Hi
I just recently saw this podcast with Dr.David Bishop where he posits that lower intensity¹ training favors volume of mitochondria whereas higher intensity leads to better mitochondria functioning adaptations.
Thanks for the thoughts on “dose.”
––––––
1 ― Not any lower intensity (i.e. there are “bottom” thresholds too)
It’s certainly not perfect. There is also the PPP:
“It’s called training stress score and not training adaptation score for a reason.”
Conceptually, though, it’s useful to think in terms of the trade-offs between duration, intensity, strain, and adaptation.
I’m not sure that I understand your question. Are you asking how do you differentiate between the acute responses to exercise and the chronic adaptations to training?
If so, the answer is that the distinction is, or at least can be, actually somewhat arbitrary. For example, much (not all) of the increase in insulin action with endurance training is the result of the last few bouts of exercise, and is lost after a short period of detraining. So, is that an acute response, or a chronic adaptation? If you exercise on a regular basis, does it really matter?
Yup, Glenn and I have been trading emails about it the last couple of days.
AFAIC I subscribe to prioritizing intensity -as you suggest- as my typical volume is way below 10 hrs/wk
Yes, I generated that table back in 2001 at the suggestion of Bob Tobin. It is my gestalt view based on studying exercise physiology for (at that point) 25 y. The only error introduced by TP is how my name is listed. (It is redundant to use the honorific “Dr.” and also list one’s degree. Similarly, you only list your terminal degree, not all the degrees you obtained along the way. The exception is if they are in different fields, e.g., MD, PhD, or MSW, JD.)
One key point to note is that the number of check marks is meant to signify the magnitude of adaptation in response to a given “dose” of training. Of course, it is difficult (at best!) to actually define what that is, especially when comparing, e.g., steady state exercise to, say, HIIT. Thus, while I wouldn’t change anything about the presentation of the ideas, I also wouldn’t consider it written in stone.
I am no exercise physio, but I think most people who have been training for some time know the answer to these questions. ALOT of people on this forum today could get on their bike and knock out a long steady ride and hit 5000kj of work. Not necessarily easy, but could get it done. I would guess a comparatively few could get on their bike and complete 4x40 right under ftp. Just would be physically unable to do. The ones who can, have been training specifically to do it.
The specificity principle is very important - so important, in fact, that I once ended a David Letterman style list of the top 10 things I had learned using a power meter with:
I have also taught students (and my son) to repeat the mantra, “specificity, specificity, specificity, specificity, specificity” just to drill the lesson in to them.
With all that said, specificity can also be overemphasized. As I have pointed out on many occasions, the body has a very limited number of “strategies” by which it can respond to exercise training. That is, even though repeated bouts of exercise may alter the expression of hundreds of thousands of genes (hundreds of thousands of “tactics”), at end of the day they do only one of two things (sometimes both):
they increase the maximal force or power a muscle can generate; and/or
they increase the duration that a submaximal (compared to what the muscle can already generate, not compared to VO2max as how the term is more often used) force or power can be maintained.
The latter adaptations can then be subdivided into those that potentially benefit performance during very high intensity, non-sustainable exercise (e.g., an increase in muscle buffer capacity) and those that potentially benefit performance during lower intensity, longer duration exercise (e.g., an increase in sarcolemma plasma fatty acid transporter activity). However, this distinction or division is secondary to the above (and there is some overlap, e.g., an increase in capillarization can be beneficial in both circumstances).
Viewed from this perspective, the goal of training is simply to induce the adaptations that will benefit your performance in your chosen event, and it is far more understandable why that doesn’t necessarily mean just doing said event over and over again (which would be taking the specificity principle to its logical - and extreme - conclusion). It is why, for example, that elite pursuiters will train nearly as much as a stage racer, or why track sprinters or BMXers will spend time flinging heavy weights around. It also why (really how) I was able to steal the Texas road race championship from people who trained twice as much (but at a lower intensity) than I did.
What “it’s your glycogen budget, spend it wisely” really means is that within the constraints of the time and tolerance (be it physical or mental) to training you face, do as much as you can to induce the adaptations that underpin your performance - it’s just a pithier way of putting it. As the above hopefully illustrates, however, there is still an enormous amount of “wiggle room” as to what might be considered the best training plan, specificity principle be damned. (Or, as my very astute wife once put it, there is no such thing as the perfect training plan - thus emphasizing the importance of what motivates the individual.)
I can imagine this to be true for the main working muscle but maybe duration elicits adaptations in other muscle groups (like the postural muscles) that will allow you to maintain power for longer and/or more efficiently
Well, I will say this: I definitely don’t recommend making your first outdoor ride of the year being a 110 mile state championship road race on a borrowed bike.
This is probably little bit more complex because with power increase body position changes? At least I get lower and slightly more rigid i.e. body position support moves from triceps during Z2 toward core / lower back during SS/Z4. And with clip-on aerobars, it is even more intensity-specific.
This is interesting. A harder 3.5h ride does not feel at all like a z2 7h ride. The former will inevitable involve more muscular soreness, and will affect programming of subsequent workouts.
I know you are talking physiology and big picture, but many in this forum will run away with your statement and will ride harder to compensate being short on time, then burn out. Specially dangerous when you are in the 9-12h weekly.
This was my experience (several times) a few years ago. And judging from the many posts over the last ~4 years, the experience of many others as well. In fact, there was rider a few years back who I literally watched do it because she recorded a semi-daily vlog (is “vlog” still a term?). I just watched her sink deeper and deeper into this fatigue hole and no one spoke up to say that’s not the way to do it (felt like it was intruding, I guess). She just kept following the plan. All the adaptations are the same. More is better. Follow the plan. I’m not even sure that rider is cycling anymore.
I think that is part of the reason there has been so much emphasis on Zone 2 (whatever the meaning) in the last two years. Ppl try it out, essentially recover a bit and feel great. Never mind they could have achieved that while also maintaining some regular intensity (and tempo). It is no wonder it is perceived as this magic intensity.
I went down the rabbit of trying to figure out why and after much experimentation with lactate measurement, HRV, and a few other dead-ends. I learned a little bit, like “yeah there really is no difference in the types of adaptations at say .65 and .85 IF”. But most of us are still left with the question you pose. I will go so far is to say it is the single most important unanswered question I have w/r/t cycling training. I also don’t think many riders are spending as much time trying to figure this stuff out.
I have ranted on the forum on several occasions about the single most important thing in all of endurance sports: do more work. It is essentially my long-winded way of expressing “it your glycogen budget, use it wisely”. Fine. But in some ways I am simply no better off than five years ago. Everything I have learned could be summarized in a little 30 min lecture (or 2-3 page PDF). And most of that would be what NOT to do. YAGNI, basically. By the way, that includes a power meter LOL, except indoor.
Whatever stimulus that is capable of affecting the volume/load, recovery, consistentency/frequency cycle ARE the KEY and make a big difference overtime.
I knew all that then too. 
Kind of what I’m saying.
Hypothetical troll (you guys aren’t trolling): “…so if you knew that smarty pants how did you mess it up?”
I think because knowing the above is not enough? Or maybe with devices and better ways of measuring (or more stuff to measure) you chase the idea that these data can help make better choices. I don’t know. But in some cases it feels like it leads you away from listening to your body. After all, data is stronger than my intuition and experience. Just ask my financial advisor.
It has literally taken me YEARS to learn this lesson. I have spent so long afraid to skip a workout or lower intensity because I didn’t want to have to tell my accountability partners that I did. And then I’d fry myself. OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
I pray I’ve finally learned this lesson, but reading forums and having strong friends don’t help 99% of the time.
JUST DO IT is ridiculously deep in my psyche. It’s almost impossible to ignore it and focus on the long game.
While we are in the same page, I think you guys are underestimating how hard is to “listen to the body”. It’s the ultimate form of learning about training. People pay coaches to try to decipher this stuff for them.
Creating workouts and programing a training plan is the low hanging fruit. The challenges are:
@The_Cog talks about structuring a program around hard days. This is the “rushed” program. My athletes first learn to manage time and ride as much as they can, given their own personal lives. Just ride, a lot. Once you stagnate doing this, let’s add some intensity gradually.
Yup. And it gets even more interesting as the goal posts move as your body ages and recovery changes.
It’s amazing to me that there isn’t really any successful athletes out there that come online in forums and describe exactly what they did to gain such endurance successes. Aside from the Olympic speed skater who posted his almost complete workout routine for 3 or 4 years we don’t see much else. And even his, he was already showing his threshold efforts above 400 watts. What did he do to get to that? How old was he and when was his threshold watt workouts at 200 and 250? It seems like most of us get to a point where we can push a certain power wattage at our own specific personal predetermined threshold and that’s it. That’s where we top out. Almost like we are all couch athletes who have an already predetermined FTP that our bodies are capable of and we get off the couch and either just ride free outside or try some structured training program that will get us to our predetermined threshold after some time training and riding. And that’s it, We reach our max potential and that is it. We can never increase power above our born in threshold at FTP while keeping Heart rate just below or at threshold. Time, volume, intensity, doesn’t matter. Maxed. It seems ( most ) amature males in society and maybe even females have a threshold of about 250 watts. Then there are some that have 300 and then even fewer that have 330 to say 370. But those watts are already predetermined, it just takes some ( conditioning ) to get to that persons maximum potential. Its funny when you see someone come on the forum that states they have like a 350 watt threshold and they are looking for advice on how to train. It’s like " do what you have been doing because its obviously working " . But… Is it really ? Maybe that athlete is putting out the same stress load on their own body and mind as someone who has a 250 threshold, its just that we are working with our own pre determined limiters. That person can come off the couch and gain a 350 threshold at the same effort level someone else comes off and gets a 250??
And then what happens? We go longer. I can no longer gain any more power and speed to my threshold, I’m just going to go longer at sub intensities.
Then, 1 hour rides are not enough.
Note: I know FTP isn’t everything, I’m only using it for simplicity to my own thoughts and opinion and curiosity of what others think of this really simplistic and sort of pessimistic view point of endurance training.
Pessimism aside. It’s still fun trying, putting in time, staying active, living life, looking forward to your next ride and simply riding bikes no matter how big your wheels or tires are.
Sort of like, how many humans would be able to run a 5 minute mile after training for a year?
