensity early in proceedings sounds like a recipe for injury to me.
Just some random musings.


True. And even after we've developed a base, variety in our routines is usually recommended.

I'm a long distance cyclist, so riding long distances (those long steady distances) year round is important, but mixing it up is good too. I try to pick 2 or 3 days a week to do higher intensity stuff, and then 2 or 3 days to do the long steady distance stuff. I also like to add in other activities ... like walking, rowing, skiing, etc.

This seems to work for me to keep the weight off (or lose it if I happen to put a bit on), and for keeping me in shape.

[Pat]

Well, I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

Most of the people I see working out with weights in the gym have great big stomachs. Sure they have decent biceps. But the have large girths to go with them. That is not all of them. There are some who look pretty good.

You also get plump cyclists. Some are plump because they just tweedle away. But some are just a bit over weight and are impressively strong.

It seems to me that the goal that you assume is looking the leanest with the least effort. Why not just do lipsuction if that is your goal? That is even easier.

I have put in very large numbers of hours of aerobic workouts. Most of it has just been for the heck of it. I have never had an over use injury. I think my experience is pretty common among cyclists.

Now I don't have a really impressive physic. But I am healthy, fit and strong. I am fitter than most body builders I know. So I am not going down that path. It all depends on your priorities and big old biceps are not on the radar screen for me.

[cujet]

I have read this thread with great interest. I am in no position to dispute the OP.

However, "in my case" I have to strongly disagree with the statement that "excess cardio is a joke". I find that cycling less than 1 hour, even at my maximum rate, or maximum sprint capability does nearly nothing for me. Gym workouts make me stronger and leaner, no question. But my issues remain. I do quite well when I regularly ride longer rides.


Chris