 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I ride to power, but all my training is & has been based on power. If you are not training to power then I don't think it is necessary, although its handy when out with mates on the flats to know what I can push and sustain to drop them, or if they go off on spurt if I can stick with them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Training for health is what I'm looking for, but nobody seems to be able to define what that is
|
Lots of studies showing health benefits from moderate exercise. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00482.2003 is a good example, they used TRIMP as their measure of training load (taking into account intensity and duration). You can see once TRIMP goes over 1000, there is relatively little further improvements in health markers, and some even decrease.
If I was designing a program for someone solely interested in health and longevity a few things I would do:
- large focus on strength training. As we get older we begin to lose muscle. The best you can hope to do is limit the loss. So it makes sense to get as strong as possible earlier in life. Leg strength is a great predictor of quality of life. Lots of other nice benefits to strength training too. (Seen far too many long distance runners with great CV fitness get to later life and have zero strength or explosive power, which has clearly worsened their quality of life - lots of trips and falls).
- medium focus on cardio. Never over 45mins continuous, (it seems as though continuous training is no more effective than cumulative for health https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-019-01145-2). One HIIT session per week, all other cardio at lower intensity steady state. Minimise running in favour of cycling and swimming.
You would have great health, but your endurance performance would probably decrease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| kitenski wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| DJL wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
So it seems you need a power meter for cycling vo2 Max with Garmin device
Getting Your VO2 Max. Estimate
Before you can view your VO2 max. estimate, you must put on the heart rate monitor, install the power meter, and pair them with your device (Pairing Your Wireless Sensors). |
I guess that is because speed isn’t a good proxy for how much work you do on a bike (hills, tailwind, drafting) whereas it is pretty good for running. |
I would have thought the heart rate was enough? Shows how hard you’re working to maintain speed/altitude.
Although I’ve noticed big performance/ heart rate fluctuations on the same ride based on fatigue and what/whether I’ve eaten. |
That's why you need a power meter as you've identified HR fluctuates depending on lots of things! |
Yep but performance also suffers (in correlation?) with lower HR/more fatigue so not sure it would tell me much I don’t already know from speed/HR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@BobinCH,
On a road bike you could do the same route twice a few days apart putting in much the same effort. Assuming the air temp on both days was similar but one day was very windy and you achieved a slower time because of this. Without a power meter it would look like you put in a poorer performance (basing performance on the monitored HR, GPS data etc). With a power meter you could actually measure the power at the pedals and this could reveal that you actually put in a better performance (i.e. improved output) but this was more than offset than by the wind.
The same could hold true if you rode the same circuit in someone else's wind shadow.
Is it possible to link up the power output of smart exercise machines to Garmin while training - anyone done this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@DB, I've got real time power data from my Stryd, into my Garmin watch (Fenix 6 pro), whilst running on a treadmill.
That may not be exactly what you meant (it's not coming from the machine per se), but the protocol and ability to show power does work, albeit not very well; there are limitations on how much data you can display (2 fields total I think).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowdave wrote: |
@DB, I've got real time power data from my Stryd, into my Garmin watch (Fenix 6 pro), whilst running on a treadmill.
That may not be exactly what you meant (it's not coming from the machine per se), but the protocol and ability to show power does work, albeit not very well; there are limitations on how much data you can display (2 fields total I think). |
Can you get the power data into the watch and them into the connect app for analysis, to work out things like FTP etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
On a road bike you could do the same route twice a few days apart putting in much the same effort. Assuming the air temp on both days was similar but one day was very windy and you achieved a slower time because of this. Without a power meter it would look like you put in a poorer performance (basing performance on the monitored HR, GPS data etc).
|
Power certainly does have its advantages. I would argue it's not that hard to know if weather has affected performance. I mainly train via heart rate and already know if it is a hot day or I'm running into a headwind my pace is going to be lower than normal to compensate for that. If you are training regularly you should have a good idea of your "normal" pace and HR and can work things out from there.
What is the goal though? Sure for a race it's nice to pace via power to maximise performance (although there is still some disagreement about how to best pace using power - constant or variable). If it is just training, for me the goal is to put my heart rate in the right zone to create stress for adaptation. If I've slept bad, am fatigued, my internal temp is higher than normal etc. I know training via HR will take this into account somewhat. Trying to maintain power on a day where I am not at normal performance seems like a recipe for stressing the body more than is necessary to create adaptation. The opposite is also true, on the days you are feeling great and are capable of more than normal if you go purely off power you won't take advantage of this.
