Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 149
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rob_co2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    564

    Is base training dead?

    Not sure if this has been posted before or not, did a search and nothing came up. Interesting thought.

    http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-Aerobic...ad?&id=2162016
    A couple of years ago I proposed some radical ideas on cardio training for mountain bikers. Ever since then I've had a lot of people doubt my sanity. Aerobic base training has been a staple of training programs for decades and many an off season program for mountain bikers has included an extended period of time reeling off boring miles on a trainer. While some people embraced my concepts (and proceeded to achieve better "aerobic endurance" despite doing little to no aerobic training) many others have questioned why this concept is so different that the "scientific" one.

    Let me explain why this is - people in the strength training trenches figure out what works in the real world (which is MUCH different than a controlled lab setting) and then implement it. Sometimes what we do flies in the face of the traditional "science" of training. Sports scientists pick up on what we are doing, study it and then tell us why it works. This process usually takes about 5-10 years or more to go from the cutting edge in the trenches to being taught in the classroom.

    So, this meant that there was not a ton of scientific studies to confirm what I knew - aerobic base training simply does not work on a consistent basis in the real world. But, now there are two landmark studies that suggest that anaerobic interval training is vastly superior to the out dated models still being promoted by the mainstream fitness media.

    The main reason that mountain bikers felt compelled to include aerobic base training in their program was to increase their aerobic capacity. The scientifically accepted method to determine aerobic capacity is VO2Max (Maximum Volume of Oxygen Consumed), which is an indicator of how well your body can utilize oxygen. Aerobic training had been shown to increase your VO2Max, so therefore was considered necessary for overall cardiovascular development.

    However, strength coaches on the cutting edge realize that the best way to raise your VO2Max, and therefore your aerobic capacity, is through interval training, not aerobic training! While this may not make a lot of sense, it is true. Several recent studies on anaerobic intervals produced some of the largest increases in VO2Max ever seen, including studies done on aerobic training.

    One study in particular was done on what is popularly known as the Tabata Protocol. This method calls for 20 seconds of sprinting followed by 10 seconds rest and these mini-intervals are repeated 6-8 times per round. A workout may involve 1-3 rounds (complete recovery is allowed between rounds). Researchers found massive increases in the subjects VO2Max in addition to the anticipated increases in anaerobic endurance markers. The increases in VO2Max were some of the largest ever seen in a study and showed that aerobic training is not the only (nor the best) way to increase aerobic capacity.

    Another landmark study that came out in the September 2006 Journal of Physiology studied the effects of 20 minutes of interval training (30 second sprints followed by 4 minutes of rest) vs. 90-120 minutes of traditional aerobic heart rate zone training. They found that the interval group which did only 1 hour of exercise per week had the same improvements in aerobic capacity as the aerobic group. Did I mention the aerobic group spent 4-6 hours per week exercising?

    4 to 6 times as much exercise to get the same results in aerobic capacity? This isn't even taking into account that the interval group improved their anaerobic capacity, something the aerobic group did not. This finding is astounding and shows just how much time you can waste with aerobic training.

    I've mentioned this before and here is the proof - anaerobic intervals will increase your aerobic capacity as well as your anaerobic capacity but aerobic training does not increase your anaerobic capacity. All of this means that if you have limited training time (and who doesn't) you may be wasting your time with aerobic training. Anaerobic intervals are the only way to maximize the effectiveness of limited training time.

    Also, there is no evidence at all that you will burn out or get injured by training with intervals year round. This is simply a myth that has been told so many times that it has been taken as the truth. I challenge anyone to find me a single study that backs this claim.

    What has been found is that going straight into hard training (either strength or intervals or aerobic) without a preparatory period will increase the likelihood of injury. So, like everything else, you must work into full blown hard core intervals and cycle their intensity and duration but there is no reason you can not do intervals year round.

    Now, just to balance this out, there are 2 times when aerobic training has a place in your program. First, if you are so out of shape you can not tolerate even the easiest intervals then you should spend some time doing aerobic training to build your work capacity up a bit. But once you can do intervals you should make the switch.

    Second, aerobic exercise is great for active recovery (something I have also mentioned before). Going out for a light 20 minute jog or ride will help to flush blood into the muscles and help you recover from your strength training and interval sessions faster. Outside of these 2 things, though, aerobic base training may be dead.

    My mission in life is to bring our sport into the 21st century. You can get better results in aerobic capacity in less time while also increasing anaerobic capacity. This should be something that mountain bikers everywhere rejoice at because aerobic training is some of the most tedious and boring stuff around.

    The MTB Strength Training System is the world's only strength and conditioning program for the unique demands of mountain biking. Riders from around the world have discovered how they can climb faster, descend with more confidence and have more fun by upgrading the engine that drives their bike - their own body!

    Find out more about this unique program and how it can help you enjoy riding more by visiting http://www.mtbstrengthcoach.com
    While you are there you can find out how to sign up for a free sneak peak at The Ultimate MTB Workout Program, complete with a free workout.

    Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_P_Wilson

    Sounds like solid stuff. I guess the main issue I have is that one of the studies compares 1 hour anaerobic to 4-6 hours aerobic. What about races who do 30 mile races, or what about training 10+ hours per week, would you only need to do 2 hours anaerobic to match that? Anyway, its an interesting article.

  2. #2
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711
    I read this article last winter and cut out easy base miles and devoted more training time to mimic the intensity of racing-it's worked well for me this season. With this said I think James website is very helpful to a point but doesn't address the whole picture for XC racing.
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    294
    With this said I think James website is very helpful to a point but doesn't address the whole picture for XC racing.
    He does mention this a couple of times in respect to endurance MTBing, that his programs and way of thinking will not totally address the riders needs and that you will need extra mileage/time to cope with that part of the endurance equation. They should do for those riding DH, 4X , shorter MTB races and any recreational-type rider.

    I personally agree with what he says. Recently I did a 65 km 'enduro-type' event with no extra mileage (even cut down on it) and had been following James reasoning and finished in the top 50 (out of 600 riders). Would of been 13th if I had not had two punctures ( .

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    378
    Most people who do short races overtrain. High intensity in various forms is great. My opinion (huge FWIW) is that if your race is 2+ hours long I think you'll need base training. And that threshold could very well even be 1 hr, but I feel pretty sure about 2+ hrs. Note base training should shift during your season, many do more in the beginning and less as the season progresses.

    I worked out with some of the first people to figure this stuff out in late 80s (this stuff being what is in the article). I was with one guy who worked out something like a half hour a day and was ranked top 10 in the US for his age group at 18 in an event that was shorter than 30 seconds. I could do laps around him if the event were 5 minutes or longer - the rest of us put in around 20 - 30 hrs per week depending, but he beat all of us in the super-short events at 30 minutes a day of training... Damn sprinters!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: stevemtu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    738

    base miles=weight control

    I know that the concepts presented above are mostly true for me. I cannot be close to race form without doing substantial interval work above LT. However, long hours in the saddle below LT have two benefits (1) it's fun and (2) weight control.

    Most coaches who have a base component in the training program do so because they believe that it prepares the body to endure (and respond to) high intensity intervals. I am not sure I have seen anything indicating that this philosophy is incorrect.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,393
    I'm not ready to throw out decades of coaching experience in endurance sports based on what I see there alone. Sure we make advancements, but that is one guy commenting and it appears that article is also a little bit of an advertisment.

    My understanding of base training--and I've read a lot of stuff on exercise physiology as it applies to endurance athletes--is not that it is designed to increase VO2 max. You do VO2 max intervals for that purpose.

    The studies I've read suggest base training does the following:

    1. Over time it increases the size of mitochondria in our cells (the mitochondria are essentially the "engines" or powerplants of our cells--bigger mitochondria means a bigger engine);
    2. It increases the number of capillaries which carry blood to our muscles;
    3. It improves our body's efficiency in terms of converting oxygen and fuel (such as gylcogen) into energy so we get more out of what our cardiovascular system can deliver to our muscles;
    4. It starts to increase our muscle's ability to store the all important glycogen (critical for extended hard efforts and very long races); and
    5. It prepares our muscles, tendons, and ligaments for more vigorous training so that we can handle it without injury and overtraining.

    I read an article just a few years ago about a weight training program for football players and was surprised to learn they have their own "base training" in the weight room. Their yearly plan started with moderate weights with higher reps and multiple sets. For example, they were doing 2-3 sets of 10-12 reps as a base phase of training to prepare their muscles for later training. Once the base phase was complete, they then moved into heavier lifting that included much heavier weight, lower reps (1-5), and multiple sets (up to 5 or even more).

    I don't think base training is dead by any means. I do understand advancements are made all the time in our understanding of training and the physiology behind it, but time honored and proven principles probably shouldn't be dismissed too easily.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,198
    Base training is definitely dead for me. I completely skipped base training this season. However, I spent the winter doing very focused, sweet spot training with lots of intervals. My average training was 3.5 hours per week (all of it indoors on the trainer or spin bike). Even during the Ontario Cup race season my average training is only 7-9 hours per week.

    In many ways I was forced to come to this approach by my work schedule and my physical limitations (too much training and insufficient recovery gets me into injuries). My fitness does not suffer greatly from lack of base training and long hours in the saddle.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by serious
    Base training is definitely dead for me. I completely skipped base training this season. However, I spent the winter doing very focused, sweet spot training with lots of intervals. My average training was 3.5 hours per week (all of it indoors on the trainer or spin bike). Even during the Ontario Cup race season my average training is only 7-9 hours per week.

    In many ways I was forced to come to this approach by my work schedule and my physical limitations (too much training and insufficient recovery gets me into injuries). My fitness does not suffer greatly from lack of base training and long hours in the saddle.
    One thing to consider is that you still have the base from all the previous years of 7-9 hours/week. Perhaps any or all of us who have been riding for years could take one off-season and focus on Tabita or other types of high-intensity training and see results.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious to know if you can "get away with" that number of hours for a second consecutive off-season.

    How many hours/week do you think you'll get in this off-season?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,198
    I plan to do 3-4 hours this winter as well and basically maintain most of my fitness. I will ramp up a bit before race season starts to get closer to my peak. The rest comes during the race season and I tend to peak towards the end.

    What is important to remember is that I am 47 years old and just your average sport rider, with no expectations of massive improvements and podium placing.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,935
    cut out base miles if you like, but realize that it is a step backwards. training plans for runners used to entail primarily "intervals", that ideology was challenged and overcome by Lydiard. although it is a different sport, the training principles apply.

    http://lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/al_training.pdf

    periodization works. low intensity training has it's place. intervals are awesome and need to be utilized. of course we aren't all olympians that train full time... so compromises are made.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,297
    Periodization (and therefore base training) are not dead. After all, it's how the world champions in all major endurance sports train.

    The myth that base training consists of nothing but endless hours of mindless super-easy plodding, however, is dead.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: millennium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    332
    Of course base training doesn't increase VO2Max as much as training near your VO2 max (with shorter, max effort intervals) will increase your VO2 max--it doesn't take a study to figure that out (at least in my mind). Just like running doesn't improve your cycling as much as cycling will improve your cycling.

    Also, Expert and above will have a hard time being competitive without some longer rides in their program. It's easier to avoid longer rides (and still be competitive) at Sport and Beginner levels.

    Finally, it all depends on individual strengths and weaknesses--someone with a good endurance base to begin with (maybe from years of riding or from other activities) can more easily avoid longer rides and still be competitive.
    -

    Addictive website!

    TwoWheelTweets.com

    All of cycling's twitter tweets in one place!

    -

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by whybotherme
    cut out base miles if you like, but realize that it is a step backwards. training plans for runners used to entail primarily "intervals", that ideology was challenged and overcome by Lydiard. although it is a different sport, the training principles apply.

    http://lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/al_training.pdf

    periodization works. low intensity training has it's place. intervals are awesome and need to be utilized. of course we aren't all olympians that train full time... so compromises are made.
    Excellent points. Runners who are trying to be competitive or shoot for a PB tend to put a lot of focus on gradual increases in mileage ( I run miles, but bike km, weird, eh?) and consistency in training. Although there will always be "programs" telling them they can succeed on 3 days/week (usually with over half the weekly distance in one long run), experienced runners know that without the base they can't reach a peak.

    Cycling is differnet in that we can put in more weekly hours without injury and recover more easily from harder efforts. Talk about good news/bad news....sounds good, except it applies to your competition too!

  14. #14
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by flargle
    The myth that base training consists of nothing but endless hours of mindless super-easy plodding, however, is dead.
    IMHO it's not as much of a "myth" as it is a "misunderstanding". Base training should be taken as referring to building one's aerobic capacity and aerobic efficiency/economy, the 2 being different but interrelated qualities. These qualities can be addressed with training at a wider variety of intensities and durations than simply LSD work. Somehow, the concept has become bastardized over the years, probably because many people do adopt a high LSD component to their base training (which makes perfect sense and achieves good results for some) to the point where base training is synonomous with LSD in many people's minds, which isn't the case. LSD can be a component, or even the foundation of base training, but base training can also be accomplished without LSD.

    There's usually more than one solution to any problem when it comes to training.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drexlerkm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatorback
    I don't think base training is dead by any means. I do understand advancements are made all the time in our understanding of training and the physiology behind it, but time honored and proven principles probably shouldn't be dismissed too easily.
    +1

    A sobering and neutralizing comment. Train like you play, play like you train.

    I'm much more interested in the physiological science behind the training; less interested in "this study had X participants. One group sat on their fat asses and ate donuts (control group) but another sat on their fat asses and ate donuts and picked their noses and saw AMAZING RESULTS IN NO TIME AT ALL!"

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yeti2424's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by HSCoach2
    One thing to consider is that you still have the base from all the previous years of 7-9 hours/week. Perhaps any or all of us who have been riding for years could take one off-season and focus on Tabita or other types of high-intensity training and see results.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious to know if you can "get away with" that number of hours for a second consecutive off-season.

    How many hours/week do you think you'll get in this off-season?

    IMHO this is the “million dollar” point. Years of base training will provide an athlete in any sport the foundation to improve with more “advanced” training in the future. I have seen this in the weight room with athletes who have been doing the same program for years and have hit a plateau. We make changes to their program and then the majority of them see improved results very quickly. Did the new program make them better? Not really. It was the change in programming and the body’s reaction to it caused the plateau breakthrough. However a new trainee would not necessarily have the same reaction to the same program because they did not have the years training a solid base from which to build up from.

    Point being is that if we have two groups of cyclists who most likely have similar training backgrounds in a traditional base building style. If one group continues training this way while the other group changes up their training I would think that the cyclist training differently would see performance advancements purely based on the body’s reaction to the different stimulus. A better study would be to compare cyclists who have only performed interval training their entire cycling careers to cyclists who have gone through the traditional base building training over the course of many years. Good luck finding that sample though.
    Retribution Fitness: Strength, Power, and Purpose
    General fitness workouts posted daily.

  17. #17
    BBW
    BBW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BBW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,183
    I don't have the patience or will to read the whole thing but got enough with 1/3...
    Its funny how people that write articles like the one posted by the OP, miss so many points and try to make everybody with little knowledge think that he is revolutionary and that something like base training should be dumped

    It would be funny to see how in the world you would start doing intensity work without being prepared for it???
    Have you seen a sedentary person doing intervals? how many do you think that person can handle? how is that person going to feel next day? 3 days later?
    As Gatorback said, what about tendons and ligaments? are they prepare for high intensity work?

    Intensity IS what increases your VO2max but it should be done in a periodized way and there is no magic formula. Depends on your training status and fitness level, goals, genetics, psycologic factors, etc
    Can you do high intensity work all the time: NO
    can/should you do base work all the time: NO

    Exercise is stress so you have to stress your system in order to induce adaptations (stronger, faster, etc) but if you push too hard you will overtrain or get injured and if you don't push yourself no adaptation will occur...

    There is a TON of scientific evidence that supports this but when you have people that only thing about how to sell whatever, they push stupid stuffs without the basic principles; then newbies try to do it since they don't know what is right or wrong and end up getting injured, overtrained or something else.....

    0.02$

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,198
    I did not mean to imply that I have no long rides in my program. I need a few long rides in the 3-4 hour range as I prepare for 8 hour races. But I do that prior to the long race, not prior to the start of the season, so it is not base training in the traditional sense.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  19. #19
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,311
    There are many way to skin a cat.

    The idea behind changing the way you train as the season progress (periodization) is to stress your body in a different way. After training the same way for a length of time you are not improving anymore.

    If you are out of shape, or haven't done any long rides, a 3hr ride at 75% MHR is quite challenging. More than enough to overload you aerobic system. Do a couple of those followed by some rest and you will see improvement. After a while that ride will not be sufficient to induce a training effect; you need to vary the length and intensity to continue to improve.

    Skipping the base phase allows for a rapid progression to near race fitness. But how will you vary your training to allow progression during the season?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    620
    Lmn,
    What do you suggest for progression later in the season.
    I beleive I do a form of base training by doing a lot of BC skiing (Dec.-May) and then ride my bike medium effort for about two weeks(March/April 20-25 hrs) and start adding intensity after that. Do you just add variety to your interval sessions? and/or does switching up bikes give enough change to help w/progression like SS v. big squishy bike v. hard tail? I use my big bike early for lots of miles and abuse, then race bike, and move on to the SS in the fall. I do not know if I get stronger but I feel like it.
    Just curious, Thanks.
    Ryon
    If you do something often enough it tends to define you.

  21. #21
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,311
    Quote Originally Posted by butryon
    Lmn,
    What do you suggest for progression later in the season.
    I beleive I do a form of base training by doing a lot of BC skiing (Dec.-May) and then ride my bike medium effort for about two weeks(March/April 20-25 hrs) and start adding intensity after that. Do you just add variety to your interval sessions? and/or does switching up bikes give enough change to help w/progression like SS v. big squishy bike v. hard tail? I use my big bike early for lots of miles and abuse, then race bike, and move on to the SS in the fall. I do not know if I get stronger but I feel like it.
    Just curious, Thanks.
    Ryon
    The quality of your base training really depends on what your skiing depends on. If you are DH skiing at resorts then you really aren't doing any training for cycling (unless you are doing non-stops top to bottom at Revelstoke but few can do that on a regular basis). If you are ski touring then you probably have a huge endurance base, but are lacking a bit in your high end. If you are doing nordic then you are probably are at a very high fitness level and trying to transfer that fitness to the bike.

    What ever you are doing for skiing 20-25hrs is a huge number to start riding with. I would be temped to start riding a bit earlier but do a little, actually a lot, less volume.

    How to progress during the season really depends on your strengths and weakness. However 95% of all mountain bikers are limited by aerobic power, much more then road racing, aerobic power is the key ability for MTBing. Most are best served by focusing on the aerobic engine.

    Workouts such as
    -4hr at 70-75% MHR
    -3x20 minutes @80-90%
    -5x7 minutes @90-100%
    -5x4 minutes @best effort

    all work on your aerobic system. The key to continually improving your aerobic system is to do a workout that stresses it enough that it forces adaptation. Too often people get a favorite workout and get stuck in routine. Mixing these workout up can really help.

    Progressing during a season is actually very are hard to do. Most either come into the season at a high fitness level and then try and maintain or they come into the season out of shape and improve through out it. It takes a very good program and a motivated athlete to come into a season fit and then improve as season progresses.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,935
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN
    Progressing during a season is actually very are hard to do. Most either come into the season at a high fitness level and then try and maintain or they come into the season out of shape and improve through out it. It takes a very good program and a motivated athlete to come into a season fit and then improve as season progresses.
    Preach on brother man!!!!! Wish I had some of your expertise for setting up the lady's training!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    620
    I probably miss communicated the hrs. I do, roughly 20-25 hrs, every two weeks. Depending on my work schedule I get anywhere from 10-15 hrs a week. I do DH ski but the time I count toward training time is only the hiking/backcountry time. I will hike before the resort opens for roughly two hrs and then ski lift served for about two hrs...off to work. the weekends will give me more hike time with some of my trips being upwards of four hours. Do you see a time when a mtb'er would do shorter harder intervals than the above mentioned 4 min. ones?

    "Progressing during a season is actually very are hard to do. Most either come into the season at a high fitness level and then try and maintain or they come into the season out of shape and improve through out it. It takes a very good program and a motivated athlete to come into a season fit and then improve as season progresses."

    I agree with this completely. I don't really get out of race shape much but I also only seem to get a bit faster each season. I think this is due to better technique riding not necessarily the training.

    thanks
    If you do something often enough it tends to define you.

  24. #24
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711

    MHR formula

    Quote Originally Posted by LMN
    Workouts such as
    -4hr at 70-75% MHR
    -3x20 minutes @80-90%
    -5x7 minutes @90-100%
    -5x4 minutes @best effort
    LMN-Do you mainly do these on the road? AND...is the MHR based off of the 220-age formula?
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  25. #25
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u
    LMN-Do you mainly do these on the road? AND...is the MHR based off of the 220-age formula?
    Can't speak for LMN, but the general answer for determining MHR is Noooooo! do not derive from a formula for this purpose. Results from formula to actual are materially different for enough people that it's not so helpful for this application.

    You can try to search for different protocols on the web for determining maximum HR, but here's one possibility;

    - Progressive warmup for 20-30 minutes, including a couple of "openers" about 5 minutes before the test, with the openers beign relatively hard efforts 30-60 seconds each.

    - Find a medium grade hill, probably paved (MTB OK for this) or else off road with good traction and lack of obstacles so that you can focus on pure physical output, with hill duration being at least 3 minutes for you from bottom to top.

    - Start test, with very hard effort for approx. 3 minutes or whenever you are start seeing black spots, falling over, etc.

    - Cruise back down, for total rest duration (i.e. light spinning) of about 2 minutes.

    - Hit another hill rep of 3 minutes. You should feel like you're pretty much going to die by the end of the 2nd rep, but if not...

    - Rinse lather, repeat for 1 more time for a 3rd reps. If you're still upright by that time you haven't gone hard enough.

    - Ideally you'd be wearing HR monitor that you can look to see your max value on later so that you're not trying to stare at your watch while doing reps.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    209
    I think I agree. Or maybe I'm just old school, or raced and ride too much road... It seems to me, and even moreso now that I'm in my mid 40's, is that getting in that winter base allows me to train that much harder with better recovery (less chance of injury?) throughout the season. It's also a nice change up from in-season training and it keeps you fresh throughout the season. Which is part of the reason I like mixing up training. I also believe that once the season starts you really only need to _train_ approximately 80% of the race distances.


    Quote Originally Posted by LMN
    There are many way to skin a cat.

    The idea behind changing the way you train as the season progress (periodization) is to stress your body in a different way. After training the same way for a length of time you are not improving anymore.

  27. #27
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,311
    Quote Originally Posted by 2fst4u
    LMN-Do you mainly do these on the road? AND...is the MHR based off of the 220-age formula?
    I actually do very little training on road. I believe that as a mountain bike racer all my intensity should be done on my race bike, in my race position.

    The 220 - your age formula is useless for any reasonably fit individual. If you have been using an HR for a while then you probably know what your max HR is.

    I am not a big fan of prescribing intensity by HR or by power. PE is the best in my opinion. Actually if a set is designed properly then the athlete will generally do it at the desired intensity.

    For example if I want some one to do two 15 minute efforts at near maximal pace then I might give some like:
    2x15 minutes with 8 minutes rest. With that much rest the athlete will bury themselves knowing that they have time to recover.

    If I want them to two 15 minute efforts at thresold then I might give: 2x15 minutes with 1 minute rest. The athlete will self select the intensity that allows them to complete the workout.

  28. #28
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,311
    Quote Originally Posted by butryon
    Do you see a time when a mtb'er would do shorter harder intervals than the above mentioned 4 min. ones?
    Anaerobic work definitely has a role in mountain bike racing. It play a role in starts, short climbs, mid-race attacks, ect... All important but very small components of a mountain bike race. Those are the thing you work on when you have the fundamentals (climbing and descending) down.

    Short and hard intervals should be part of every ones program but the amount you do has to be watched very carefully.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN
    I am not a big fan of prescribing intensity by HR or by power. PE is the best in my opinion. Actually if a set is designed properly then the athlete will generally do it at the desired intensity.
    We were working out on a college ground at Te Awamutu one day when a group of pupils stopped to watch.

    "What's he [Richard Tayler] doing?" one asked.
    "Repetitions," I explained.
    They knew all about those. "How many is he going to do?"
    "I don't know."
    "What times is he running?"
    "I'm not timing him."
    They exchanged looks of disbelief. Was I supposed to be coaching one of New Zealand's best runners?
    Then I asked, "How far round is this track, anyway?"
    They knew then I did not know what I was talking about.
    When Dick finished and joined us, they asked him, "How many did you do?"
    "I didn't count them," Dick said.
    "What times were you running?"
    "I didn't time them."

    I decided it was time to explain to these boys, before they ran off laughing, that times and numbers were unimportant. What mattered was the effect on Tayler of what he was doing; and he knew better than I did what he wanted to do and when he had enough.


    --Arthur Lydiard

  30. #30
    BBW
    BBW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BBW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,183
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN
    The 220 - your age formula is useless for any reasonably fit individual.
    HRmax has nothing to do with fitness status and 220-age plus or minus 10-12 beats just covers 1 standard deviation of the population. Training will not increase your HRmax so if you are fit or not doesn't matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMN
    If you have been using an HR for a while then you probably know what your max HR is.
    HRmax is very difficult to know; I would say that not even 50% of the people know their HRmax unless they have push themselves doing a graded exercise test on a lab.
    Reaching your HRmax is very painful and has to be reached on a steady state. You are about to puke and pass out
    Proper term would be peak HR

  31. #31
    Giant Anthem
    Reputation: 2fst4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    711

    Hard as you can?

    Quote Originally Posted by LMN
    I actually do very little training on road. I believe that as a mountain bike racer all my intensity should be done on my race bike, in my race position.

    The 220 - your age formula is useless for any reasonably fit individual. If you have been using an HR for a while then you probably know what your max HR is.

    I am not a big fan of prescribing intensity by HR or by power. PE is the best in my opinion. Actually if a set is designed properly then the athlete will generally do it at the desired intensity.

    For example if I want some one to do two 15 minute efforts at near maximal pace then I might give some like:
    2x15 minutes with 8 minutes rest. With that much rest the athlete will bury themselves knowing that they have time to recover.

    If I want them to two 15 minute efforts at thresold then I might give: 2x15 minutes with 1 minute rest. The athlete will self select the intensity that allows them to complete the workout.
    So, to perform your suggested workouts I should basically use the maximum amount of intensity for the suggested length of the interval, right?

    BTW I do 99.9% of my workouts on the trail as well.

    "-4hr at 70-75% MHR
    -3x20 minutes @80-90%
    -5x7 minutes @90-100%
    -5x4 minutes @best effort"
    Racing and Training Blog
    http://dirtandgears.blogspot.com/

  32. #32
    BBW
    BBW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BBW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip
    Can't speak for LMN, but the general answer for determining MHR is Noooooo! do not derive from a formula for this purpose. Results from formula to actual are materially different for enough people that it's not so helpful for this application.

    You can try to search for different protocols on the web for determining maximum HR, but here's one possibility;

    - Progressive warmup for 20-30 minutes, including a couple of "openers" about 5 minutes before the test, with the openers beign relatively hard efforts 30-60 seconds each.

    - Find a medium grade hill, probably paved (MTB OK for this) or else off road with good traction and lack of obstacles so that you can focus on pure physical output, with hill duration being at least 3 minutes for you from bottom to top.

    - Start test, with very hard effort for approx. 3 minutes or whenever you are start seeing black spots, falling over, etc.

    - Cruise back down, for total rest duration (i.e. light spinning) of about 2 minutes.

    - Hit another hill rep of 3 minutes. You should feel like you're pretty much going to die by the end of the 2nd rep, but if not...

    - Rinse lather, repeat for 1 more time for a 3rd reps. If you're still upright by that time you haven't gone hard enough.

    - Ideally you'd be wearing HR monitor that you can look to see your max value on later so that you're not trying to stare at your watch while doing reps.


    This is one of the reasons people die. WARNING for you (yes, you that are reading this) DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS IS YOU HAVE TWO OR MORE THAN THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:
    - OVER 45 YEARS OLD
    - FAMILY HISTORY OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
    - BMI OVER 30
    - HYPERTENSION
    - DYSLIPIDEMIA
    - INSULIN RESISTANCE OR DIABETES

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Poncharelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,372
    I found this statement on base training on the roadbikereviews site. I think it's pretty excellent:

    Building fitness is about overload. You can overload with either intensity or volume. Base is about volume overload. Base training should consist of ramping up your miles significantly and decreasing your intensity. Most people do it wrong and decrease both their mileage and intensity and therefore get LESS fit, rather than more fit. The reason most people do this is that they are trying to employ a training system that is totally impractical unless you live in Southern California and do not have a job in the winter.

    Most people would be better off with hard intervals in the winter because they don't have the weather or daylight to do base training right.
    Head Coach, Ben Lomond HS MTB Team
    www.utahmtb.org
    Cycling Team and local Club:
    http://www.roostersbikersedge.com/

  34. #34
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,311
    Quote Originally Posted by BBW
    HRmax has nothing to do with fitness status and 220-age plus or minus 10-12 beats just covers 1 standard deviation of the population. Training will not increase your HRmax so if you are fit or not doesn't matter.

    HRmax is very difficult to know; I would say that not even 50% of the people know their HRmax unless they have push themselves doing a graded exercise test on a lab.
    Reaching your HRmax is very painful and has to be reached on a steady state. You are about to puke and pass out
    Proper term would be peak HR

    I have tested probably 100 cyclist in a graded test in a lab. In nearly every case max HR that the cyclist though they had was within a couple of beats of the one found in the lab. As I said someone who use an HR monitor regularly knows their max HR.

    It has been found that in a trained athlete max HR does not drop with age. Which means the 220 minus your age approach is completely useless for a trained cyclist.

  35. #35
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,311
    Quote Originally Posted by BBW
    This is one of the reasons people die. WARNING for you (yes, you that are reading this) DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS IS YOU HAVE TWO OR MORE THAN THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:
    - OVER 45 YEARS OLD
    - FAMILY HISTORY OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
    - BMI OVER 30
    - HYPERTENSION
    - DYSLIPIDEMIA
    - INSULIN RESISTANCE OR DIABETES
    Really.

    How many deaths are their each year in North America from people trying to obtain their max HR?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Poncharelli
    I found this statement on base training on the roadbikereviews site. I think it's pretty excellent:

    Building fitness is about overload. You can overload with either intensity or volume. Base is about volume overload. Base training should consist of ramping up your miles significantly and decreasing your intensity. Most people do it wrong and decrease both their mileage and intensity and therefore get LESS fit, rather than more fit. The reason most people do this is that they are trying to employ a training system that is totally impractical unless you live in Southern California and do not have a job in the winter.

    Most people would be better off with hard intervals in the winter because they don't have the weather or daylight to do base training right.
    Hey Ponch,

    I agree with the first paragraph. But I would question "Hard Intervals" in the second paragraph. I guess it depends on total volume, and type of Hard Intervals. If these were "Hard Intervals" meaning 20min or longer sustained efforts, then yes, I would go with that. But shorter.. I would save for later.

    I use periodization, and will be doing plenty of 30min-1hr intervals this winter. They are grueling, depleting, and exhuasting, but not necessarily Intense (above threshold). After 2 months of long and steady intervals it is not easy crossing over to the more intense (race specific) interval work, but after a few weeks of speed intervals (30sec on/30sec off) I respond well to a block of 2-3min power intervals and usually see a noticable bump in perrformance. But first, I do beleive the motor needs to be built with long and steady... and the intensity/volume of which will depend on total training volume. Try to find a combination that will be as much as I can handle. Glycogen depletion seems to occur with this training, and I think that may be one of the driving stimuli in building the motor during base training.

  37. #37
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Poncharelli
    I found this statement on base training on the roadbikereviews site. I think it's pretty excellent:

    Building fitness is about overload. You can overload with either intensity or volume. Base is about volume overload. Base training should consist of ramping up your miles significantly and decreasing your intensity. Most people do it wrong and decrease both their mileage and intensity and therefore get LESS fit, rather than more fit. The reason most people do this is that they are trying to employ a training system that is totally impractical unless you live in Southern California and do not have a job in the winter.

    Most people would be better off with hard intervals in the winter because they don't have the weather or daylight to do base training right.
    I think your first statement is correct, but I don't necessarily agree with second.

    Through out the season what it takes to achieve overload changes. During the fall and winter most cyclist lose fitness. Usually a break from training, and other activities leads to a loss of form. When somebody starts training again they don't need to ride as long or as hard to achieve overload. As their fitness improves they need to alter the intensity and duration to continue to achieve an overload.

    The main challenge with the traditional base model is that as training progresses to achieve overload you have to do huge volumes. Volume amounts that are not achievable for a working cyclist.

    The average working racer is better off to add intensity instead of increasing volume to progress.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,198
    To add to LMN's post, I would also suggest that the fitness achieved through volume training does not really address the requirements of short XC races. The huge efforts and quick recovery demands are better addressed via intensity overload.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by serious
    To add to LMN's post, I would also suggest that the fitness achieved through volume training does not really address the requirements of short XC races. The huge efforts and quick recovery demands are better addressed via intensity overload.
    If you are racing for more than a minute, it is primarily an endurance sport. Gains from intensity overload are relatively quickly attained, and are much more useful when done on a background of excellent aerobic fitness.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,198
    flargle If you are racing for more than a minute, it is primarily an endurance sport.

    So you train for anything longer than a minute the same way?

    I am not suggesting that you start intervals without establishing a decent fitness background. I am suggesting that you can maintain 90% of your fitness during winter with interval training. No need for base training unless you start from relatively low fitness.

    I can do 3-4 hour rides at the end of winter with no problems, but I would not waste my time dong them for 1.5 hour races.

    And when I do 3-4 hour rides in preparation for 8 hour solos, they are nothing like the base training we are discussing. They are done at my upper limit.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Clintox50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    528
    Disguise winter intervals as CX racing... helps with the whole lack of motivation and mental burnout thing. :-D

    Did that last year for the first time and it definately helped maintain my fitness into this year's XC season and I just upped the volume from there. Definately doing it again this year with more CX racing and at a higher level.

    I've never "base trained." Mostly because I get bored and end up riding harder than I "should" when I've set out for an endurance or base ride. Never seemed to hurt me though. I just ride and keep pushing my body. When I don't have enough endurance for what I want to do, I just up the volume/duration of rides, but always continue to do overload, speed work, intervals, whatever you want to call it. I don't think I've ever done a "proper" set of intervals. I just ride as hard as I can until I can't feel my hands then rest until I can breath through my nose then do it again. I started wearing a HR monitor earlier this year and I liked just knowing where I was at, but I was always disspointed with the number when I was going my "hardest."

    Sorry if this is more personal data than this thread was intended for. I just thought it would supply a sort of "case study" of someone who's never "base trained" but still has good results ( Cat 1 *'s & |||'s ).
    Thank you Lord for strength, endurance, and salvation.

    Race Reports & Updates
    Team Santa Cruz / Fox Facebook Page

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by serious
    So you train for anything longer than a minute the same way?
    In base training, yes. Just to put it in specific terms, if racer A were targeting a marathon race six months from now and racer B were targeting a short-track race six months from now, and they had the same amount of time to train, I'd see no need to train them any differently.

    Of course, as the event drew closer, their training would diverge. That's the whole point of periodization, the trend from general to specific fitness. Peter Snell doing the Waiatarua run right alongside Barry Magee.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,297
    As an aside, let's clearly distinguish between what "works" and what is optimal. Any sort of training will "work", in the sense of getting a person reasonably fit and able to race. But look at the elites of racing, and they almost all follow some sort of periodized training plan, they don't just hack away at the same style interval training year-round.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by serious
    flargle If you are racing for more than a minute, it is primarily an endurance sport.

    So you train for anything longer than a minute the same way?
    The Power Duration curve would indicate that to be true.

    Raise 1-hr power (threshold) and all durations will be lifted. Doing this with a periodized training plan has proven to be most effective. Build the motor (base/build training) then add specificity (intensity and address specific demands of the event). Specificity training does not take nearly as long as building the motor. After 6 or so weeks of intensity, many see a fast response in anaerobic performance.

    It just depends on how big you want the motor to be.. the bigger, the faster, up to the point of genetic maximum. What does it take to reach genetic max, and what are the goals.. most people will not reach potential, so a comprimise is made. Whatever makes one happy with their performance.

    Basically, the base/build will determine power, and specificity will add the final touches towards peaking power output, and specific performance requirements for the event.

    Endurance is about power, the more power at threshold, the better ones ability to maintain higher power outputs for extended durations.

  45. #45
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,311
    Quote Originally Posted by flargle
    In base training, yes. Just to put it in specific terms, if racer A were targeting a marathon race six months from now and racer B were targeting a short-track race six months from now, and they had the same amount of time to train, I'd see no need to train them any differently.

    Of course, as the event drew closer, their training would diverge. That's the whole point of periodization, the trend from general to specific fitness. Peter Snell doing the Waiatarua run right alongside Barry Magee.
    Good post, as your one following this.

    The problem with traditional base training is most people don't really understand it. If you head out for a long slow ride then you are just wasting your time. An aerobic capacity ride should be at a duration and intensity that will over load you.

    In other words if you don't find a 3hr ride hard, then you probably are not riding fast enough.

  46. #46
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,311
    Quote Originally Posted by perryr
    The Power Duration curve would indicate that to be true.

    Raise 1-hr power (threshold) and all durations will be lifted. Doing this with a periodized training plan has proven to be most effective. Build the motor (base/build training) then add specificity (intensity and address specific demands of the event). Specificity training does not take nearly as long as building the motor. After 6 or so weeks of intensity, many see a fast response in anaerobic performance.
    But the response is quite often limited to 6 weeks. After another 6 weeks of training there is very limited gains.

    A good periodized program should allow an athlete to progress throughout the season and achieve a higher level of peak fitness.

    What works for 6 weeks does not necessarily work for 6 months.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevbikemad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    775
    Quote Originally Posted by flargle
    As an aside, let's clearly distinguish between what "works" and what is optimal. Any sort of training will "work", in the sense of getting a person reasonably fit and able to race. But look at the elites of racing, and they almost all follow some sort of periodized training plan, they don't just hack away at the same style interval training year-round.
    agree.

    i have done "base" in the past and have also skipped the LSD in base, but was still riding, with more intensity and intervals, but much less volume (about half). the results were similar, but I did feel burnt out MUCH earlier in the season without the LSD. 2 hour plus races, there was also more fade. base helps me with my overall endurance and it allows me to recharge.

    i like letting my fitness drop in fall and start building it up again. it let's my body and more importantly my MIND recharge. i do a little intensity in base, just not like in build - much less.

    overall, for me the two most important things are frequency and variety. ride often, but at varied efforts.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,297
    Here is an article that makes a very persuasive case for periodization and therefore "base training":
    http://sportsci.org/2009/ss.pdf

    Low intensity (typically below 2 mM blood
    lactate), longer duration training is effective
    in stimulating physiological adaptations and
    should not be viewed as wasted training time.

    The effects of HIT on physiology and per-
    formance are fairly rapid, but rapid plateau
    effects are seen as well. To avoid premature
    stagnation and ensure long-term develop-
    ment, training volume should increase sys-
    tematically as well.

    An established endurance base built from
    reasonably high volumes of training may be
    an important precondition for tolerating and
    responding well to a substantial increase in
    training intensity over the short term.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,198
    flargle: Of course, as the event drew closer, their training would diverge.

    Then why even mention what happens 6 months before? Can't you just accept that we don't need base training if we are already fit and stay fit through the winter?

    flargle: Here is an article that makes a very persuasive case for periodization and therefore "base training"

    Why do you keep associating periodization with base training? Periodization, as a concept is all about training in blocks of varying intensity, including a recovery block. Are you suggesting that the slow riding week (the recovery block) is base training?
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yeti2424's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by serious
    flargle: Of course, as the event drew closer, their training would diverge.

    Then why even mention what happens 6 months before? Can't you just accept that we don't need base training if we are already fit and stay fit through the winter?

    flargle: Here is an article that makes a very persuasive case for periodization and therefore "base training"

    Why do you keep associating periodization with base training? Periodization, as a concept is all about training in blocks of varying intensity, including a recovery block. Are you suggesting that the slow riding week (the recovery block) is base training?
    Linear periodization is the division of training into blocks from high volume/low intensity to high intensity/low volume. The purpose of this is to keep the effects on physiology from becoming stagnate and reaching a plateau. If an athlete just does low intensity/high volume work (base training) they will plateau. In the same manner if an athlete solely does high intensity/low volume work (interval training) they will also plateau. The study that flargle posted shows that athletes need to have a plan to work from one end of the spectrum to the other so that in the long term they are constantly improving. If you read the study it does not discount high intensity/low volume work (interval training) on an already seasoned athlete. In fact it even discusses the rapid results shown on that group. However it also shows that with rapid results come rapid plateau and therefore recommends an 80:20 split between low intensity/high volume work(base training) and the high intensity/low volume work (interval training).
    Retribution Fitness: Strength, Power, and Purpose
    General fitness workouts posted daily.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •