You all do base work too slow!!!!!!! (Page 2)

Ding Ding Ding...we have a winner!!!

What people often mistakenly assume when reading/listening to pros or coaches who train pros is that AGers and pros have the same capabilities and limitations for training.

*IF* an AGer could train 20+ hrs week after week after week then the make of the workload for him/her would be vastly different of the avg AGer who only trains 10 hrs and most of it would be oriented towards lower intensity stuff. Why? Well let's refresh this point: Training Load = volume (duration + frequency) + intensity. IOW from all our training we can achieve bigger load by either: doing MORE volume at lower intensities, doing MORE intensity with less volume or BOTH: do a mix of some volume and some intensity.

An AGer who can only train 10+ hrs a week especially through the base/general phase who spends most of his training at lower intensities is not inducing enough stress to the body via volume (doing more hours) to produce as much training adaptations. Will he/she get fitter? Of course, especially unfit individuals, but the real question is: are they getting the best return on investment? The answer is NO! Why? Because to achieve positive (and enough) training adaptation at lower intensities you need to do a lot! To significantly stimulate slow twitch fibers (notice it is NOT maximizing gains) you need to do enough volume to accomplish that and because the fuel demands (CHO contribution) are minimal it can be maintained day after day. But the operation phrase here is enough volume. (1)

If you can’t do that much volume due to your schedule limitations, fitness, genes, etc. you have to find ways to kick up that intensity up given your time availability and if you look at the training load equation above then you will know you have to increase your intensity. This doesn’t mean to go crazy and only do hard "balls to the wall" sessions, but it does mean you should NOT waste your time training at Z1 and Z2 exclusively; IOW it means you should mix up your sessions with intense and easy training and the sum should give you a greater load that will allow you to become fitter within your limitations.

Now to the argument that you have to train as you race I will respond: periodization! Yes we have to simulate race conditions and adapt our bodies to that specific training but following the periodization concept we can divide our annual training in cycles and we can address different training adaptations we can work more efficient to improve weaknesses, polish strengths and most important address the single most important training adaptation for endurance performance: improve our power/pace at threshold.

Furthermore, most athletes have a misperception of what easy or hard really is. Most don’t push hard enough when they have to go hard or they train way too easy when they are suppose to train ‘relatively’ easy. The minimal intensity in which slow twitch fibers are appreciably trained is around 60% of VO2 max (2). If your VO2 max run pace is around 6 min/mile then your Easy pace should NOT be lower than 8:20 min/mile. Many athletes in their quest to stay at a given Heart Rate zone (i.e. z1) will most likely be slower than that hence all your ‘base training’ below 60% of VO2 max while give you some benefit will result in very little stimulus = lower fitness gains.

Training at tempo and threshold power pace athletes can maximize (notice in this case we can indeed maximize) training adaptations achieved at different training insensitivities. In fact maximal aerobic adaptations usually take place anywhere from 85-116% of VO2max (3). You can see a list of the training adaptations achieved at different intensities on this link on table 2 from A Coggan and you can clearly see why spending time at Tempo and Threshold pace will yield great return on investment (ROI).

My advice: define your needs/limitations; define your goals, train consistent, periodirize, and train at different intensities to improve your ROI (mix it up). Yes most of your training might be on the ‘easy’ side but some times it should be moderate or hard. When the time is right (specific phase) then focus on specific training and maintain all other fitness gains.

Sources
(1) J Appl Physiol. 1983 Mar;54(3):798-802.
(2) Enhancing Recovery: Preventing Underperformance in Athletes
By Michael Kellmann. Published by Human Kinetics, 2002
(3) J Appl Physiol. 1982 Oct;53(4):844-50 Dudley, Abraham et all

Great thread. 

I agree with "most" of what Bryan says in the OP.  The caveat about more experienced athletes is key.  I think beginners (and in some regards Pros who have time) would benefit more physiologically with the low z1/z2 stuff.  But as our bodies have learned how to burn fat higher up in those zones, I think we need to train in those areas.  My "LSD" HRs went up about 5-6 bpm when I started with my coach and I have seen a ton of improvements in that regard.

However, I know some who are big advocates of z1/z2 stuff in the off season.  I have read some of Gordo's stuff and I am pretty sure he is one of them.  I hope he chimes in here.

I would modify that equation to include one more variable. One that is often tied to intensity.

Training Load = volume (duration + frequency) + intensity - injury time

Even considering zones don't mean sh-t to my training, I would still say that based on the pace/definition/HR of them I do MOST of my work in Z3 .............

interesting.  Seems everyone that has responded to my Z3 question trains in Z3.  Not starting any argument here. I've been training/racing for a lot of years...the past 5 or so with a HRM.  Primarily I started using the HRM because I had a tendency to train too hard all of the time.  Especially while running!  The HRM was a good way to keep me from starting out too hard and then running out of gas.  Anyway, I remember reading at one time that Z3 was considerred a "dead zone" for training.  No real benefit because you're not pushing your AT and your not really recovering either.  Again, no argument from me as I know a lot of you have been pretty successful with racing...just maybe something for me to give some thought.

