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.)

Deleted member 5559

Guest
Read this article which I thought was interesting with comparing volume and intensity focus for cross country skiing.
Granted this article focuses on VO2 Max which improves from training VO2 Max. I have been shifting my training to include more low intensity training to follow more of the 80/20 principles for the purpose of improving recovery from high volume of high intensity. However, perhaps 80/20 isn't the primary takeaway and just training the ends of the spectrum are more important than the ratio of one to the other.

What are some other studies that compare volume and intensity focus for endurance sports?
 
@BroMo, I don't think it's quite as simple as that study article makes it sound. We also have stories of high level athletes who, while recovering from injury, went on to exceptional performances after a few months or longer of very intense, low-volume training. My point is that nothing works forever, and it seems reasonable to expect that increasing the amount of high intensity training would yield a benefit for some endurance athletes, but there is no guarantee that it's going to continue to be a better approach over the years.

IMHO, PlanStrong gets at the essence of this issue, which is that there needs to be a certain kind of variety. Brett has talked about it articles here and I've mentioned it as well, cycling one's training in, using my own example, cycles that run 5 years or longer at times.

JMO and YMMV.

-S-
 
cycles that run 5 years or longer
Almost every study is pretty short term. I would like to see a study that continued on after what that study did. Unfortunately, most studies only seem useful for concepts related to peaking. It would be nice to see studies run multiple iterations to see how methods fair in the longer time horizons. Simple periodization of increasing intensity or intensity-volume then starting the cycle over is pretty tried and true and it seems like the study above is only good at claiming the concept of changing a load is better than not.
 
Yes, I agree. I think the answer is lies in finding the right dose, and in this case, that means the right amount of intensity on average, coupled with the right variation in levels of intensity.

-S-
 
I wonder what it looks like to replicate something like conjugate methods that don't periodize as much.

I suppose the two elements of endurance sports are to use oxygen/fuel and discard waste.

Use fuel
  1. Low intensity steady state to increase total surface area of muscle-blood interfaces
  2. VO2 Max oxygen uptake
Discard waste
  1. Lactate threshold tempo runs
50/50 split between the two kind of emphasises tempo runs because the other half is split between two elements.
 
The interesting thing about the linked study is the intervention was a correction to poor adaptive response to another training protocol. "A" didn't work well in these subjects, maybe they are predisposed to a "B" strategy instead. To me this casts well deserved doubt on any one-size-fits-all training regimen.

I also found interesting but not very surprising that once a solid base was achieved, the subjects improved more by increasing short duration intensity rather than increasing longer duration volume. It makes sense that the body responds better to the greater momentary challenge as long as the base is solid enough to support the work.
 
Lots of studies on this issue. Generally the higher the intensity of the work, the quicker the plateau. High intensity intervals (VO2 max intervals...i.e., Tabata) typically plateau at about 2-4 weeks. Lactate threshold type intervals (tempo..i.e., 10K race pace) the plateau is around 6-8 weeks. For low intensity volume training, the plateau is years...decades probably. This is the primary reason for the 80/20 rule. This is specifically for running. Other modes can be different due to a higher skill component.

One of the best long term "studies" was published in the International Journal of Sports medicine. It reported Paula Radcliffe's data over decades. Though her VO2 max did not improve from 17 years old (actually went down a little) she was able to run, much, much faster as she got older. Her lactate levels at specific speeds decreased significantly and her run economy improved by abotu 15%.
 
Generally the higher the intensity of the work, the quicker the plateau. High intensity intervals (VO2 max intervals...i.e., Tabata) typically plateau at about 2-4 weeks. Lactate threshold type intervals (tempo..i.e., 10K race pace) the plateau is around 6-8 weeks. For low intensity volume training, the plateau is years...decades probably.
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?
 
Today I came across this article that references/summarizes some others that conclude an 80 minute duration to stimulate the desired aerobic adaptations.
Optimized Aerobic Prescription
It also suggests longer duration starts to have negative effects. I thought I recalled other content here in the forums indicating ~75 minutes for desired aerobic adaptations but I don't remember where or why.

What is the minimum and maximum duration window to get enough but not too much? I am guessing the 60-90 minute range based on multiple indicators. I'm sure training less than 60 minutes isn't for nothing but perhaps not necessarily achieving the specific adaptations desired from low intensity work.
 
Interesting article, yet it alluded to how the pros train... and pro cyclists ride more than a 90min session... a lot more
 
I read somewhere once that for running, 50-something minutes, which fits in with tried and true 40-60 min base runs. For regular folk, there doesn't seem to be much benefit in going over an hour, except for fun. I think the activity also matters. From my experience, a 45 min run feels like I did something, but on the bike, not so much. Unless its hard techy MTB.

I think Al Ciampa wrote here something like 75-90 min.
 
Just to clarify the optimized aerobic prescription article says *at least* 80 minutes so that’s entirely consistent with doing more...

As always building up over time is important and ‘it depends on your goals’. An untrained subject needs way less, an Olympic marathoner probably quite a bit more...
 
I think there is some difference between sports. Weight bearing events like running hit the body differently than cycling. Cyclists train at higher volumes in single sessions, like the elites who generally ride 2-6 hrs a day. Runners don't. But elite runners often train twice a day in order to get more volume.

Seiler, mentioned in the article, is the guy most responsible for explaining polarized training. Here's a great interview over at Science of Ultra:

Intervals Like A Pro with Stephen Seiler, PhD — SCIENCE OF ULTRA
 
^Good points- I tend to default to running examples because I know very little about cycling and more about running but that probably introduced some lack of clarity in my post...

Love Science of Ultra- highly recommended for those interested in endurance events.
 
Last edited:
That science of ultra site is great. Thought this article had some great insight.
the Long Run — SCIENCE OF ULTRA

Picture1.jpg
 
We should not forget the psychological aspects of long duration training.... which I have never found a way to replicate, other than by putting in the time. Doing a one hour run in no way prepares you to do a 24hr ultra trail run, or a 36hr climb...
 
Since the brain controls it all, it definitely needs training too. But a graph like that is good for preventing overtraining. Seeing that 90 min is where the curve starts flattening means one can do the really the long efforts sparingly.
 
In one of the articles, it talked about the catabolic effects starting to get serious about the 2 hour mark. I don't know what the standard error is of that average but it's probably a decent rule of thumb to avoid longer than that most of the time for a single session.
 
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.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom