No Im not and its not.
What’s your source for your definition as in the research publications I’ve read all the volume is reported in hours.
here is a simple explanation I stumbled across this week
In the vernacular, training volume is measured in hours. Also known as duration. The basic mechanism for adaptation is low-intensity muscle contractions (both heart and legs). Rack up more volume / time / duration at low-intensity because that most basic endurance adaptation depends on the number of contractions and not the intensity. The adaptation results in more “plumbing” and more “engines” to get oxygen to the “engines” in the muscle fibers.
5 Likes
Indeed Coggan calls this the dose of training
In the impulse-response approach, the quantitative relationship between training and performance is modeled as a transfer function, the input to which is the daily “dose” of training (i.e., the combination of volume and intensity) and the output of which is the individual’s actual performance.
2 Likes
I just meant “hours” informally. As in “put in the work”. “Put in the time”.
Not load.
3 Likes
So here is a question (to thread overall, because I have to hit one of the reply buttons):
I gather the argument/reasoning for the intensity precision is fatigue management? Ppl respond to different training differently, so I get the individualization part. That’s cool. You can do that with or without measuring lactate.
But the adaptation that results from running/riding/swimming at 1.0 mmol/L is NO DIFFERENT than same modality at 1.3 mmol/L. The rate of improvement might be different over a finite timeframe (6 weeks, 12 weeks, etc.), and has its limit (otherwise pros would sweetspot for 6 hours / week like amateurs).
So is that right? Namely, let’s be really precise in order stay on productive side of the knifes edge of fatigue?
1 Like
Basically yes, although pull in one of Coggan’s points, more intensity can be more. So you might get some debate on NO DIFFERENT part of your statement. But are those tiny marginal #chasing-all-z-gainz real? Are you recovering and absorbing the training? Is it detracting from perfectly executing the really hard sessions? What’s going on the other 22 hours of the day? You gotta experiment and figure that out. I’ve explored the limits: couple years threshold focus, couple years middle ground, and couple years endurance first. All in the 5 to 8 hour/week average timeframes. Performance wise the best was threshold. But it didn’t feel healthy, after 2 years I noticed getting on the bike and HR would immediately jump to 115-120bpm just barely turning the pedals. Tons of stress at work.
3 Likes
Back to the ScientificTriathlon Olav Bu transcript (Applied triathlon science with Olav Aleksander Bu (Norwegian Triathlon Olympic team) | EP#264)
2007 study of mostly runners:
That was the subject of this week’s newsletter from Gareth Sandford.
1 Like
See Andri’s youtube channel
Also see
I’d be curious how these altitude adventures are financed. Does Redbull just write checks? Are the athletes writing checks out of their salaries?
Agreed! I looked at the “Landa” study. Yes, it’s quite amazing how few days there were with efforts.
I have found that as well. Now if for life reasons I can’t get the hours in I spend my endurance time at or around that lower threshold. Most of the time though I ride significantly below it so I can perform decent intervals (basically like @empiricalcycling recommends on numerous podcasts) .
3 Likes
Ok it’s just a ramp test any you look at smo2 slope
TR Episode
09:30
I win.
Boom.
Worth the wait…
1 Like
Isn’t that basically TSS?
1 Like
Wow. I didn’t realize Thor was managing a team.
The Norwegians didn’t do too well at Ironman Kona yesterday.
And Sanders beat Blum, lol!
It only works when they win?
Thats a harsh principle to apply to one’s training.