He ended with a Vo2 of 87?
That’s higher than GT winners??
I’m experimenting with a block protocol that is similar. It’s actually not as bad as you would think in terms of fatigue (so far) provided you have good intensity discipline.
I doubt I’ll be adding 10 points to my VO2max in a year but hey, it’s worth a shot!
This seems very inline with other training & testing protocols which show maximum VO2 increase ~2 weeks after completing a HIT/VHIT (Very HIT) block.
from the discussion in the fulltext:
It is interesting to see that the first adaptations to systematic BP was rather large during the
first 9 training weeks despite focusing on LIT and MIT blocks, which is suggested to be a less
potent training stimulus than HIT.12 The adaptations during the next 9 weeks are likely
influenced by the incorporation of HIT blocks.3 There is a quite large development in VO2max
during the first 18 weeks of the intervention before the cyclist seems to reach plateau.
Do we know what the definition of LIT/MIT/HIT was wrt FTP?
sorry, sorta answered my own question:
The 8 first weeks therefore focused on blocks with LIT (intensity zone 1: 60-82% of peak heart rate; HRpeak) and MIT (intensity zone 2: 83- 87% of HRpeak) with approximately 1 weekly HIT (intensity zone 3: 88-100% of HRpeak).
Indeed, this is really a very interesting book though my French is a little bit limited. On this plan for a sprinter’s prep for the TdF (yes, may be a little bit older but since the book just got a new edition I would assume that this is still sort of practice), there are always two columns. For this long endurance rides at z1-z2-z3 text spans two columns, while for others there is always text in the two columns. what does this mean? Two sessions a day? Or one session with two session goals? I can’t find an explanation?
And I’ve found a new favourite workout: the Gimenez. People are always so gung-ho about these Seiler intervals and forgetting that there is so much other research out there. Looked up these old papers by Gimenez et al., interesting stuff.
Yes they do 2 sessions a day (unless the text take the two columns then it’s one : usually a big z2-z3 ride)
Left is morning, right afternoon.
1 Like
Thanks, interesting. Though I must say I haven’t seen any 2-a-days in the Stravas of Pinot, Reichenbacher or any of the other FDJ riders.
Either they don’t do it anymore or they don’t upload everything then. All the plans in the book are like this (2 a day) but even the latest one is a 10 year old plan sadly.
And, some chit-chat from Sunday’s group ride. I’d say this still fits into the context of this thread, especially w/r to the Sky 3day block above. One of the guys is with a certain German pro team (works on nutrition), told me, there is rumour about Ineos’ poor team performance. (Once again [1]) They may have pushed weight loss too much before the TdF. Their regime is notorious and they walk a thin line between starvation and performance-keeping-weight-loss. Some riders may have pushed it too far.
[1] Thomas: I pushed my weight loss too far ahead of the Tour de France | Cyclingnews
I’d say it’s the former. Looking at when they often begin their sessions it’s really unlikely that they do a second one much later in the day.
Insights on how a pro trains vs how an an amateur should train. A few interesting extrapolations (fasted rides, low cadence, etc.).
2 Likes
I don’t know that any of this ‘we use fat more’ is actually true. In fact I think it is one of the greatest myths in cycling, full stop.
Someone please jump in here and correct me if I’m wrong…What is happening with all of these pros is that through both basic genetic physiology and a lifetime of training, they have extremely high w/kg and absolute FTPs. Demands of a 4-5 hour race are such that unless you are on the front…someone like Matt Hayman w/ a near 400w threshold can ride at a tempo pace of 320w for hours and hours.
Much like % utility VO2max, there is definitely a fat metabolism efficiency factor at play here (may also be why ketones may work for pro-physiology but not average amateur riders). But by-in-large the reality is that the bigger the motor, the higher you can work until you start dipping into your glycogen stores.
With ketosis and IF and the like being all the rage these days I think there is too much emphasis on fasted/fat fueled riding when the reality is that the more developed engine allows for the fat fueled physiology systems to work.
11 Likes
Think it depends hugely where you are on your cycling journey and what your goals are. I do fasted endurance rides for 2 reasons. One is performance, particularly for long events where even a small improvement in ability to utilise fat could help. The second is body composition - I find it much easier and with less detrimental effects to run a calorie deficit on days with long endurance rides than I do on high intensity days where lack of carbs really impacts the quality of the workout and your recovery afterwards.
If you’re not trying to lose weight then there is little reason to do them for the second reason. Whether you should do them for performance reasons depends what kind of events you’re doing and how long you’ve been cycling. If you’re in your first few years of cycling then there are a lot of lower hanging fruit to go after than trying to improve fat utilisation. You can get several years of improvement from SS and HIIT training. And if you’re targeting shorter events where having enough carbs isn’t an issue, there is also very little point. If on the other hand you’ve been doing endurance sports for a decade, have hit a plateau with HIIT, and are doing events >4 hours, then fasted endurance rides might well be worth trying as one way to break that deadlock and eke out some more improvement (or maintain what you’ve got if you’ve hit an age where performance should start to decline).
3 Likes
Yeah, don’t misunderstand me.
There is definitely a place for fasted rides/training. No doubt. But if anything I would argue that they help an athlete to maximize the % of fat that they can actually utilize up to around the top end of their tempo power.
Personally I think fasted rides do exactly what I mention above. If weight loss is a goal…what @chad calls the “butter burner” rides are what you want. Low intensity HR stuff for hours and hours. It is boring as hell, but it works wonders. And as you mention, much easier to work in low intensity and work a calorie deficit for the day.
I guess my point is that its much more important to look at the size AND efficiency of our aerobic engines. The ‘fat burning’ is sort of a misnomer i feel and most athletes misunderstand how the fat burning system works in endurance athletics. Most of that misinformation comes from the outside world// CrossFit/paleo/keto camps, where the idea that eating fat makes you burn fat.
3 Likes
As your FTP increases so does your ability to fat burn at lower intensities.
1 Like
I must admit having heard and read a lot about how different teams implement fasted/train low concepts, I had to smile a little bit about Hansen’s fear of crushing his fat metabolism and messing up his training.
On these completely fasted rides of Sky/Ineos one should consider that they are often done to lose weight. Without this goal they actually eat some food/carbs during a ride. And as has been shown in the past (and perhaps just recently) this is a risky approach.
1 Like
Completely with you on both points. And as others have pointed out, the fitter you are, the more time you’ll naturally spend in fat burning zones. Pros are naturally going to spend time burning fat given their training volume and the intensity zones required.
Real world example, did a ~3hr ride in the hills with a friend on Sunday. I had a few swigs of electrolyte mix(< a bottle) while he was pounding fluids and carbs. Nothing to do with trying to maximize my fat metabolism, I’ve just got another 6500mi more in my legs this year than he does. A few hours low Z2 on an empty stomach isn’t a challenge.
2 Likes