Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    Meow! my58vw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Riverside, California
    My Bikes
    Trek 2100 Road Bike, Full DA10, Cervelo P2K TT bike, Full DA10, Giant Boulder Steel Commuter
    Posts
    6,025
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Alright after about 8 weeks of specific crit training I am finding that my endurance is weining a little and my areobic system is not quite where it should be. Since I only have 2 crits in the next 4 weeks I have decided to focus more on tempo rides vs interval sessions. Basically I am trying incresase my aerobic capacity which is important is riding in a fast group (along with LT). My new schedule currently looks like this...

    Monday - OFF (or recovery) - precedes race or hard group ride
    Tuesday - Hard group ride with fast climbing, LT work in morning (intervals or hill climbing) about 22 miles
    Wednesday - Long Aerobic Tempo ride (40 - 100 miles)
    Thursday - Practice Crit, Night (45 minutes) or LT and Anareobic intervals)
    Friday - Medium Ride, with mild climbing, 25 - 40 miles
    Saturday - Short trainer ride, low resistance, 1 hr to 90 minutes or OFF
    Sunday - Race or Long Internse group ride (40 - 60 miles, lots of hill work, fast pacelines)

    I previously did very little aerobic work on Wednesday or Friday and spun on Saturday. Basically it was Monday off, Tuesday hard group ride, Wednesday 60 minutes of intervals, Thursday group ride, Friday intervals but that was too much and no base riding... and my aerobic system and body felt it, overtrained and lost quite a bit of aerobic gain in the process.

    I did not really get a good base in this season (started training late) and I am feeling it. Nothing is as good as a good 3 months of base but will adding the milage 2 days a week help out my base? I can not go completly back to base, I have some important crits coming soon so I need to continue the internsity work. I am also planning two 40 mile RR's later in the season that I need a good base for.

    Also am I hurting the aerobic work on the two long rides (Wednesday and Friday) by not sticking in zone 2, the traditional aerobic zone (65 - 85 percent of LT if I remember), but riding alot in musclar endurance areas (about 80 - 90 percent of LT) still not at the point of breathing hard (LT) but working the muscles more, like road racing? Also is it bad to go anaerobic for short times in a aerobic (tempo) ride (like short sprints up hills and spinups?

    Sorry for all the questions but I am trying to prevent overtraining and still build up my base fitness.

    Thanks as always.
    Just your average club rider... :)

  2. #2
    On Your Right ZackJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Warner Robins, GA
    Posts
    1,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    These are topics you will discuss with your coach, but since you asked here I'll toss out my opinion.

    If you don't have a solid base then all of your other training is a waste of time. Since you're already racing it's too late to go back and build up that base for this year. Learn from the mistake you made and use this coming winter as your base building time and I'll bet next year you won't be getting spit out the back.
    "You never fail, you simply produce results. Learn from these" - Anonymous

  3. #3
    Guest
    Guest
    Zach, I totally agree. You do base, then you move on. You can't just move backwards and still do your tempo training AND base. It's not possible.

    Learn from your mistakes, do the best you can for this season, and in September, you should be making your plans for the next season.

    Koffee

  4. #4
    Aluminium Crusader :-)
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    9,890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm no coach, but that looks like a pretty tough routine to me. It looks like you're having at least 4 (or 5?) pretty hard days. Tues, Wed, Thurs look like 3 hard days in a row, then you follow it up with a "medium" day on Friday......with hills! I'd struggle to recover from all that, but I'm in my 30s

  5. #5
    Meow! my58vw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Riverside, California
    My Bikes
    Trek 2100 Road Bike, Full DA10, Cervelo P2K TT bike, Full DA10, Giant Boulder Steel Commuter
    Posts
    6,025
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I will be discussing this with my coach when he gets back from vacation in 2 weeks. I do not see the Wedesday as being hard, just a long day.

