Augustus F-N
Level 7 Valued Member
On health, diminishing returns and LED:
I've been a recreational road cyclists for 10 years now riding the same roads, same rides, with mostly the same people almost every Sunday and sometimes additional rides during the week. Our usual rides are 1.5-2 hrs (30-40ish miles), but some longer rides up to metric centries and centuries (62 and 100 miles). Because I've been doing the same thing so long, I probably meet your hypothectical scenario. And during these years I've also done different training focuses such as A+A swings and snatch programs, TSC snatch prep (glycolytic training), running, cycling base training (LSD up to 10 hrs per week), and several years ago some more specific cycling training with lactate threshold intervals, power intervals, etc.
The bottom line is that none of it made a whole lot of difference. By that I mean maybe 10%, give or take. I always seem to ride about the same, and I have 10 years worth of Garmin data to back that up. My moving averages (other than the slow social rides) are almost all between 17.5 and 20 mph. The biggest factors in my riding ability are 1) staying healthy and active and 2) riding regularly so that I don't lose that specific ability and associated adaptations. Much of the slight variation that I do see are from non-training-related factors; for example, bodyweight - lighter helps cycling performance -- and weather/heat tolerance, here in Mississippi.
But with that said, I think that within the 10% or so difference, I have experienced some differences from training that can be described:
Is that sort of what you were wondering?
- Additional LSD/LED training increases my ability to ride long and easily recover (endurance). The effort for the normal group ride becomes more aerobic and less stressful, and I'm more likely to be able to nose-breathe for most of the ride.
- A+A training seemed to delay the onset of muscle burn during a hard effort, increase my ability to recover quickly after a hill or sprint effort, and kept my body strong overall.
- Barbell squats and deadlifts have made my leg muscles significantly stronger for hills and other brief efforts. (No need to downshift!)
- Glycolytic training (like TSC snatch prep) seems to increase my tolerance for a hard 2-3 min effort involving high power output, breathing, and heart rate -- but this one is easy come, easy go.
- Lactate threshold riding makes the biggest difference in the ability to maintain an overall higher moving average for the duration of the ride.
- Bodyweight strength training and get-ups seem to help me stay connected on the bike. This is even more noticeable with the mountain bike.
Well said. I couldn't agree more...My take away after reading a lot of the literature is that while HIIT and LSD produce some similar responses, they really are two different systems, not two ways of doing the same thing. A competitive athlete should be doing both and for GPP you could do either /or /neither and still be pretty healthy by most informal metrics.
Now 40min is a really short time, where one could easily go anaerobic for a large percentage so I am guessing, maybe the A+A or VWC might have an edge. However the longer the duration of the event, (and more aerobic) I think the balance might shift to the LED person. Say cycling something in the range of 6 hrs.
The guy who just trained cycling would have an advantage.. Is this because he's training in all modalities by practicing for the event?Indeed an interesting thought experiment. I think the point by @offwidth that this would be a short bike race is a good point, but I would still give the edge to the guy who just trained cycling and nothing else. But. . .
I was thinking they all practiced cycling for equal time with no interference to their aerobic training. The aerobic training has no restriction other than sticking with their assigned modality.We need some more clarification on the rules. Are the guys doing VWC and A+A doing that in addition to their cycling? Or, do we give each trainee something like 2 hours of training time each day and the guys doing VWC and A+A need to fit those protocols within that 2-hour time restriction along with their cycling? If it's in addition to cycling, then the VWC and A+A have the clear advantage.
That's interesting, plugging in VWC or A+A to replace some 'junk miles' with kettlebells, it could probably work. Good point on avoiding joint wear and tear.I think this is where VWC and A+A becomes very useful for the "regular person" training to finish a marathon for example. Most marathon training plans have one long run a week which is not negotiable - it must be done if you want to finish and actually enjoy the marathon. These runs are schedule for the weekend to give the "regular person" a good chance of being able to complete the long run. Shorter runs are scheduled during the week. Some have called these shorter runs "junk miles" because if you miss one here and there it won't derail your training. Others swear that you cannot miss even these short runs. How about a middle ground where you replace a short run each week with either VWC or A+A? This would add some variety, the workouts may take less time than a short run (but that depends), it might save some wear and tear on the joints, and is the answer to the excuse "but the weather sucks and I don't want to run?"
Yes and no, I'm interested to learn all I can but my focus is mostly on gathering knowledge on the effects of the VWC training protocol. Your observations make sense as there appears to be no 'magic bullet' modality of aerobic training.I've been a recreational road cyclists for 10 years now riding the same roads, same rides, with mostly the same people almost every Sunday and sometimes additional rides during the week. Our usual rides are 1.5-2 hrs (30-40ish miles), but some longer rides up to metric centries and centuries (62 and 100 miles). Because I've been doing the same thing so long, I probably meet your hypothectical scenario. And during these years I've also done different training focuses such as A+A swings and snatch programs, TSC snatch prep (glycolytic training), running, cycling base training (LSD up to 10 hrs per week), and several years ago some more specific cycling training with lactate threshold intervals, power intervals, etc.
The bottom line is that none of it made a whole lot of difference. By that I mean maybe 10%, give or take. I always seem to ride about the same, and I have 10 years worth of Garmin data to back that up. My moving averages (other than the slow social rides) are almost all between 17.5 and 20 mph. The biggest factors in my riding ability are 1) staying healthy and active and 2) riding regularly so that I don't lose that specific ability and associated adaptations. Much of the slight variation that I do see are from non-training-related factors; for example, bodyweight - lighter helps cycling performance -- and weather/heat tolerance, here in Mississippi.
But with that said, I think that within the 10% or so difference, I have experienced some differences from training that can be described:
Is that sort of what you were wondering?
- Additional LSD/LED training increases my ability to ride long and easily recover (endurance). The effort for the normal group ride becomes more aerobic and less stressful, and I'm more likely to be able to nose-breathe for most of the ride.
- A+A training seemed to delay the onset of muscle burn during a hard effort, increase my ability to recover quickly after a hill or sprint effort, and kept my body strong overall.
- Barbell squats and deadlifts have made my leg muscles significantly stronger for hills and other brief efforts. (No need to downshift!)
- Glycolytic training (like TSC snatch prep) seems to increase my tolerance for a hard 2-3 min effort involving high power output, breathing, and heart rate -- but this one is easy come, easy go.
- Lactate threshold riding makes the biggest difference in the ability to maintain an overall higher moving average for the duration of the ride.
- Bodyweight strength training and get-ups seem to help me stay connected on the bike. This is even more noticeable with the mountain bike.
So would something like VWC, with its VO2MAX focus cross over to another sport, like MTB racing? I've often wondered, and I think the answer is maybe a little. The problem, aside from sport specificity, as Anna observed, is that high end fitness develops quickly and fades easily. I don't see why someone would want to try to train that quality outside the specific sport. Too much risk.
What is S.A.I.D.?Maybe a little. But less and less as you progress in performance.
S.A.I.D.
What is S.A.I.D.?
I think this is where VWC and A+A becomes very useful for the "regular person" training to finish a marathon for example. Most marathon training plans have one long run a week which is not negotiable - it must be done if you want to finish and actually enjoy the marathon. These runs are schedule for the weekend to give the "regular person" a good chance of being able to complete the long run. Shorter runs are scheduled during the week. Some have called these shorter runs "junk miles" because if you miss one here and there it won't derail your training. Others swear that you cannot miss even these short runs. How about a middle ground where you replace a short run each week with either VWC or A+A? This would add some variety, the workouts may take less time than a short run (but that depends), it might save some wear and tear on the joints, and is the answer to the excuse "but the weather sucks and I don't want to run?"
Yes and no, I'm interested to learn all I can but my focus is mostly on gathering knowledge on the effects of the VWC training protocol. Your observations make sense as there appears to be no 'magic bullet' modality of aerobic training.
Specific Adaptation to Imposed DemandWhat is S.A.I.D.?
First, by taking training time and recovery energy away from the primary sport, you risk your eventual performance. If you're invested in that goal performance, why risk it with a training deviation? Also, any training at that intensity carries real risk of injury and burnout. Why carry that risk with a supplementary activity?
RE: Junk Miles
Ah yes, the terminology gets confusing.
All the discussion I've encountered regarding junk miles refers to short to moderate length, low intensity sessions because they don't seem to be doing anything. Not long enough, or hard enough. But what they do is reinforce, maintain, and build base aerobic fitness. That's why I use the marathon program example. Many people question the value of those weekday runs.
What Anna is calling junk I have always seen referred to as "gray zone" or "no man's land." Exactly as Anna describes it, not hard enough to get those benefits, not easy enough for base benefits, but requiring some dedicated recovery.
BUT, those intensities are actual race intensity for many longer events, leading one coach I listen to describe it as the "money zone" since it is race specific. For cycling, it's now often referred to as "sweet spot" training. It's lower intensity than typical LT intervals, putting it as high tempo by most rubrics.
I haven't tried it yet, but what I think makes sweet spot different from no man's land is structure and programming. Sweet spot training uses work and recovery intervals, as well as considering the recovery issues required by those sessions. No man's land is when people just get swept along by the effort to something kinda hard but fun, but don't balance out the effort with appropriate recovery.
as a working stiff dad who still races some XC and marathon MTB events (and some long trail running events)...a lot of my non strength (Kettlebell) training is near this range.