Does this prove over/unders don't work any better than riding at tempo?

Training
73

I’m on a HV Base, Build and Specialty plans that has exactly a total of 3 o/u workouts throughout the entire 28 weeks (during Build weeks 1, 2 and 3). Wether these workouts actually increase one’s ability to tolerate and utilize byproducts better/worse than Tempo is irrelevant. However, one would be better off learning to deal with this type of very uncomfortable effort than working in the Tempo zone, particularly if you’re a racer. I’d argue that the mental gains may be a far greater adaptation and more relevant IRL. Both of which can’t be found in Tempo.

So the only argument I see is whether TR has mislabeled the primary Goals of the workout. I’m always amazed how many people can do deep dives on each tree, their branches and leaves, yet seem to realize there’s a forest behind it.

74

:smiley: quote=“MI-XC, post:73, topic:81661”]
I’m always amazed how many people can do deep dives on each tree, their branches and leaves, yet seem to realize there’s a forest behind it.
[/quote]

MI-XC, for sure, you are not the first person to be amazed by what I can do! Thanks for saying so.

Part of what you’re seeing is that athletes that are sort of ‘pro’ over-unders don’t have the background or language to make an effective argument. A response that’s been used a couple of times might be summarized as, ‘Well, I do those workouts but, for sure, I never ever did them because I was targeting monocarboxylase transporter adaptation. Nope. Not that. Ever. I did those workouts because they helped with ’.

If I could apply a gentle hand of guidance…:-D…a better way to think about it is that this data showed that over-unders likely DO provide a lot of MCT adaptation. I mean, it’s right there in the chart. Further, it’s a good argument to speculate that the study would have shown workrates at or above ~4mmol lactate would provided superior adaptation but the study was underpowered.

So if you’re feeling a little cognitive dissonance, let me help you form a cogent argument and relieve your dissonance (because I know enough to play both side, bruv):

1.) Over/unders do provide MCT adapation & this study shows it.
2.) Over/unders provide additional specificity to some cycling events but even if they don’t they can help you ‘edge’ your threshold & build mental toughness.
3.) If this study had enough power it would likely show working in that range provides superior MCT adaptation.

And, BTW, why are you only doing 3 o/u workouts in your plan? ONLY THREE??? Look, bruv, those workouts are very good at training lactate clearance. And they help you learn to deal with a certain type of very uncomfortable effort. Honestly, I think you are shortchanging yourself by doing only a few O/U workouts in your schedule. Almost like you don’t really believe in them but want to throw in a few just in case. Why aren’t you doing one a week? Get on the stick.

75

As much as I appreciate you talking down to me, clearly you’re not familiar with TR or Plan Builder. I’m not picking my workouts, TR does that for me and I do what’s on the schedule. I do the work and improve month over month and year over year. I don’t hold particular beliefs that a certain workout type or method is the secret sauce, I leave that to the charlatans. I focus on consistency, volume and recovery.

76

I like tempo

~ Ken M

77

This thread continues to confound me. You can’t draw ANY conclusions about over-unders from this paper because they were not studied.

Maybe they’re better then the intervention in the study. Maybe they’re worse. We have no idea based on this data, because the athletes didn’t do a single over-under interval at any point.

If you want to figure out if o/us are useful or not, you need to do a study where the athletes are actually doing over-unders, and then have a control group with an appropriate comparison - ex: the exact same interval duration and average power, but sustained rather than o/u. If you want it to be an explanatory-type study, then take a look at like MCT expression pre and post. If you want it to be more pragmatic, then focus on say 40k TT performance before and after, or real-life race performance even.

I think this is going to be it for me because y’all are going to drive me crazy. I’m going to start slamming my head against the table soon at this rate. :sweat_smile:

78

That’s because ppl likely think you’re being pedantic. Any intervention that elevates lactate and then switches intensity to an intensity below that for a few minutes, and then goes back (and therefore lactate goes up, and then settles down to a lower level) is close enough to apply to over/unders. If it’s full rest in the off interval, ok, I’ll give you that. That’s different enough. Even then, it’s not completely invalid.

79

[citation needed] :wink:

80

Why? I’m not reviewing literature for publication or participating in a scientific panel, authoring a review article, or anything related to that.

I’m on an internet forum. I just gave my opinion, and occasionally share my experience. The source and citation is: me. Half the stuff that is posted here (papers above notwithstanding) is actually marketing cloaked as science.

To @cnidos point, there isn’t anything to definitively conclude based on what Brennus posted. But potentially a bit to discuss and learn.

81

That’s because ppl likely think you’re being pedantic.

I’m not really trying to be pedantic, but I guess it can come across like that. If it helps at all, while on here I am just a guy who likes riding his bike too much, and am not an expert in exercise physiology, nor a world-class cyclist or coach… In real life I teach critical appraisal of biomedical research at a post-grad level, and do this professionally on a regular basis.

My confusion about what you all are trying to infer from this study is based of what I do for a living. Because this seems absolutely insane coming from my background - like I would be scoffed at in professional circles for trying to argue an inference like this.

But I am not an expert in this field, so had been thinking there was more to this that I was just ignorant of.

Any intervention that elevates lactate and then switches intensity to an intensity below that for a few minutes, and then goes back (and therefore lactate goes up, and then settles down to a lower level) is close enough to apply to over/unders.

The whole notion behind over-unders is that they "are better than sustained threshold intervals" (or others) at promoting lactate clearance. So I don’t get how doing what are basically short sustained threshold intervals are a similar enough intervention.

82

You’re getting confused because you think the over portion of the interval is materially different than the under portion of the interval. It’s not. It’s all the same ~4mmol GXT type of intensity. Which is about the same as the 20% Z3 load that the POL cohort were performing. In traditional O/U workouts there no material physiological difference between the over work rate and the under work rate.

83

Apologies if it’s already been covered, but does “traditional” mean 105%/95%s? How about 120%/90%s or 120%/80%?

84

:+1: Reread what I wrote. Sounds attack-ful (I made that word up) to you and not the idea. Apologies.

85

No problem…I linked an example a couple times but it’s easy to miss: Emerson

86

You’re getting confused because you think the over portion of the interval is materially different than the under portion of the interval.

But isn’t that the “idea” behind doing over unders in the first place? That there is a difference of some variety between the over part and the under part? My impression was that over unders only existed because people believed there was a difference.

Like the over is a state where you’ve exceeded lactate metabolism capabilities, so it is rising (because you are above FTP), while the under is in a state where you haven’t yet (allowing some “catching up” to happen) but is still working at a high percent of aerobic capacity rather than a complete rest state?

87

Lol. Text is not a great medium for conveying tone or emotion. I think I perpetually come off as obstreperous in all my online comments.

88

My main point is that in the text of O/U workouts TR says the following:

“[The] primary objective is to increase your ability to tolerate and utilize the byproducts that accompany riding above your FTP, all while maintaining a reasonably high power output.”

But in this study working at intensities of tempo or less produced the same adaptation.

90

MCT4 increase was significant compared to baseline for both training regimens but not significantly different between training regimens.

91

Cheers. Rather than TR-style low-amplitude over /unders I prefer criss-cross / bursts / Bossi intervals where I have a shorter but more significant over with a longer under that I can progress by intensity.

92

Same, I think. You know…very hard during the ‘over’ so that I really am producing a lot of lactate…and definitely less than FTP during the under so that I know I’m definitely clearing lactate. What TR calls ‘float’ workouts. Maybe something like Cadillac

I was unfamiliar with the term ‘Bossi interval’ so thanks for that mention. Very cool.

93

I was unfamiliar with the term ‘Bossi interval’ so thanks for that mention. Very cool.

Similar to Significantly Over/Longer Under sessions from Tom Bell. I started doing these from time to time right about the time ppl were talking about them here on the forum. I guess they caught on because KM has his riders do them? Not sure, might be conflating that with hard start whatevers.

Just gave me an excuse to hit it hard up a little roller and then settle back down into tempo, rather than freak out about “ruining” a Zone2/3 ride with intensity (which isn’t a thing).

But in this study working at intensities of tempo or less produced the same adaptation.

In Tom Bell’s workout description, similar language about “lactate clearance”, so who knows, might be the beginning of debunking this notion. We’ll see.