I'm not saying HR is the be all and end all, it clearly has its own issues. I'm just saying using only one approach (power, pace, rpe, HR) is probably not enough. We are lucky to have so much data thanks to sports watches, we should use it all to give us the best overall picture rather than focus on just 1 variable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@DB, define "exercise machine"
I've had power data from a Kickr smart trainer to my 935 and 945 watch as well as my power pedals. Any "modern" smart trainer broadcasting ant+ or Bluetooth will get picked up by your watch, fed into connect and be able to be analysed. That is pretty much taken as given nowadays for modern Garmin watches.
That's the point of the standards, smart trainers, smart treadmills broadcast a standard, the Garmin (or other devices) pick it up.
You don't need the USB stick unless you want to run smart "apps" on a desktop to train by power, ie Zwift. https://zwift.com/get-zwifting
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| Quote: |
On a road bike you could do the same route twice a few days apart putting in much the same effort. Assuming the air temp on both days was similar but one day was very windy and you achieved a slower time because of this. Without a power meter it would look like you put in a poorer performance (basing performance on the monitored HR, GPS data etc).
|
Power certainly does have its advantages. I would argue it's not that hard to know if weather has affected performance. I mainly train via heart rate and already know if it is a hot day or I'm running into a headwind my pace is going to be lower than normal to compensate for that. If you are training regularly you should have a good idea of your "normal" pace and HR and can work things out from there.
|
Yep same for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@DB, you can get the data into anything you want if you link the apps. It goes direct into Garmin Connect, and also into Styrd, and from there I've connected onto Strava and, for a while, Sportstracks. There's probably a few dozen different things that you can connect, just by putting the account details for one into the other, and agreeing to share the data.
Stryd gives some (for me) very useful power data showing what you can sustain for any given period (and, allowing for the variances @boarder2020, refers to, I find it extremely accurate), as well as critical power (I'm not really a cyclist, so don't know how that ties into FTP) and a bunch of other metrics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| What is the goal though? |
To find a benchmark and rate my current fitness. (e.g. am I fitter than I was last year, is my training regime improving/maintaining my fitness.)
The benchmark motivates me to compete with myself.
I don't have a road bike (only an old heavy touring bike), am not a runner and don't hang out in gyms. Getting a crosstrainer with power monitoring that I could add to the many variables already monitored by my Garmin watch might give me a more accurate benchmark.
As an example there was a regular route I rode on my mountainbike that I used as a benchmark. It was going really well and my times were improving. Then they threw gravel on the forest road sections and ultimately changed the route. Lost my benchmark.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Thu 3-09-20 17:47; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@DB, what kind of cross trainer are you looking at? Key question is does it broadcast power over ant+ or Bluetooth?
Do you any of your activities into something like Strava? If so I think a free and excellent tool intervals.icu should show progression etc. I’m not sure if it works on just HR data though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| kitenski wrote: |
@DB, what kind of cross trainer are you looking at? Key question is does it broadcast power over ant+ or Bluetooth?
Do you any of your activities into something like Strava? If so I think a free and excellent tool intervals.icu should show progression etc. I’m not sure if it works on just HR data though. |
Don't use strava. I'll surely get an Ant+/bluetooth compatible machine when I come to replacing the 12 year old cross trainer in the cellar.
We have a work fitness scheme where we can visit various gyms etc for a small fee so I was Looking to find a trainer that is garmin compatible in a gym and periodically test my performance.
I can see the power output on my current crosstrainer display so have an estimation of where my fitness stands by benchmarking watt output at a particular heart rate or trying to hold a set power for a particular time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
To find a benchmark and rate my current fitness. (e.g. am I fitter than I was last year, is my training regime improving/maintaining my fitness.)
The benchmark motivates me to compete with myself.
|
Well you need to define fitness. You could use anything; lab measured vo2 max, 10km time, MAF test, cycling critical power. If you improve one chances are the others are heading in the right direction too. To be sure do one more anaerobic (e.g. cross trainer average power over 20mins) and one more aerobic (MAF test).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| DB wrote: |
@BobinCH,
On a road bike you could do the same route twice a few days apart putting in much the same effort. Assuming the air temp on both days was similar but one day was very windy and you achieved a slower time because of this. Without a power meter it would look like you put in a poorer performance (basing performance on the monitored HR, GPS data etc). With a power meter you could actually measure the power at the pedals and this could reveal that you actually put in a better performance (i.e. improved output) but this was more than offset than by the wind.
The same could hold true if you rode the same circuit in someone else's wind shadow.
|
If you are Egan Bernal, or at least his coach, this may be interesting but you are not about to be signed by Ineos Grenadiers so it is just more meaningless numberwang to pour over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I'm going out for a bike ride soon and out of interest I'll try to ride circa 125 know that will be fine along the coast but once inland on a few steep bumps (10%) see if I can get up one particular hill?
That said when I cycle with the older crew back in Serre up the likes of the Galibier then I do pootle along just does my head in a bit
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| davidof wrote: |
If you are Egan Bernal, or at least his coach, this may be interesting but you are not about to be signed by Ineos Grenadiers so it is just more meaningless numberwang to pour over. |
Or you train to power, have a quick glance to see if you hit the numbers you wanted to in the intervals, and adjust your next ride/your goals as appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| If you are Egan Bernal, or at least his coach, this may be interesting but you are not about to be signed by Ineos Grenadiers so it is just more meaningless numberwang to pour over. |
I wouldn't say it was meaningless data, the engineering nerd in me likes to see the data. If they cost around €200 I might have even considered them but as the least expensive is around €500, forget that.
Some are nearer €1000, who buys these - Hotel owners in Lech?
However there are worse things you can spend your money on (e.g. Cigs, Patio heaters, Macclesfield town football tickets etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| DB wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| If you are Egan Bernal, or at least his coach, this may be interesting but you are not about to be signed by Ineos Grenadiers so it is just more meaningless numberwang to pour over. |
I wouldn't say it was meaningless data, the engineering nerd in me likes to see the data. If they cost around €200 I might have even considered them but as the least expensive is around €500, forget that.
Some are nearer €1000, who buys these - Hotel owners in Lech?
|
Folk who are serious about training, wanting to win races, get into triathlon Age Group qualifications etc.
The cheapest single sided pedals I know about are £449 https://www.sigmasports.com/brand/favero
Cheapest power meter I know about is the Stages crank arm at £299 https://www.sigmasports.com/item/Stages-Cycling/G3-Power-L-Shimano-105-R7000-Power-Meter/LQIV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
If you are Egan Bernal, or at least his coach, this may be interesting but you are not about to be signed by Ineos Grenadiers so it is just more meaningless numberwang to pour over
|
You have a point. I'm sure you could go pretty far training without a power meter, and there are plenty of all the gear no idea people. Yes, they are vital to the elite athletes.
On the other hand I'm sure you never take ski lessons and just use the cheapest skis you can find because it's meaningless if you are never going to go to the Olympics 
What is meaningless to one person is part of a hobby to another. While I find the cost of cycling eye watering if someone enjoys it and has the money I'm not going to fault them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So back from my morning ride aiming to keep HR at 125, was very easy at first riding along the coast with a tailwind averaging about 33km/h, soon as I turned inland and encountered more undulating terrain so it was more difficult to maintain that average without going above 130.
After an hour or so to started to get more difficult to maintain even 30km/h and I hit a series of bumps and the av speed fell to 29km/h with the biggy still to come.
The Bostal is a classic UK climb hitting 14%+ in a couple of places and just under a mile, and once on it I could not keep the HR below 130 without nigh on stoping, in fact under the trees as I was going so slow my Wahoo Elemnt went into auto-pause mode thinking that I had stopped!
So my take on this, and this is relevant for @DB, who wants to be MTB cycling fit, is that to be able to do long steep MTB climbs he's going to have to train well above his MAF figure to attain that as I don't think just training at MAF with some HIT will accomplish that, for sure training at MAF and loosing weight your power output will get better.
That said, this is where Strava can really help, find a nice ride/climb that you can achieve in your MAF zone that you know will be consistent in all conditions and create a segment on that and then do that a couple of times a week and see how your times progress?
I ended up with an average speed of 27.4km/h (1hr 45 & 48km) and Av HR 123 which is what many a local cyclist round these parts in our undulating terrain, (if we go inland away) is content with on an average easy ride.
I was also thinking to myself that riding with a watch doing this would be a bit of a pain, even more so if you had alarms beeping at you as you went over your HR target at least with a handle-bar mount computer you can see the data really easy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Weathercam wrote: |
So back from my morning ride aiming to keep HR at 125
|
why didn't you use 118?
You are really at the bottom of zone 2 (or top of zone 1); fat burning kms. I would have to hang on to the bus up the hills to get home!
the big advantage with a PM is there is no delay when deciding which zone you are currently in. Apart from that, as a non serious sports person I'd rather look at the temperature gauge (HR) than the speedo (power) although I can pretty much trust be feeling how hard I can go and don't look at either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Weathercam wrote: |
| So my take on this, and this is relevant for @DB, who wants to be MTB cycling fit, is that to be able to do long steep MTB climbs he's going to have to train well above his MAF figure to attain that as I don't think just training at MAF with some HIT will accomplish that, for sure training at MAF and loosing weight your power output will get better. |
I'm skeptical but according to the book I'm reading it should be possible and is (in the author's opinion) in fact best to do mainly low intensity level training with strength training and a bit of high intensity training. Need to finish the book first and sort out a training plan.
The MTB season isn't over yet plus my daughter has just got a new e-mountainbike and wants to go out on the weekends so sub 130 bpm won't be possible.
In terms of exercising, Oct to Dec are the worst months for me. MTB season is over yet the ski-touring season hasn't started, days are short, outdoor weekend activities are very much weather dependent.
Plan is to carry on until the MTB season is over and then start the low intensity training to build up a high efficient low intensity performance for the ski touring season. In the spring there's often a short switch or even overlap between ski touring and mtb'ing. Had a lab test over 20 years ago, might go for another just before starting the new training regime to see what my actual trigger points are (VT1, VT2, Lactate theshhold, VO2 Max etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I've read alot about MAF, seems you have to stick at it and not let the HR go over the top end limit to get the adaptations. I did it post my heart procedures, often having to walk whilst trying to run.
Oct-Dec could you run outside? easy to do and doesn't really need much kit apart from decent trainers?? or get a turbo trainer and get Zwift??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@davidof, zone 1 for me is kite/wind-surfing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@kitenski, yes I agree that turbo-trainer and Zwift is the best option for @DB, and like me he can use it right through the winter plus if you injure yourself skiing (like I often do) you can still keep fit.
I use a crappy old bike on a Smart trainer as I sweat like a pig and no way would I ever use a decent bike on one which always makes me smile when I see the Zwift ads with guys on SWorks etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
So my take on this, and this is relevant for @DB, who wants to be MTB cycling fit, is that to be able to do long steep MTB climbs he's going to have to train well above his MAF figure to attain that as I don't think just training at MAF with some HIT will accomplish that, for sure training at MAF and loosing weight your power output will get better.
|
The research overwhelmingly supports the majority of training for endurance sports being low intensity. There is debate about exactly what percentages of time should be spent at each intensity (i.e. pyramid Vs polarised), but when we look at elite endurance athletes we consistently find 70-90% of training is low intensity. That includes elite road cyclists, who can certainly climb ok!
| Quote: |
I sincerely hope you are not putting me in THAT category!!!
|
Not at all. I was simply making a point that fancy gear alone doesn't make someone a great athlete
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| kitenski wrote: |
I've read alot about MAF, seems you have to stick at it and not let the HR go over the top end limit to get the adaptations. I did it post my heart procedures, often having to walk whilst trying to run.
Oct-Dec could you run outside? easy to do and doesn't really need much kit apart from decent trainers?? or get a turbo trainer and get Zwift?? |
I could run outside, there‘s a lake 2km away that has a path with street lights where a lot of the runners train. I fear I will also be in the „almost running“ category when I start, like those competition walkers, all elbows. I have a very old tacx trainer somewhere in the cellar so could set that up. As I would be training for the upcoming ski-touring season, my old cross trainer while watching films is probably the best solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@boarder2020,
I was only joking, hence the smiley.
I suppose the trick is working out what „low intensity“ means for each individual. Looks like sub VT1 so a lab test could well be the best way to determine that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
I've read alot about MAF, seems you have to stick at it and not let the HR go over the top end limit to get the adaptations.
|
MAF is just a quick and easy way of estimating a low intensity exercise zone. You can do the same thing with power, or based on your vo2 max (you will probably find there is pretty good correlation between the calculated zones for each). The idea is that this low intensity is sufficient for building an aerobic base, while low enough to avoid unnecessary fatigue and hopefully reduce risk of injury and overtraining.
I'm sure there are some MAF zealots that suggest it alone is enough. Most people would agree that you need to add in some higher intensity work to optimise training. We see this in studies looking at elite endurance athletes, where they have majority of training in low intensity zones, then a small amount of time at high intensity.
It's the concept of making easy days easier and hard day's harder, rather than consistently sitting at that zone 3/grey zone/comfortably hard zone that we seem to naturally go towards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
I suppose the trick is working out what „low intensity“ means for each individual. Looks like sub VT1 so a lab test could well be the best way to determine that.
|
IME all the methods for estimating low intensity training zones (MAF HR, HRR, critical power, vo2 max) end up producing pretty comparable results. I know one person that switched from HR based training to power only to find his zones pretty much corresponded exactly. They all have strengths and weaknesses:
Vo2 is great for knowing what pace to train at on an exercise bike or running track. As soon as you start adding in climbs and descents it becomes problematic
HR is great as it takes into account your physiology that day (i.e. fatigue) and external stressors (i.e. heat). Suffers from drift and in some cases delay.
Power is great as it takes into account incline/decline. Its limited to cycling (and perhaps running depending on your opinion). Doesn't take into account your physiology that day.
There is no reason why you need to pick 1 over the others. For example you could use HR for your low intensity stuff and then power for your high intensity stuff (imo a good choice). It's also worth periodically checking they line up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@DB, What model is your tacx trainer?
@boarder2020, are you a coach or trainer in any of this stuff? You seem very knowledgeable!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| kitenski wrote: |
@DB, What model is your tacx trainer?
@boarder2020, are you a coach or trainer in any of this stuff? You seem very knowledgeable! |
It‘s a tacx flow (not smart), must be around 15 to 20 years old but has had very little use. Looks like this.
https://images.app.goo.gl/24jWcXA6Gho93pbu7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@kitenski thank you. I have a general understanding, but there are people much more knowledgeable about it than me. I sent you a pm to explain my background in this area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| kitenski wrote: |
| ..@boarder2020, are you a coach or trainer in any of this stuff? You seem very knowledgeable!...... |
Yes I have been thinking exactly the same, and I'm sort of curious, in that I've been around the block a fair few times and know things change over the years etc but I also keep tabs (Strava) with for few top competing cyclists and I see no adherence to these new protocols?
That said as I was discussing with the OH I might well try and adhere to the MAF protocol in running if only to avoid injuries which I succumb to so frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| DB wrote: |
| kitenski wrote: |
@DB, What model is your tacx trainer?
@boarder2020, are you a coach or trainer in any of this stuff? You seem very knowledgeable! |
It‘s a tacx flow (not smart), must be around 15 to 20 years old but has had very little use. Looks like this.
https://images.app.goo.gl/24jWcXA6Gho93pbu7 |
Sadly that won’t be working with any modern apps or your Garmin watch. But if your didn’t want to get to analytical I believe most platforms support guesstimated power vis cadence if you wanted to buy a cadence sensor and see how you got on? Just be aware you’ll get an inflated power number which is good for ego!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I also keep tabs (Strava) with for few top competing cyclists and I see no adherence to these new protocols?
|
A few points about Strava:
-You are just seeing what someone wants you to. It may or may not be a good reflection of their training. You really think an athlete is giving away their "secret" workout they think makes the difference?
-Any numbers need to be taking in context. For example, top marathon runners are racing at about 3min/km. So while I might consider 4min/km a good interval pace, for them it's easy run pace.
-Elite athletes are using periodization to peak for particular races. In the weeks leading up to a race they will increase the number of high intensity sessions to do this. (There is quite a bit of research about this). Again looking at one of these weeks is not necessarily representative of the year round training
-There are always going to be some outliers. There is a bit of a chicken/egg situation with this too. A person has a really different training program and is performing at a high level. Is this a product of the training, or would they be even better with a more "standard" training plan? Of course we will never know.
I would be surprised if most elite cyclists are not following a program with a high percent of time spent at low intensity training. The research shows the majority of elite endurance athletes are.
This is quite a nice study comparing a polarised Vs threshold approach to training. It gives some explanation of why this approach is more optimum
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00652.2012?papetoc=
| Quote: |
I might well try and adhere to the MAF protocol in running if only to avoid injuries
|
It's clear recovery is quicker from low intensity training. There is some research one you are training at a moderate intensity (think threshold pace), recovery is no quicker than training at high intensity. The argument for polarised training is you spend most time at the low intensity where you are developing your aerobic base without stressing the body too much (quick recovery), then when you go for intensity you maximise the benefits by going zone 4-5, rather than 3. It's a very sustainable long term approach to training, and shown to produce good training effects.
If you just want to increase vo2 max as quick as possible there are likely more effective ways. Hickson protocol could be the best https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1977.42.3.372
In 10 weeks the average improvement in vo2 max was 16.8ml/kg per min which is outrageous - It would take someone from what is considered completely average vo2 max to an "excellent" vo2 max. Of course it's completely unsustainable long term you would get injured or burned out with over training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
)