Long term results - LBP training

[Robh]

As people are curious about the long term developments of training @ LBP and below I fired an email to Andrew to ask if it was possible to share some results from his clients.

From Andrew Sellars :-

It is hard to argue with the numbers, so I have included Joel results over the past 18 months. You can post the overlap on the forum for people to see, if they are interested in a long term study of changes with time. I will include mine and Ginny's as well, so they can compare "older people's results". Ginny is now 35 and making steady improvements, and I am nearly 40, with all my changes occurring after the age of 35.

I also put in Joel's recent two step tests for you to look at more closely.

You can see from Joel's the Oct-VO2 that he has a really high LLL, and I was not sure why. So he took a couple of days rest, and repeated the step test, with a drop in his LLL from 145 to 130. And, a corresponding improvement along the entire curve. This is in a kid who does NOTHING above his LBP. He only weighs 51kg, so his LBP wattage of 230 watts, gives him a watts/kg at LBP of 4.6 (the best person we have tested to date).

Feel free to share these on the forum.

[img]http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t209/sbc205/Joel.jpg[/img]

Feb 2007 - LBP 160, 175W
Nov 2007 - LBP 168, 180W
Sept 2008 - LBP 171, 227W
Oct 2008 - LBP 172, 230W

Andrew told me Joel is 15 and like most youngsters wants to train all the time and hard. As a consequence of not listening to Andrew he was doing more than he was suppose to. His results on his ramp tests were poor and he was getting ill a lot. It was not until he started to cut back and listen to Andrew he started to improve again..

If Joel rode above his LBP sure he would have got teh reults in a much quicker fashion but would have probably burnt himself out...

Rob

[Robh]

Andrew Sellars wrote :-

The initial "big changes" in less experienced groups are to be expected. These changes occur because there is so much room for improvement in nearly every aspect of cycling. We try to imagine all the different systems when designing programs for athletes, that take into account each of the potential limiting factors. These "systems" include...cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, metabolic and muscular. It is not surprising that training a novice athlete will likely result in improvements in every system, leading to profound improvements overall, whether you measure the improvement in terms of LBP wattage, or modified max wattage through a test like the Foolish Fours. (Foolish Fours is a ramp test every 4 mins going up 40watts)

Training the "high performance" group or more experienced athletes requires taking a closer look at which system is limiting performance. Once the metabolic/cardiovascular system has been trained well, perhaps it is time to examine the other systems, and decide how one might train for improvement.

Using Murray's example specifically...with a "max" wattage of 400, and a LBP wattage of 300, one could say the athlete is able to perform at 75% of their potential at LBP. I can tell you we have seen athletes perform both "better" and "worse" than this in the past. A great number of our new athletes fight to reach 50% of their Foolish Fours number at their LBP but some of our high performance group are reaching closer to 85%.

[Robh]

Email convo between me and Andrew this week :-

Zoning...the words used to describe them are just Juerg's way of describing the fuels being used, though I have a feeling the terms may change with the new data form the Physioflow...we will have to wait a see, and learn as we go. For now though, HIG, is just as it sounds...glycolytic production of energy at high intensity (over LBP), as opposed to FTFa, where we are certainly using FTF fibers with glycolytic metabolic production of energy, but still under LBP.

HIP, refers to the intensity that requires the use of all immediately available fuel (Creatine phosphate, and ATP actually present in the
muscle before the interval starts). This is only sustainable for very short periods of time, as the source of fuel is very limited. In fact, using HR to gauge this zone is likely not valuable, as the heart rate will not respond before the fuel runs out (think about those 15-30 second all ot efforts you did in Mallorca during your LBP-20 sessions).

Remember to describe those sessions to Toks, and how we view them as a neurological stimulus for recruiting more muscles, and possibly a
muscle coordination exercise. This is all part of the FaCT principles.

Also, you can tell him that Joel and one of our Ironman athletes are both doing two weeks of VERY HIGH intensity training this month in response to their recent test results, which have shown some interesting changes, likely due to fatigue of their STF zone. This is after 18 months of primarily STF training, with very good results. I will give you their overlaps to share with Toks.

Joel's and Ginny's results are attached. I don;t have Sean's to show you, but they look like Joel's. Very high LLL, with overall improvement, but feeling tired at the beginning of sessions, and taking 30-40 minutes to "warm-up". So we will try resting this system, and pushing the FTFa/HIG system for a few weeks, with ample rest between training sessions to see how the curve responds.

Joel is now riding at 4.6 watts/kg at LBP, and Ginny is just over 4 watts/kg at LBP now.

Hope this helps your discussions.

Ginny Sellars LBP results over last 4 years :-

Oct 2003 - LBP1 63, 145W
Mar 2004 - LBP 155, 155W
April 2006 - LBP 165,165W
July 2007 - LBP 161, 190W


[img]http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t209/sbc205/pic1-1.jpg[/img]

[Robh]

I've been asked recently what hours people are doing using FaCT ideas so I dropped Andrew an email yesterday and asked him that very question:-

Ginny and I have averaged about 8 hours/week over the past five years. At times we are closer to 6, and in the summer, we try to get out for longer rides, but it has become difficult with Maddy, so we have been forced to be more economical with our training. Joel does about 18-22 hours/week, split between swimming and biking, with three x 30 minute runs to keep his running form up (he ran a 5:25 mile with me on the track today...we did 5 x one mile repeats, as part of his week of FTFb/HIG sessions).

Mike gets in about 10-12, but is competing professionally this year for the first time, and his results on testing have shown it.

The whole goal of FaCT is to not waste time, and make efficient use of the time available. Whether it is 6 or 16 hours/week.

Andrew S

And myself 10 hours per week or less depending how fatigued I am, all done early morning before work during the week. Even on Saturday's I'm up the bike @ 6:30-7am.

[Michelle]

[quote]Ginny Sellars LBP results over last 4 years :-

Oct 2003 - LBP1 63, 145W
Mar 2004 - LBP 155, 155W
April 2006 - LBP 165,165W
July 2007 - LBP 161, 190W

[Robh]

I don't know Michelle..I know there has been personal health problems & she's not been keen on high intensity training. What we don't have is what her recovery line look like either.

She did have a baby Michelle don't forget who is over 2 years...

[Robh]

I beleive this is Geoff Kabush's (pro mtn biker) results as a junior.

[img]http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t209/sbc205/Factoverlap.jpg[/img]

1996
LBP 145bpm, Power @ LBP 150W
1997
LBP 165bpm, Power @ LBP 250W
1998
LBP 160bpm, Power @ LBP 245W
1999
LBP 150bpm, Power @ LBP 275W

[Paul H]

I cant help but notice the classic conconi hr deflection which seems consistent around 170-175

[Robh]

Michelle,

From Andrew :-

It is about an 8% improvement every year for 4 years...and yes, there was Maddy, and a major surgery spaced evenly through that progression...and she had already ridden a top ten time at Ironman before she got started on this plan. Try to find any 30 year old athlete who has made better than 5% improvements for 4 years running, and then get back to me.

Joel's remarkable improvements are partly due to his growth and development as a young teenager.

A long term progression of 5-10% per year, would give the woman in the club an improvement to 3.5 watts/kg in a few years. She would just have to be patient. If she expects more than this each year, she is either training full time, or she is making functional improvements that are not sustainable.

It should also be noted we don;t do this full time...Ginny is a Mum, with a job and other interests, including having to swim and run in order to compete. It might be feasible to see bigger changes with a sole commitment to cycling. I suppose we will have to wait and see what kind of changes you and Huw can make with the group in the UK.

Andrew

[Robh]

[quote="Paul H"]I cant help but notice the classic conconi hr deflection which seems consistent around 170-175

[Robh]

[quote="Paul H"]I cant help but notice the classic conconi hr deflection which seems consistent around 170-175

[Robh]

LLL = lower linear limit = the lowest heart rate you should have to still "stress " your cardio vascular system , or the highest you should go , if you are sick.
It is very often identical with the Polar lower own zone or with RLX at 4ms

ULL = Upper linear limit. The highest heart rate you should go in a hard race to still have an optimal performance.
ULL is as well the HR where you have the optimal SV (stroke volume )

[img]http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t209/sbc205/per.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t209/sbc205/per2.jpg[/img]

[Paul H]

[quote]Juerg has talked about Conconi on the forum but we did not discuss it on the course. So I don't have any knowledge on it Paul.

[Robh]

Thanks Paul.

[Robh]

You should have given your training group members this adivce ages ago to slow them down a bit because I have just tested another one and guess what? Another big drop in watts after the first sample was taken...

What's going on?

Please explain?

Which muscle fibre types have they been training more as this reflects in their poor recovery line on the test? The FacT athletes don't have such a BIG drop.

Thanks Rob see you one day in the clinic...

Good to share ideas as we all learn.