Long term results - LBP training

[Paul H]

[quote]Ah I've heard that a few times of various people now, maybe I've found something I can get good at with the right training and mental approach. Now you can see why I'm interested in this thread, I have the time on my hands to train at 4 days a week so its a case of just finding out the right way to go about it and selecting the right method that will help me on my way to winning races

[Robh]

Thanks Paul for the recommendation.

I will stay away from his thread to keep the page count down. I will observe quietly.

[Paul H]

[quote]I will observe quietly

[quote="Paul H"][quote]I will observe quietly

[quote="Paul H"][quote]How do you know? Because you believe in percentages?

[Robh]

Enough of the geeky text I have another pretty pic to share.

Andrew Sellars who I'm in contact nearly most days has sent me the following info to share :-

I have included an overlap of Joel's recent step test results for comparison to previous, and also compared to one year ago, to show the remarkable changes that took place with mostly LBP-10 to LBP-20 work.

However, we have just completed a one week session of very high intensity work, with 36-48 hours of recovery between each session, and have shown that this has allowed his low end to recover, and his top end to benefit.

Some people would say, "See, he needs to do more high end training." But they do not realize that these changes are not sustainable throughout a long term training plan. So, we will give him one more week of high intensity training and reassess, then make more decisions on training after that.

If you remember, the impetus for the HIG intervention was that he had a remarkably high Lowe Linear Limit (LLL) @ 145bpm, which I thought might represent a "fatigue" of his STF zone due to "overtraining". Hence, we implemented a short term intervention focused on allowing STF to recover, but push the top end to see what would happen.

Always learning...always trying new things...always remembering what we know about physiology and adaptation.

Thought you might be interested interested.

Andrew

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

[Juerg FaCT]

% are consistent and repeatable.
That is very true and they are even mathematical correct. Plus very easy to calculate, as you will see in the following summary.

So if an athlet is pushing 400 wattage max Wattage we can simply take 80 % , because we believe that this may be for the moment an optimal intensity ( which can be true ). See Dudley's research.
So 0 watt = 0 %
400 watt = 100 %
80 % = 360 watt true ???
Now my first question is . What kind of a test can be done to know , that 400 watt was really 100 % .Example of an athlet from The former Slipstream team ( now Garmin and top 12 TT Tour de France)
If we use a "Conconi" test idea or a Wingate type of an idea or a Bruce protocol we see max tested Wattage in the area of 560 watt
80 % of that would be 448 watt.
If we use test results done at the national training center with 3 min steps on each wattage and 50 wattage steps we reach max tested wattage of 460 - 480.
so 80 % is 370 +
If we test the same athlete as we do since 12 years with 5 min step length and 20 wattage increase than the max tested watts are 440 so 80 % = 352 watt.
Now if we test the same athlete after a carb loading and ofter a day of minimal carb intake the same wattage max tested will change from 450 down to 430 and sometimes even lower.
Hmmm please help us , as we need some ideas, on how we can use the nice part of % as a very "repeatable intensity in all of this cases for the same person. Which test result do you suggest would be the best for the 80 % workout. ?
Cheers Juerg

[Juerg FaCT]

True...It would become like the Power forum very quiet.

Why is the power forum so quiet ?
Why do people stop asking questions.
Hmm just some thoughts from the cold north of far away Canada ?
I will take some time and read through your different Forums, but what I can see for the moment is an incredible lively club with great people and a very high standard of discussion with a wealth of information to learn from , Again congratulation, who ever participats in here, one of the better Forums I ever visited over all this years , Keep up the good discussion and I will be a very regular reader on here to enjoy . Cheers Juerg

[Robh]

The watts are different so there's no doubt there. Which one to choose? Tough one..

Now if we use HR to work out zones which is still using percentages aren't the HRs at the end of the test all the same? That's probably yes and as you would say how do you know using percentage that is your MAX HR to calculate zones? Or if it was a VO2 test the same applies their how do you know it's your max? It's probably the maximium you could get on that day not your real max value.

Rob

[Paul H]

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

[quote="Paul H"][quote]Joel's remarkable improvements are partly due to his growth and development as a young teenager

[Paul H]

Its Stu's diet - not his training

[Robh]

Anyone helping him out with it?

[Juerg FaCT]

Hallo guys .
First to Robs short thoughts . What is max and the % calculation. Great points and yes it is where all the "weakness" is in programs and calculated zones. The first questionis always ?
Do I really have 100 % and if I have 100 % what is zero %
Example 189 is Max tested HR .
Please Help what is 0 % tested HR ?
That's why we try to take physiological markers in FaCT , instead of % of a possible but not for sure 100 % effort . I will tell you later a nice idea and comparison study we repeated during my education in Switzerland.
Summary :
% calculation is great and easy to do but leaves as with the question , whether they reflect physiological responses ? The answer can be given by the carefully critical readers on this forum.

To Paul :
I am a bit confused , but that will be not the first time.
Okay as an advocate of wattage as a possible training control we would argue, that it does not matter what the HR is and other biological informations as wattage is the true objective tool to measure performance .
True ?
So 240 wattage as an example is always 240 wattage .( at least for the bike )
So it really does not matter what other reactions are going on ,like heat , higher HR due to the heat. De-hyrdation and higher HR due to dehydration,
Lower glucose level and therefor higher HR due to lower glycuse level. ?
So the answer from Paul : it is his diet ? hmm How come, as diet will have no influence on his wattage level ? Or may be there could be some connection there ????
Question :
Could it be, that due to lack of proper diet he may move in the fixed wattage workouts sometimes into an intensity , where he realy would need glucose to maintain an optimal ATP production due to the needed demand of ATP at that intensity level ???.
If he can't offer that the body may have to look for other sources, who can help him to produce the ATP. One of the solutions is protein and one of the used protein substances is L- glutamine type protein and BCAA type protein.
This will lead to a reduction in the Immune system responds after this workouts and to a reduction in defence systems. Mucose from the nose and the other areas, as well as protein from blood cells will be taken to produce the needed glucose to "survive " the brain. ( see immediatly ammonia levels and later urea levels as potential markers , as well white blood cell counts )The lower level of glucose will change HR reponse and HR could have been , if properly used, an early marker during this fixed wattage training to think before you push.
So if we blame nutrition as a possible source we have to blame us as coaches for the lack of understanding that wattage is a possible but not optimal tool for intensity zones.Keeping a fixed wattage may change the physiological intensities by limitation of energy supply and demand. Do you think that could be possible or do you think the body does not care what he has to offer as by 240 wattage he will run always on the same energy supply system ?
As we had in another forum section : Compare the car with horse power and % of what you can use from this horse power.
We could add to that and compare, what fuel you put in that car as well.
The example of wattage and nutrition is a very stronng indication , that we may in fact change physiological ( energy producing ) systems during a workout , which is fixed on wattage and this possible more likely , when we push wattage close at the LBP or in other ideas clsoe the VO2 max ?
This possible change of energy supply and emand has some very interesting physiological reactions .
Just a thought and I missed somewhere your explanation on the different test ideas and the zoning , as I am still not clear what wattage I suggest for this athlet ( )

[Paul H]

[quote]To Paul :
I am a bit confused