That’s a common misconception about training at lower intensities. On this article last year I talked about that, here an excerpt:

“First we have: “base training is the period to develop and improve one’s body ability to burn stored fat for fuel and limiting our training intensity to a specific training zone” – This sound like a plausible definition however there is a problem; Fat oxidation occurs at different intensities hence it is not limited to a specific pace/power. (i.e. z1-z2) It is true that we will burn more carbohydrates (CHO) for fuel as the intensity increases but the point in which we are basically burning around the same percentage of CHO and fats is difficult to determine, although there is a correlation it occur around our lactate threshold (defined as the increase of 1 mmol/liter over the athlete’s exercise baseline). Also fat oxidation is dependant on many variables such as intensity/pace, duration/distance, fitness level, diet after training, long term diet, genetics, and environment (3) and will vary depending on the method applied to gauge intensity (% of MHR, % of VO2, % of LT) which indicates that the optimal fat oxidation pace/intensity will vary from individual to individual…

Furthermore on the scientific training for triathletes, Dr. P. Skiba cites that one of the benefits of training at different intensities specifically at your lactate threshold is that it will reduce your body’s production of lactate at a given workload (4) and this will result in your body to increase production of certain enzymes in your muscles, which allows a shift in your fuel balance to use more fat and less glycogen (5). Knowing this I can’t help to question: why are we limiting training at different intensities since we can optimize fat oxidation through different training zones depending on the athlete fitness?”

And yet "others" prescribe that most of your work load should be in that zone.  Go figure.

No one is right or wrong, it just depends on what system you are using and how you stick with that system and the results you end up with.

Look at it this way, you've got the low to no intensity MAF/Mark Allen crew, you've got the high intensity FIRST crew, and the mid intensity Daniels/Pfitzinger crew.  Each of them can point to a group of athletes that has been successful.  And they are three completely different approaches.

As I posted above, scientific evidence (studies) + anecdotal evidence, strongly suggest that the maximal aerobic training adaptations can be achieved between 85-116% of VO2max (tempo and threshold pace/power). The caveat is that 1) this kind of training is more demanding hence one has to manage the total training load properly to avoid doing too much and 2) athletes should do specific training to their goal race distance.

By mixing your training sessions up: some times hard, many times 'easy' (around 60% of VO2 max or higher) and sometimes moderate you can successfully achieve this. The reason why generic plans include lots of this low intensity training IMO is because 1) they are general hence it is better to have a conservative approach when the target audience for the plan is a large group of people and 2) because some of the authors either believe on LSD training approach or ignore/fail to realize how training adaptations take effect at different intensities even though as Rick pointed out, zones are man made.

IOW it is not like your body automatically changes or adapts in one way or another as soon as you go from z1 to z2 to z3; all adaptations blend into each other. Zones are created by us to make training more efficient. For instance; doing intervals at threshold while it will primarily allow you to maximize adaptations at that intensity, still will allow you to improve your endurance (fatigue resistance of slow twitch fibers) at a lesser degree. Same as doing a long steady ride; you will primarily improve your fatigue resistance of slow twitch fibers but also improve your power at threshold at a lesser degree.

I didn't read most of the other posts.  But I would partially agree with the OP.  Tons of Z1 work (sit and spin) would do nothing for me.  However, significant mid to high Z2 work doesn't seem out of line.

Basically, I followed the same time of schedule for offseason as my IM plan had for prep.  No Z1, lots of Z2, and some Z3 tempo stuff occasionally during the week.

But offseason only lasted about a month for me.  I just jumped right into my next plan for an April HIM or Oly.

Oh really ........

http://www.markallenonline.com/Base.asp

Hey Jorge,

Thanks for the posts in this thread.  It clearly explains what I've come to feel is the right way to train.  To provide an opinion on why many plans use the low intensity method, mixed (see bold above) training is more demanding and many beginners don't know their bodies well enough to manage this type of plan.  If I would have tried this my first year espescially without a coach, I would have made mistakes, trained poorly and probably injured myself.   So, if I was putting out a plan for people to use without a coach/supervision, I would be inclined to push a more low risk method that can be followed by beginners.

Ernie

I agree that it's down the the method that you are using and sticking with it.

Like others have said, it's all down to the time that you have.  You have to use your time as effectively as possible.  In the case of someone who doesn't have lots of time then it's definately higher intensity over easy.

In the early to mid 90's I had a trainer in Germany, who encouraged me to do 75% of my training below 75% of VO2max or Working HR (WHR).   I had lots of time on my hands then, so I could train 30-40hrs a week if I wanted to.  Then after I had a good solid base, I'd build strength then move to the speed phase.  You could say that it's a similar concept to what Friel has in his bible and going long books.  This works for me even now as I have lots of time to train.