Winter training - Intensity vs Quanity (Page 2)

Just trying to wrap my head around the 65% number.  I get the long and slow process vs. shorter and more intense.  I guess I just assumed the less intense would be at a higher intensity that what this study used.

Well, by formula definition of TSS, 5 hours of 65% creates 211 TSS points and 3 hours of 80% creates 192 TSS points. 

That said, I'm interested to see the new version of WKO 4+ come out where Andrew Coggan tries to implement some new theories on the Power Duration Curve and how it can possibly show differences in adaptation for specific riders.

Or they could average, say, about 85% over 3 hours and 'save' themselves 2hrs per week.  Thus, the topic of this thread.

It really doesn't matter what intensities they chose.  Don't think of their study as 'prescriptive' from a training perspective.  They are simply trying to isolate 'low' intrensity/'high' volume against the reverse and seeing what changes are induced by the different protocols.  What they show is that there are 'endurance-like' adatations from higher intensity training.  It's not a great surprise if you follow what others have found.  They don't show that you should follow either of their training protocols for best 'results'.

It's terrible for what you would like it to show.  Not terrible for what they were trying to show.

And more triathletes should consider things like 30" intervals at 500w.  Since most are time limited, spending a lot of time averaging 65% would be a terrible waste.

Got it - thanks.

I don't disagree with your premise, but I completely disagree that that study is proving it.

Doing nothing but 500 watt intervals for 30seconds, and NOTHING BUT those intervals is what they did. For a total of 10x less training volume (measured in work kj) compared to traditional training methods.

I guarantee that if you trained 100 athletes with nothing but 500 watt 30second intervals, for total of 250 kJ per week, vs my training those same 100 athletes at 2000kJ per week at all 65%FTP, the average results of my athletes would beat the pants off yours at any triathlon distance if training for 4 months, given equal original ability and experience.

Burning 200 kcal per week is simply too low a training load for any sort of endurance adaptation. I'd feel more positive about training like this if they did a LOT of those 30sec 500watt intervals with very short/low rest periods so HR stays elevvated, but per that protocol, you get like 4 minutes of rest after each interval. good luck with that.

Yes Im well aware of TSS intensity weighting with reduced time requirements. 

It's exactly why I tried this route initially - seemed SO time efficient.

However, I found quicklky that it was simply unrealistic for me to ride threshold or near threshold every day - even if physically my body could handle it, mentally I couldn't. In contrast, it's very doable for me mentally to do the lower aerobic range but longer workouts. I feel the toll on my legs/body is pretty similar if I control for TSS, but having to do threshold efforts near every day to keep my TSS where I want it is simply too hard day in day out, at least for me.

Not sure why threshold efforts have to be done either every day or not at all? No one is advocating that, and would actually favor varying the effort within the rides and from one ride to the next. You can improve well by riding a lot for long time, but simply riding more just is not an option for many people. They don't have the time. And while intensity does matter, I also don't think one should be doing so much intensity that they completely bury themselves in a short time, needing to back off their training to recover. Up one week, down the next so to speak. Try to work out something that is sustainable for at least several weeks in a row (and preferably longer) before needing to back off just a little, if at all.

Don't know if you are right or not, but it's irrelevent to their study.  What they wanted to show was that one could achieve certain 'endurance adaptations' even if on a diet of only high intensity work.  If you accept their data and conclusions, then they showed just that. 

Actual studies appear to refute this statement.  There are endurance adaptations that take place with relatively low doses of high intensity training.  This does not mean that only doing all-out Wingates is the best way to train for a triathlon.

Like in pg 6 over here? What specifics have you used for the surges? I've also seen 150% for 15 sec with the same frequency. The lower power level in the article is probably more appropriate for tri of the two I know, but curious what else may have been done. Haven't tried the ride yet, maybe some time in the future.

Just read that before you posted it.  Almost all intervals I've seen before call for very easy riding following each interval.  This would clearly kick your a$$ if you hit the numbers as prescribed.  I'd guess that you wouldn't want to do this one more than once every 2-3 weeks otherwise it would impact your other workouts (at least it would for me...).

I can say with absolute certainty that training for triathlon exclusively with 30sec all-out efforts followed by 4 minutes rest as per their protocol is a very poor and low yield way to train for triathlon and i stand by my claim that a comparable level/experience athlete who does literally 10x the kJ of training work, even at a much lower intensity, will beat the pants off those WIngate-trained athletes in any endurance race distance from 800m to the marathon. It won't even be close.

200kJ vs 2000kJ is an insurmontable gap of training. No interval regimen will equalize, even if you try and speculate they will by subbing in biomarkers in lieu of actual race performance That's like saying an athlete who runs 2 miles per week can equal one that trains 20 miles per week, given equal initial level/experience/talent. No friggin' way no matter what intervals you have the 2 miler do (assume 100kcal/mile burned.)

For me, to reach my typical weekly TSS by using 1hr time-compressed workouts, they would have to be almost entirely threshold workouts. I typically hit 80-100+TSS in each of 3-4 indoor rides per week. If you ride 3x/week and are hitting 350TSS, that's over 100TSS per ride, so if you're compressing it into an hour or slightly more per workout, you're going to be riding hard.

I'm sure some can do threshold work day in day out, but I'm not one of them - I can't even mentally handle it 3x/week even for 1 hour sessions without feeling like I'm burning out mentally within 3 weeks. In contrast, I find those longer aero rides are eminently doable, even if they are longer. Again, this is just me - I'm certain some will be the reverse. 

I bring this up mainly because in this thread, there is a recurring theme that suggests that typical triathletes simply don't have the time to train at 65-75%FTP to make improvements, and I say this is patently false. Riding 5-6hrs per week at that intensity is exactly what I do for the bulk of my training as per Friel's training recommendations, and I am definitely improving on what is already a FOP result (I usually have one of the top 2-4 bike splits in my AG.) You do NOT require some ridiculous # of hours to get a good training stimulus at this aerobic zone. I don't think 5-6 hrs per week on the bike is at all extreme, and I'll guarantee most folks on this forum would get a lot better at cycling if they trained this much volume even at the lower intensity.

And again - I have nothing against intervals and threshold work - I do a fair amount of it approaching race day, and yes, it gets you more TSS in a more compressed time, which is great. 

You're having an argument that nobody else is having.  Including those that published the study.

We agree to disagree. If you think training athletes on a 2mile/week regimen can ever equal one training them at 20miles per week (that's exactly what the study is claiming with their biomarkers and kJ comparisons), you're welcome to believe that.

What people are saying is that if you don't have the time (or desire) to ride (for example!!!) 5-6 hourse per week, you can make similar gains while riding only (say) 3 hours if you ride them harder than you would the 5-6.  You're making characterizations about what people are saying that they simply haven't stated anywhere.

Also, if you are getting ~400TSS per week in 5-6 hours of riding, then you are riding at 80-90% (even 350 would put you at 75-85%).  That's good work.

NO!!!!!  We don't argee to disagree.  That is NOT what the study is saying.  NOR is it what I have said once in this thread.

Yes, and much of the time that's how it should go. Especially with very high intensity things such as VO2 work. Most of the time spent should be in driving up threshold power (and other things like VO2 power). A workout such as this is to help take that ability and translate it to conditions more like a race would go. Rephrasing what the article says, you have the power available from doing your other work, so this works on the recovery (or lack of, really) that is more likely to occur in a race. I think this type of adaptation comes more quickly, so less of it is needed.

The study claims this - biomarkers in those trained with 200kj/wk wingate protocol (super hi-intensity 30sec on/4min off) compared to 2000+kJ/wk conventional training (like 3-4x/less watts) had similar changes in endurance-related biomarkers, whatever the significance of that is.

They intentionally left out in the abstract on which group would actually be faster in a timed endurance test.

It's an abstract.  They didn't "intentionally" do anything in it.  They weren't trying to show which group would be faster in a timed endurance test.  They were trying to demonstrate...aw, I give up.  Suffice it to say, you think the study is trying to show something that it is not trying to do at all (ie, that an athlete training with their low vol/high intensity can outperform one training with high vol/low intensity in an endurance test).  Here's a quote out of their paper:

In summary, the results of the present study demonstrate that low-volume SIT is a time-efficient strategy to induce changes in selected markers of whole-body and skeletal muscle CHO and lipid metabolism during exercise that are comparable to changes induced by traditional high-volume ET. Skeletal muscle remodelling after SIT may be mediated in part through signalling pathways normally associated with traditional ET, but additional research is warranted to clarify the molecular mechanisms responsible for metabolic adaptations induced by these different acute exercise ‘impulses’. It is also important to stress that the relatively limited array of metabolic measurements performed in the present study may not be representative of other physiological adaptations normally associated with ET. For example, SIT may differ from ET with respect to changes induced in the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, metabolic control in other organs (e.g. liver or adipose tissue) and protection from various factors associated with chronic inactivity (e.g. insulin resistance or lipid dysregulation).

If you want to ask a question, ask away.  If you just want to tell me that I (or they) or wrong from something I never said, then I really can't help.

Yes, that would be quite hard. Rides don't necessarily have to be compressed before adding in more intensity. For someone with less time they have to ride harder, as you just demonstrated.

As said before, you don't necessarily have to do threshold day-in, day-out. There is some area in between all threshold and all easy. Do what works for you. If that turns out to be easy (most) all the time, then do so. I don't ride threshold every time either. Much of the time is actually easier if time was all added up by zone. But I also don't go months on end without it.

No, there isn't. Quite a few could make improvements by riding easy to obtain the TSS you listed above. They could get more by adding in *some* intensity during that time.

Yes, people can improve using this. That doesn't mean it's a more effective use of time.

Nicely done (sincerely). I'm in contention for the fastest overall bike split in such races (sounds like local ones?) and have done so a few times, by several minutes ahead of 2nd.

I don't think that's extreme either, and yes, quite a few would improve if they keep that up week-in, week-out for much of the year.

Again, it's not necessary to be on more compressed time for intensity to be of benefit. Like Johnny said, if you have a question, ask.