    I can easily tone down Friday, expecially depending on how I am feeling, and if I have a race on Sunday. I already take Monday and Saturday off...
    Just your average club rider... :)

  6. #6
    Climbing Fool terrymorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    My Bikes
    Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
    Posts
    3,019
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow, lots of questions. I'll try to address one of them: zone 2 endurance riding. There seems to be an abundance of mythology about zone 2 base training in the coaching community. There are several good reasons for doing zone 2 rides, but developing your aerobic system is not one of them. Zone 2 riding is fun, you get to smell the flowers, view the scenery, chat with your buddies, work on your tan, and you're building up endurance in your skeletal support muscles. But unless you're putting ungodly hours in the saddle, you're not doing much at all to build your aerobic system.

    Doing some of your endurance riding in zone 3 won't kill you, and it certainly will improve your aerobic system more than your zone 2 riding. You can't ride as long in zone 3 without fatigue than in zone 2, so you'll have to balance volume with fatigue and be watchful for overtraining symptoms. Given your training schedule, it looks like you're at risk of overtraining. Something like CyclingPeaks TSS score or Polar's Exertion measurement might be helpful to you.

    One further note: there appears to be a "sweet spot" in the intensity/volume curve where the most aerobic improvement can be accomplished while minimizing the risk of overtraining. Where is this "sweet spot"? It's in the "tempo" range: high zone 3 -- low zone 4. This coincidentally is the range that many coaches will tell you to avoid like the plague.

    Edit: Here's an excellent article on incorporating tempo training into your endurance work.
    Last edited by terrymorse; 04-14-05 at 03:00 PM.
    Managing Director, Undiscovered Country Tours

  7. #7
    Meow! my58vw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Riverside, California
    My Bikes
    Trek 2100 Road Bike, Full DA10, Cervelo P2K TT bike, Full DA10, Giant Boulder Steel Commuter
    Posts
    6,025
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think you are right, this schedule is a little too much. I think the Wednesday ride is a little to long to also ride on Friday. We will see how I feel after today after the practice crit. I do know I was a little tired today after the long ride yesterday and I had to take a nap. I am getting 8 hours of sleep per night though.

    The question is how much is too much when it comes to aerobic training. When my coach comes back from vacation we can adjust the schedule to that point...
    Just your average club rider... :)

  8. #8
    Name's Ash ...housewares Doctor Morbius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The adult video section
    My Bikes
    Too many to list
    Posts
    798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by terrymorse
    Wow, lots of questions. I'll try to address one of them: zone 2 endurance riding. There seems to be an abundance of mythology about zone 2 base training in the coaching community. There are several good reasons for doing zone 2 rides, but developing your aerobic system is not one of them. Zone 2 riding is fun, you get to smell the flowers, view the scenery, chat with your buddies, work on your tan, and you're building up endurance in your skeletal support muscles. But unless you're putting ungodly hours in the saddle, you're not doing much at all to build your aerobic system.

    Doing some of your endurance riding in zone 3 won't kill you, and it certainly will improve your aerobic system more than your zone 2 riding. You can't ride as long in zone 3 without fatigue than in zone 2, so you'll have to balance volume with fatigue and be watchful for overtraining symptoms. Given your training schedule, it looks like you're at risk of overtraining. Something like CyclingPeaks TSS score or Polar's Exertion measurement might be helpful to you.

    One further note: there appears to be a "sweet spot" in the intensity/volume curve where the most aerobic improvement can be accomplished while minimizing the risk of overtraining. Where is this "sweet spot"? It's in the "tempo" range: high zone 3 -- low zone 4. This coincidentally is the range that many coaches will tell you to avoid like the plague.

    Edit: Here's an excellent article on incorporating tempo training into your endurance work.
    If you'll notice, Andy Coggan did the chart that is in the article.

    I think zone 2 is almost a waste of time and has been oversold to the aspiring cyclist. Last year I spent mucho time in zone 2 as per Charmichael's writings and had nary any speed increase whatsoever. What it did do for me was allow me to log the miles and increase my distance enough to ride my first century so it wasn't a complete waste. I don't think Tempo (high zone 3 - low zone 4) rides would have been very good first century training. For criterions or time trials though zone 2 just won't cut it except for recovery rides.
    Last edited by Doctor Morbius; 04-14-05 at 10:19 PM.
    I did not achieve this position in life by having some snot-nosed punk leave my cheese out in the wind. - Ed Rooney


    It's not that I'm lazy. I'm just highly motivated to RELAX!!

  9. #9
    Guest
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Morbius
    If you'll notice, Andy Coggan did the chart that is in this article.

    I think zone 2 is almost a waste of time and has been oversold to the aspiring cyclist. Last year I spent mucho time in zone 2 as per Charmichael's writings and had nary any speed increase whatsoever. What it did do for me was allow me to log the miles and increase my distance enough to ride my first century so it wasn't a complete waste. I don't think Tempo (high zone 3 - low zone 4) rides would have been very good first century training. For criterions or time trials though zone 2 just won't cut it except for recovery rides.

    Maybe the problem is that people think endurance training is supposed to be training speed work. It isn't. So if you were using endurance work to increase speed, you wouldn't see much of an increase in speed.

    Koffee

  10. #10
    Name's Ash ...housewares Doctor Morbius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The adult video section
    My Bikes
    Too many to list
    Posts
    798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by koffee brown
    Maybe the problem is that people think endurance training is supposed to be training speed work. It isn't. So if you were using endurance work to increase speed, you wouldn't see much of an increase in speed.

    Koffee
    That plus it's just too time consuming. I did see improvement but I don't think it was worth the time invested. Carmichael sure loves to hype it up though.
    I did not achieve this position in life by having some snot-nosed punk leave my cheese out in the wind. - Ed Rooney


    It's not that I'm lazy. I'm just highly motivated to RELAX!!

  11. #11
    Climbing Fool terrymorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    My Bikes
    Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
    Posts
    3,019
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by koffee brown
    Maybe the problem is that people think endurance training is supposed to be training speed work. It isn't. So if you were using endurance work to increase speed, you wouldn't see much of an increase in speed.
    Nor will you see much -- if any -- increase in aerobic power.
    Managing Director, Undiscovered Country Tours

  12. #12
    Name's Ash ...housewares Doctor Morbius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The adult video section
    My Bikes
    Too many to list
    Posts
    798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by terrymorse
    Nor will you see much -- if any -- increase in aerobic power.
    Not to mention LATR.
    I did not achieve this position in life by having some snot-nosed punk leave my cheese out in the wind. - Ed Rooney


    It's not that I'm lazy. I'm just highly motivated to RELAX!!

  13. #13
    Guest
    Guest
    Well, aerobic power IS VO2 max, and it's clear that VO2 max is increased by power training, NOT endurance rides.

    It helps to know what the objective is before embarking on a training program.

    Koffee

  14. #14
    Guest
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Morbius
    Not to mention LATR.

    And also, endurance riding is not for lactate threshold training either. So of course, you wouldn't see much of a difference there.

    It would also depend on the athlete also. The most elite athletes will have such a high lactate threshold that it's not an issue (to raise it) when training.

    Koffee

  15. #15
    Name's Ash ...housewares Doctor Morbius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The adult video section
    My Bikes
    Too many to list
    Posts
    798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by koffee brown
    And also, endurance riding is not for lactate threshold training either. So of course, you wouldn't see much of a difference there.

    It would also depend on the athlete also. The most elite athletes will have such a high lactate threshold that it's not an issue (to raise it) when training.

    Koffee
    I agree. I'm just stating that it is being oversold to the general cycling populace. Zone 2 doesn't produce the tangible results that many coaches claim (i.e. the Carmichael camp). Just as TerryMorse stated, there is quite a bit of mythos surrounding zone 2.
    I did not achieve this position in life by having some snot-nosed punk leave my cheese out in the wind. - Ed Rooney


    It's not that I'm lazy. I'm just highly motivated to RELAX!!

  16. #16
    Climbing Fool terrymorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    My Bikes
    Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
    Posts
    3,019
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by koffee brown
    Well, aerobic power IS VO2 max, and it's clear that VO2 max is increased by power training, NOT endurance rides.
    I think we're having dueling terminology here, the dividing line between aerobic and anaerobic being a bit fuzzy. I consider "aerobic power" to be the maximum power one can produce for 20 minutes. This is most strongly predicted by the lactate threshold, not VO2max. VO2max is more predictive of 3- to 5-minute power.

    Using these definitions, the most productive way to increase 20-minute power ("aerobic" power) is with tempo rides and LT intervals of fairly long duration.

    I still don't have a good grasp of the beneficial adaptations of endurance rides, other than they can be "fun". And I don't think I'm alone.
    Managing Director, Undiscovered Country Tours

  17. #17
    Name's Ash ...housewares Doctor Morbius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The adult video section
    My Bikes
    Too many to list
    Posts
    798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by terrymorse
    I think we're having dueling terminology here, the dividing line between aerobic and anaerobic being a bit fuzzy. I consider "aerobic power" to be the maximum power one can produce for 20 minutes. This is most strongly predicted by the lactate threshold, not VO2max. VO2max is more predictive of 3- to 5-minute power.

    Using these definitions, the most productive way to increase 20-minute power ("aerobic" power) is with tempo rides and LT intervals of fairly long duration.

    I still don't have a good grasp of the beneficial adaptations of endurance rides, other than they can be "fun". And I don't think I'm alone.
    Speaking from experience, I'd say they're next to useless. That is unless one is planning a long ride that will be 65% - 70% of their MaxHR, such a completing a century. Otherwise, what's the point? I don't know that hour upon hour of endurance training will do for somebody who is training for a short criterium where MAP & LATR are important.

    Sure some base training may be an OK idea during the winter months to keep an athlete from burning out. However, the result of months on end of base training is still lower fitness levels than during peak race season.

    Training slow just makes for slow racers. Of course, it depends on the event, but most of the events in the U.S. are much shorter in duration than the multi-stage races in Europe. Training for the TdF would require a very different regimen than training for a single 45 min criterium in the States. Perhaps much of the reason so many coaches favor extreme volumes of zone 2 training is because they are copying what is done for the European Classics ... and they don't know any better.

    Seems I read somewhere that Chris Boardman only trained 5 hours a week prior to setting the 1 hour world record. Doubtful there was any zone 2 in that routine!
    Last edited by Doctor Morbius; 04-15-05 at 01:52 AM.
    I did not achieve this position in life by having some snot-nosed punk leave my cheese out in the wind. - Ed Rooney


    It's not that I'm lazy. I'm just highly motivated to RELAX!!

  18. #18
    Guest
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by terrymorse
    I think we're having dueling terminology here, the dividing line between aerobic and anaerobic being a bit fuzzy. I consider "aerobic power" to be the maximum power one can produce for 20 minutes. This is most strongly predicted by the lactate threshold, not VO2max. VO2max is more predictive of 3- to 5-minute power.

    Using these definitions, the most productive way to increase 20-minute power ("aerobic" power) is with tempo rides and LT intervals of fairly long duration.

    I still don't have a good grasp of the beneficial adaptations of endurance rides, other than they can be "fun". And I don't think I'm alone.

    For those of us going more than 20 minutes (maybe even up to 10 hours) at a time on a ride, what you consider to be aerobic power is pretty useless. What am I going to do 20 minutes into the ride if I've run out of steam?

    Do you really think the guys riding for 5- 6 hours a day in a 21 day race spend all their time training for 20 minute tempo rides? It makes no sense.

    But still... just because it doesn't work for YOU and YOUR training program, doesn't mean it doesn't have any place in training whatsoever. I think you do a specific type of riding, and when others talk about their training, you neatly compartmentalize them into what YOU do. A good coach sees the individual and can plan a program around them based on their goals, as well as what their strengths and weaknesses are.

    It may be a good idea to read up on Bompa's books. He is very good at breaking down how people should be training based on their objectives. He talks about different energy systems (which I guess people here are calling "zones") and gives parameters as to how much time you should be dedicating to each energy system (by percentage) when you put together a periodization training program. It's very good and it is spot on as far as what everyone's said, except with Bompa, it is a bit more technical.

    It would also help if everyone was on the same page with how we define stuff. Everyone is arbitrarily throwing around their buzz words, but for each person, they're using the terminology defined by a totally different coaching system.

    Koffee

  19. #19
    Guest
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Morbius
    Speaking from experience, I'd say they're next to useless. That is unless one is planning a long ride that will be 65% - 70% of their MaxHR, such a completing a century. Otherwise, what's the point? I don't know that hour upon hour of endurance training will do for somebody who is training for a short criterium where MAP & LATR are important.

    Sure some base training may be an OK idea during the winter months to keep an athlete from burning out. However, the result of months on end of base training is still lower fitness levels than during peak race season.

    Training slow just makes for slow racers. Of course, it depends on the event, but most of the events in the U.S. are much shorter in duration than the multi-stage races in Europe. Training for the TdF would require a very different regimen than training for a single 45 min criterium in the States. Perhaps much of the reason so many coaches favor extreme volumes of zone 2 training is because they are copying what is done for the European Classics ... and they don't know any better.

    Seems I read somewhere that Chris Boardman only trained 5 hours a week prior to setting the 1 hour world record. Doubtful there was any zone 2 in that routine!

    And I can also see here there is a deficiency in understanding how to create a periodization program. A good training program stresses PROGRESSION- in intensity over time. Any person that spent an entire winter doing just base would come out deficient by summer. But a good coach will put together a training program based on what your goals are, and an even better coach will look through your results gathered from following your training program over time (as in YEARS) and be able to structure your training program for the next year. The macrocycle (your full training year) will be divided into mesocycles, and within each mesocycle will be your microcycles. If you're keeping track of all this, you should be able to determine what "zones" you'll be working in and plan it so that you're not spending all your time in base.

    If there are coaches spending all their time in base, then they shouldn't be coaches. It is absolutely ridiculous to train your client to the peak training season in base. But then again, there really is no reason why anyone should spend that time in base. If they have to, I would tell them to take the year off at that point.

    A lot of people like to take one part of one program and completely manipulate it into what their season goals are. Unfortunately, this comes from not having enough information in front of you so that you can see which energy systems you should be training at what point during your macrocycle.

    I am not arguing with anyone as far as what they are saying about what they do for THEIR program, but I do argue when someone tries to say that because they don't do something for their program, then it is just USELESS in the cycling world. It simply isn't true. If someone thinks it is, they are pretty sad coaches, and I would really feel sorry for the clients who spent good money to get an individualized training program.

    Koffee

  20. #20
    Name's Ash ...housewares Doctor Morbius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The adult video section
    My Bikes
    Too many to list
    Posts
    798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by koffee brown
    And I can also see here there is a deficiency in understanding how to create a periodization program. A good training program stresses PROGRESSION- in intensity over time. Any person that spent an entire winter doing just base would come out deficient by summer. But a good coach will put together a training program based on what your goals are, and an even better coach will look through your results gathered from following your training program over time (as in YEARS) and be able to structure your training program for the next year. The macrocycle (your full training year) will be divided into mesocycles, and within each mesocycle will be your microcycles. If you're keeping track of all this, you should be able to determine what "zones" you'll be working in and plan it so that you're not spending all your time in base.

    If there are coaches spending all their time in base, then they shouldn't be coaches. It is absolutely ridiculous to train your client to the peak training season in base. But then again, there really is no reason why anyone should spend that time in base. If they have to, I would tell them to take the year off at that point.

    A lot of people like to take one part of one program and completely manipulate it into what their season goals are. Unfortunately, this comes from not having enough information in front of you so that you can see which energy systems you should be training at what point during your macrocycle.

    I am not arguing with anyone as far as what they are saying about what they do for THEIR program, but I do argue when someone tries to say that because they don't do something for their program, then it is just USELESS in the cycling world. It simply isn't true. If someone thinks it is, they are pretty sad coaches, and I would really feel sorry for the clients who spent good money to get an individualized training program.

    Koffee
    I believe there is a better place to train (as does Andy Coggan) when it comes to bang for the buck other than zone 2 even for Winter base training. For your 10 hour rides though, perhaps not. But for the 45 min to 1 hour crit guys ... waste. You need to talk to Richard Stern for a while. He'll set you straight. You may remember him. He posted some stuff here for a while. His normal hangout is over here --> http://www.cyclingforums.com/f49 He'll fix you up.
    I did not achieve this position in life by having some snot-nosed punk leave my cheese out in the wind. - Ed Rooney


    It's not that I'm lazy. I'm just highly motivated to RELAX!!

  21. #21
    Guest
    Guest
    I don't know this Andy Coggan well. I am familiar with his stuff, but I go more with the veterans and authorities in the field... folks like Bompa and Friel are at the top of my list, and based on the athletes they've trained, the coaches they've influenced, and the methodology that's used by other successful athletes in different genres of cycling, I find them very credible. If you understand their methodologies, you can adapt and apply it to just about anything and be successful.

    I also don't need to read about Ric Stern. I don't really find his stuff in line with the professionals I've been versed with, nor do the certifying bodies (at least in this country) I currently associate with.

    However, if Ric needs fixing, he should seek out these esteemed veterans. It never hurts.

    Koffee

  22. #22
    Climbing Fool terrymorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    My Bikes
    Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
    Posts
    3,019
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by koffee brown
    For those of us going more than 20 minutes (maybe even up to 10 hours) at a time on a ride, what you consider to be aerobic power is pretty useless. What am I going to do 20 minutes into the ride if I've run out of steam?
    Aerobic power is far from useless in a long race, and there's real data that says so. Power at anaerobic threshold is a very good predictor of endurance capability. This study shows that.

    Do you really think the guys riding for 5- 6 hours a day in a 21 day race spend all their time training for 20 minute tempo rides? It makes no sense.
    Those guys do what their coaches tell them to do, which doesn't mean their coaches know what they're doing. I mention 20-minute power as a measurment of aerobic fitness, not necessarily a training protocol. Tempo rides are obviously longer in duration. But if these pros are training 5-6 hours some days at level 2, I suspect they are just spinning their wheels and getting next to nothing in return.

    I don't know what makes sense. Where's the data that says one way or the other? I know what adaptations are caused by high level aerobic training, and some of them predict performance in an endurance event very well (mitochondrial enzymes, lactate threshold, muscle glycogen stores, muscle fiber conversion). Low level training changes these features very slowly in comparison. I have the uncomfortable feeling that the effects of low level endurance training are poorly understood--certainly poorly documented--and that puttting in multiple hours in the saddle at this level may just turn out to be a collosal waste of time. Until I can find the studies that show beneficial adaptations from long rides performed at level 2 (Coggan), aka zone 2 (USA Cycling), aka 65%-72% of max HR, I remain extremely skeptical.

    Koffee, you're obviously a trained coach of some sort. If you were my coach, I would insist on evaulating the science that your training program is based on. And none of that macro-cycle, micro-cycle jargon, either. Show me the data!
    Managing Director, Undiscovered Country Tours

  23. #23
    Guest
    Guest
    I don't need to show you data. I've asked over and over again for you to look at BOMPA, FRIEL, and BURKE (Ed). Their books talk about the training I mentioned, and they back up all their information with sound data and examples.

    Again:

    TUDOR O. BOMPA: "Periodization"
    JOE FRIEL: "Cyclists Training Bible"
    ED BURKE "Serious Cycling"

    Those are three books you can START with to get an understanding of the principles I (as well as USA Cycling and their coaches) follow.

    On the other hand, you like to quote one guy for everything. I'm not sure if you're a coach, but I suspect that this one guy and whatever it is he uses is the cookie cutter program you like to dish out to the people you work with. I don't think you are a coach, however, since it seems like you are not very willing to go outside your article to find other sources for advancing yourself. Most coaches really do go out of their way to continue to educate themselves, and they usually go to several sources to get the best of each. This isn't a jab, just an observation.

    You quote USA Cycling, but USA Cycling stands behind Tudor O. Bompa as their primary source of how to train athletes. They tell you from day one, and they encourage you to get those books and attend his lectures (if possible) so you can learn about what they consider to be the superior training method for your clients.

    I never said aerobic power is useless. From what I understood of what you were saying, I said 20 minute rides for training power is useless for people doing the long rides. I don't know of any team that takes its members out for 20 minute rides every day and then expects them to go on a 3 hour ride full steam. That doesn't really make too much sense to me. But training for power when you're primarily an endurance athlete is still of some benefit. I don't even need to click on the link you provided to know that. It's in Bompa's book.

    I think that what people don't understand they simply explain away. Cycling is such a varied sport that sometimes, lines do get blurred. But that's all the more reason for everyone to take in as much literature and information as possible. For the guys I use as my "bibles", I basically take their principles, then I apply it to the individual after I've evaluated strengths, weaknesses, tests, talked to their doctor, checked the results of their performance tests, check how they did over the last season(s), etc. From there, I can get a schedule of events they'd like to do for the upcoming year and plan a full training schedule. But even then, the schedule will change, since you must (or should, but I always say it's a must) retest and reevaluate every so often to make sure they're still on track with the program you've prescribed. If things go well, you progress to the next level of training. If not, you change things up, check for weaknesses in the plan, readjust and get back to the schedule with the new changes. And so on, and so on, and so on...

    Terry, if you were my client, I would throw out your Cosgrove and tell you to get on the damn bike and ride! It's my job to put together your program, and I know best. Ride, dammit, ride!

    I think I've said my say. You all keep on keeping on. The important thing that we all agree on is the need to train. Find a program, stick to it, hope for the best. Good luck to you all.

    Koffee

  24. #24
    Climbing Fool terrymorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    My Bikes
    Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
    Posts
    3,019
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by koffee brown
    I don't need to show you data. I've asked over and over again for you to look at BOMPA, FRIEL, and BURKE (Ed). Their books talk about the training I mentioned, and they back up all their information with sound data and examples.

    Again:

    TUDOR O. BOMPA: "Periodization"
    JOE FRIEL: "Cyclists Training Bible"
    ED BURKE "Serious Cycling"

    Those are three books you can START with to get an understanding of the principles I (as well as USA Cycling and their coaches) follow.
    Thanks for the reading list (again), I've already been through a few of those "bibles", as well as a few others. But I'm not sketchy on the concepts, the concepts are quite easy to grasp. These books are not satisfying in what they present as "sound data".

    I have yet to find much science to back up some of the claims. But I'll keep looking. My background is in science and engineering, and I'm used to a far greater amount of rigor. If they want me to spend my time doing workout X, there had better be a reviewed study or two demonstrating what good X does. That's all I ask.
    Managing Director, Undiscovered Country Tours

  25. #25
    Guest
    Guest
    Cool. Seriously.... I'll pass on what you said to Sam over at USA Cycling. I mean, if they're promoting the authors, and the data behind the authors aren't sound, then they should know about it, since they tell all their coaches to pretty much use these authors as their foundation for training.

    My background is in biological sciences and in writing. I know about research, and so far, the information gleaned from these authors have done more to push athletes in the States to superior levels. I've been satisfied with the data and information produced by them, as well as USA Cycling, but again, I'll pass along your thoughts and ask for some official comment about your claims of their lack of data to back up their information.

    Koffee

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •