login
Winter training - Intensity vs Quanity (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-12-03 2:57 PM in reply to: JohnnyKay |
Expert  2547    The Woodlands, TX |  Subject: RE: Winter training - Intensity vs QuanityI think the problem here is that this abstract was inserted into a thread as support/proof that intense intervals did the same as volume. While it shows a few selected metabolic markers with similar results, it doesn't really speak to performance in any real manner. (as JohnnKay provided, they admit to such) You could swap SIT with weights, crossfit, vitamins, etc and pluck some similar results. As someone who read this thread from the start today, it seems this one study sort of morphed into the proof. On the other hand, no one has really said that intervals are bad. So to the OP's question, I think most would agree that you can add intensity in the winter with varying levels of success. I have personally found that winter/cold + intensity = injury, so I stick to the tamer stuff, but that's not to say someone might do just fine doing them. It's just not something I would do, or at least do in any substantial amount. TJ |
| 2013-12-03 5:30 PM in reply to: brigby1 |
Coach 9167  Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: Winter training - Intensity vs Quanity FWIW that same group at the university has looked at outcomes in other studies such as time trial speed and time to fatigue at X %age of Vo2max after 2 similar training groups trained for the study duration. There's a lot of info out there on this stuff, but there will neve be a definitive study because it's just too short of a time span compared to months and years on end that many endurance atheltes train. Steven Seiler has a great article at this link that everyone commenting here should read if they have not already: Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training. Stephen Seiler and Espen Tønnessen. Reconciling research and practice. http://sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm |
| 2013-12-04 7:16 AM in reply to: AdventureBear |
Veteran 976 New Hampshire | Subject: RE: Winter training - Intensity vs Quanity Some interesting stuff in there in regards to the 80/20 method, which I wasn't really aware of previously. I always hear the "mostly easy, sometimes hard" motto, but to have numbers associated is interesting. Is that 80/20 something that people generally follow? It seems that if you throw a more intense session in once per week you're probably close to that ratio. |
| 2013-12-04 8:29 AM in reply to: jonD81 |
Expert 2373 Floriduh | Subject: RE: Winter training - Intensity vs Quanity without having read the article... is the 80/20 based on time or distance? |
| 2013-12-04 8:42 AM in reply to: jonD81 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Winter training - Intensity vs Quanity Originally posted by jonD81 Some interesting stuff in there in regards to the 80/20 method, which I wasn't really aware of previously. I always hear the "mostly easy, sometimes hard" motto, but to have numbers associated is interesting. Is that 80/20 something that people generally follow? It seems that if you throw a more intense session in once per week you're probably close to that ratio. Sorry, where is the 80/20 mentioned ? in one of the articles ? |
| 2013-12-04 9:24 AM in reply to: jonD81 |
Expert 2192 Greenville, SC | Subject: RE: Winter training - Intensity vs Quanity Originally posted by jonD81 Some interesting stuff in there in regards to the 80/20 method, which I wasn't really aware of previously. I always hear the "mostly easy, sometimes hard" motto, but to have numbers associated is interesting. Is that 80/20 something that people generally follow? It seems that if you throw a more intense session in once per week you're probably close to that ratio. even a hard workout is broken up into percentages like this. Sufferfest's Revolver is 65% easy and 35% hard. No reason you can't do a workout that intense several times a week because even though it is a 45 minute workout you only ride hard for 16 minutes. |
| 2013-12-04 10:14 AM in reply to: AdventureBear |
Expert 2547 The Woodlands, TX | Subject: RE: Winter training - Intensity vs Quanity Originally posted by AdventureBear Steven Seiler has a great article at this link that everyone commenting here should read if they have not already: Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training. Stephen Seiler and Espen Tønnessen. Reconciling research and practice. http://sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm I agree (with the research link). For what we do and the distances we race, volume trumps everything. Intensity is merely the icing on the cake. to quote the link: "Elite endurance athletes perform 80 % or more of their training at intensities clearly below their lactate threshold and use high-intensity training surprisingly sparingly." People pressed for time tend to gravitate towards more intervals to keep pace with those who have more time on there hands. And while it will provide some perks, it's not going to produce the same results long term as the guy with all the time in the world to put in the volume. |
| 2013-12-04 10:47 AM in reply to: tjfry |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Winter training - Intensity vs Quanity Originally posted by tjfry People pressed for time tend to gravitate towards more intervals to keep pace with those who have more time on there hands. And while it will provide some perks, it's not going to produce the same results long term as the guy with all the time in the world to put in the volume. I don't think anyone disputes this. It's also pretty clear that a mix of intensities is best. The question is what mix to pursue if you are pressed for time. One way to approach it is to do a very small amount of hard work and see what pace/power/speed you achieve. Then start to add some more to the hard work. When you become unable to maintain the pace/power/speed for those sessions, you are probably doing too much and not getting the best return on your investment. Better to back off and go easier in some of your sessions (could be the 'hard' ones, or could be the ones you think are 'easy' but actually end up being 'medium') and improve the quality of the hard days. The oft mentioned quote about many athletes going to hard on their easy days and too easy on their hard days fits. I also think there is something to the idea for the (time constrained-AG) long course athlete to go a little heavier in the intensity mix when you are further away from your race and heavier on the volume mix as you get closer. It might go from 60/40 to 90/10, for example (have no idea if those percentages are even ball-park, just trying to frame my thoughts). And it could vary even more by sport (e.g., doing 40% high intensity running requires an awfully solid base before even considering it). |
| 2013-12-04 11:31 AM in reply to: tjfry |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL Gold member | Subject: RE: Winter training - Intensity vs Quanity Originally posted by tjfry A lot of good reading on all the various studies involving mostly elite athletes in several different sports. And as mentioned a bit further down in the article, all this directly applies to the recreational athlete (RA) training 6-10 hours per week, such as those on BT. I also liked how it was shown that RA had a skewed RPE vs actual intensity based on HR measurements. Originally posted by AdventureBear Steven Seiler has a great article at this link that everyone commenting here should read if they have not already: Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training. Stephen Seiler and Espen Tønnessen. Reconciling research and practice. http://sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm I agree (with the research link). For what we do and the distances we race, volume trumps everything. Intensity is merely the icing on the cake. to quote the link: "Elite endurance athletes perform 80 % or more of their training at intensities clearly below their lactate threshold and use high-intensity training surprisingly sparingly." People pressed for time tend to gravitate towards more intervals to keep pace with those who have more time on there hands. And while it will provide some perks, it's not going to produce the same results long term as the guy with all the time in the world to put in the volume.
|
| 2013-12-04 1:25 PM in reply to: marcag |
Veteran 976 New Hampshire | Subject: RE: Winter training - Intensity vs Quanity Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by jonD81 Some interesting stuff in there in regards to the 80/20 method, which I wasn't really aware of previously. I always hear the "mostly easy, sometimes hard" motto, but to have numbers associated is interesting. Is that 80/20 something that people generally follow? It seems that if you throw a more intense session in once per week you're probably close to that ratio. Sorry, where is the 80/20 mentioned ? in one of the articles ? It's in the main link, about half way down through the page. This is intro paragraph: The 80:20 Rule for Intensity In spite of differences in the methods for quantifying training intensity, all of the above studies show remarkable consistency in the training distribution pattern selected by successful endurance athletes. About 80 % of training sessions are performed completely or predominantly at intensities under the first ventilatory turn point, or a blood-lactate concentration £2mM. The remaining ~20 % of sessions are distributed between training at or near the traditional lactate threshold (Zone 2), and training at intensities in the 90-100 %VO2max range, generally as interval training (Zone 3).... |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK