all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Endurance Sport Training

  • Thread starter Deleted member 5559
  • Start date
Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Bro Mo said:
How do different splits between the types when training them concurrently affect the longevity of the plateau?

If I recall, your program starts with something like 1 tempo day, then the next week, 2 tempo days, then 3 with the rest being LSD, then exchange one of those tempo days with an interval day, etc.

Were you ever able to compare your running program with different ratios that stayed static every week?
Click to expand...

Probably no need to get to complex with this, even for endurance athletes. There are lots of ways that this can work. What I recommended works, and is a user friendly way to do it based on experience. Really, even considering all of the science ever done on the subject, the best that can be safely said is that lots of low/moderate intensity work, with a sprinkling of higher intensity (as tolerated) seems to work well.
 
vegpedlr said:
Catabolic doesn't just mean muscle. And becoming depleted seems to be part of the signaling process to trigger adaptation. What I'm curious about is the differences between cycling and running. Runners rarely train for more than two hours, though elites add volume by training twice a day. Cyclist do tons more volume since it's not weight bearing. Is that volume just because they can, or because they must?

From some cycling coaches, to benefit from the long ride, it must be minimum 3 hrs, but no more than 6. It takes 3 hrs in somebody well trained to get depleted, but no reason to go past 6. Once a week is enough. What I don't know is the optimal frequency and duration for the easy base building sessions. I have a hunch, but I'd like to see a graph like the one above for the bike.
Click to expand...

Running includes an eccentric contraction and impact forces, which are more damaging on a micro and macro level. It would be hard to recover from the volume cyclists can do given these constraints.
 
mprevost said:
Running includes an eccentric contraction and impact forces, which are more damaging on a micro and macro level. It would be hard to recover from the volume cyclists can do given these constraints.
Click to expand...
I know. That's why the volume that ultra runners do amazes me. I'm interested in the other direction. Is it necessary for cyclists to do more volume than runners? Or is it just that without the impact they just do more anyway? If the adaptations are metabolic in nature, why should cyclists train so much more volume than runners?
 
Is there a point of diminishing returns? Or is the nature of the aerobic system such that as long as mechanical stresses are manageable, such ridiculous volume still continues to provide benefit?
 
It's a fair question...
I'm sure Froome and Team Ineos have it figured out and dialed in to some extent. They likely wouldn't be training that way if they didn't perceive value in it. Their performance speaks.

That being said... none of us are TDF riders here....

Undoubtedly there is a point of diminishing returns. That point is going to be way lower for me than Froome and his colleagues.
 
Ive raced bikes at a high level since 1989 (cat 1 and pro MTB) and coached a lot of really good world class and national level folks, too. Times have changed a wee bit from the old days as we use velocity based metrics to track training loads. But. sometimes you need big days. 4-6 hours times 2...3...4...per week. I used to go to AZ and do 3 weeks of : 5 x 4 hours, 5 x 5 hours, 5 x 6 hours in a 3 week block in the mid 90s. The argument is that to gain efficiency (or is it economy...) you need to really overload the movement reps. cycling is a VERY simple sport from a ROM/SOM standpoint so to make gains on those hard to measure indicators....miles make champions.
 
It would seem that the simple movement patterns for cycling would reach the point of diminishing returns sooner rather than later, but I see how the opposite could be true.

I used to think swimmers were super overtrained for their short races until I thought about economy. Swimming is so unnatural and unlike anything we regularly do that technique is everything. So with that, the ridiculous volume swimmers do makes more sense.

I suppose then, if it didn't just completely break them down, runners would train like swimmers or cyclists, if they could, to get that improvement in economy.
 
It's (to my eye anyway) readily apparent in club level rides who puts in a lot of kilometers in the saddle, and who doesn't. Not from their performance, but from how comfortable they look on the bike, and how fluid their pedaling is.

Those attributes in turn go a long way to improved performance in all aspects of cycling.
 
vegpedlr said:
I know. That's why the volume that ultra runners do amazes me. I'm interested in the other direction. Is it necessary for cyclists to do more volume than runners? Or is it just that without the impact they just do more anyway? If the adaptations are metabolic in nature, why should cyclists train so much more volume than runners?
Click to expand...

There does not seem to be a plateau for improvements due to low/moderate intensity training, so more volume is better (for performance) if you can recover.
 
vegpedlr said:
Is there a point of diminishing returns
Click to expand...
Apparently not, at least for some. I recall some discussion during Lance Armstrong's time. He developed a higher cadence than most cyclist because it seems there was always room to tolerate more of that, but not room to tolerate pushing harder on a lower gear. Likely, as mentioned above by @mprevost and others, an issue of recovery as much as anything.

-S-
 
Steve Freides said:
Apparently not, at least for some. I recall some discussion during Lance Armstrong's time. He developed a higher cadence than most cyclist because it seems there was always room to tolerate more of that, but not room to tolerate pushing harder on a lower gear. Likely, as mentioned above by @mprevost and others, an issue of recovery as much as anything.

-S-
Click to expand...
This is kind of the idea behind the dynamic effort day at Westside too.
 
as a reminder of this schema. Mathieu Van Der Pool. Arguably the greatest cyclist in the world right now. Just returned from a 1 week block in Spain where he did between 38-40 hours on the bike. Impressive for sure. MORE impressive in that he did MID season for cyclocross which is a 60-65min MAX effort race. As Andy Coggan has said "it's all aerobic"
 
MVDP is the new Eddy Merckx. Makes me wonder what Merckx would have been like at MTB XC.

Limited, high volume, training, "training camp" style blocks have long been a tradition for folks with limited training opportunities in the winter. It's intentional overreaching that can pay off, but can also be risky. I've tried it, it worked OK, got me a spot at Pb, but left me flat the rest of the summer. Dave Wiens did a Pb special plan three weeks or so out, three consecutive days of 6 hr rides. Overload the aerobic system, then rest up.
 
vegpedlr said:
MVDP is the new Eddy Merckx. Makes me wonder what Merckx would have been like at MTB XC.

Limited, high volume, training, "training camp" style blocks have long been a tradition for folks with limited training opportunities in the winter. It's intentional overreaching that can pay off, but can also be risky. I've tried it, it worked OK, got me a spot at Pb, but left me flat the rest of the summer. Dave Wiens did a Pb special plan three weeks or so out, three consecutive days of 6 hr rides. Overload the aerobic system, then rest up.
Click to expand...

and overload the peripheral system. just that simple act of turning the pedals about 32 thousand times a day does a lot for economy/efficiency .
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom