Training at Aerobic threshold or Anaerobic threshold?

reppohkcor

I'm hearing conflicting things about training at these points.

Is it better to train at or above Anaerobic threshold (i.e 10 minute hill climbs)

OR

Is it good to train at aerobic threshold (i.e 90 minutes tempo)

Which is better, some articles say tempo rides are the best, some say intervals.... Personally i prefer my king of the mountain climbs :P , just because it feels like a better workout.

dennisn

FWIW there is only so much anaerobic work you are capable of in any given time frame.
i.e. you can't "hammer" on a daily basis and expect your body to hold together, let alone
recover from really hard efforts. By the same token you can't just do easy rides and
expect to improve much. Same thing day after day equals eventual burnout and not much
in the way of you getting faster. You need to talk to a coach. A few of which frequent this forum and can give you a much better picture of how it all works than I can.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Both efforts are good, however the terminology used to describe them isn't.
A 10-min effort will still be predominantly aerobic in nature.

Bronzie

Depending on what goal you are training for, you need a mix of training done at intensities ranging from endurance rides (2 hours plus) to the shorter more intense efforts that replicate hill climbing. For bunch racing, you'll also want to do some really high intensity intervals and sprint training.

The tricky bit is how the rides at various intensities all fit into a plan specific to improving your ability to meet your goals - and this is where coaching comes in.

So a 2 hr endurance ride is no better or worse training than hill intervals. Each have their place in training for most cyclists (although for long endurance events such as sportifs I can't really see much point in doing the really high-intensity stuff since most of your events require long, steady efforts).

BeaconRuth

reppohkcor wrote:

I'm hearing conflicting things about training at these points.

Is it better to train at or above Anaerobic threshold (i.e 10 minute hill climbs)

OR

Is it good to train at aerobic threshold (i.e 90 minutes tempo)

Which is better(?), some articles say tempo rides are the best, some say intervals.... Personally i prefer my king of the mountain climbs :P , just because it feels like a better workout.

That's something of a non-question, like "what length is a piece of string?". Better for what? A 10-min hill-climb is better for getting good at doing 10-min hill-climbs and a 90-min tempo ride is better for getting good at doing 90-min tempo rides.

It's an unanswerable question without knowing what you are training for.

Ruth

BeaconRuth

ps (Now I've read it) ........ as Bronzie said!

Ruth

eh

Surely it isn't an either/or situation you can do 90 minutes one day then a few days later hard 10 minute intervals or whatever. This will get you fit, but whether as Ruth notes this is the right kind of fitness for the event you want to do is a different matter.

liversedge

Alex has a really nifty diagram showing the adaptations you can expect from different intensities, I think that would answer your question.

If I can find it I'll post it here.

Bronzie

This one?

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... evels.aspx

reppohkcor

Ok then, say i was training for road races.

Obviously these races are not going to be tempo races so why do so many journals say tempo rides are the dogs? Or should i try and keep tempo rides for the off-season?

Anonymous

For road races you need a good mix, you have to have that base but you really need some intensity work, to respond to accelerations / attacks etc.

Bronzie

reppohkcor wrote:

Obviously these races are not going to be tempo races so why do so many journals say tempo rides are the dogs? Or should i try and keep tempo rides for the off-season?

According to Coggan & Allen, the average power requirements for most longish road races (>2 hrs) falls into the tempo range for most riders. But of course, some times in a race you'll be freewheeling, and other times you'll be flat out trying to stay in the wheels.

Tempo rides are good for building your aerobic capacity and increasing your power at threshold. But, if all you did in training were tempo rides, you'd get dropped pretty quickly when the hammer goes down.

Think of training for road racing in terms of the plate spinning act at the circus - you have 7 plates on sticks (the 7 levels from the link above) and for road racing you need all 7 to be spinning nicely. Neglect one in favour of any of the others and that plate starts to wobble - you will have a weakness in one area. The trick is to keep all 7 spinning away in the limited time you have without neglecting any of them.

reppohkcor

Bronzie wrote:

reppohkcor wrote:

Obviously these races are not going to be tempo races so why do so many journals say tempo rides are the dogs? Or should i try and keep tempo rides for the off-season?

According to Coggan & Allen, the average power requirements for most longish road races (>2 hrs) falls into the tempo range for most riders. But of course, some times in a race you'll be freewheeling, and other times you'll be flat out trying to stay in the wheels.

Tempo rides are good for building your aerobic capacity and increasing your power at threshold. But, if all you did in training were tempo rides, you'd get dropped pretty quickly when the hammer goes down.

Think of training for road racing in terms of the plate spinning act at the circus - you have 7 plates on sticks (the 7 levels from the link above) and for road racing you need all 7 to be spinning nicely. Neglect one in favour of any of the others and that plate starts to wobble - you will have a weakness in one area. The trick is to keep all 7 spinning away in the limited time you have without neglecting any of them.

Thanks Bronzie.

Alex_Simmons/RST

liversedge wrote:

Alex has a really nifty diagram showing the adaptations you can expect from different intensities, I think that would answer your question.

If I can find it I'll post it here.

It's on here:
http://www.cyclecoach.com/index.php?opt ... Itemid=112

and here:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... ining.html

reppohkcor

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

liversedge wrote:

Alex has a really nifty diagram showing the adaptations you can expect from different intensities, I think that would answer your question.

If I can find it I'll post it here.

It's on here:
http://www.cyclecoach.com/index.php?opt ... Itemid=112

and here:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... ining.html

Fantastic. Just what i'm after.

reppohkcor

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

liversedge wrote:

Alex has a really nifty diagram showing the adaptations you can expect from different intensities, I think that would answer your question.

If I can find it I'll post it here.

It's on here:
http://www.cyclecoach.com/index.php?opt ... Itemid=112

and here:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... ining.html

Ok so if i'm going by the RST definitions...

Is it better to be training more at 'Z4' zone i.e just below TT pace or should i dedicate more days to Z6 training.

Currently i'm 3 days at Z2/Z3/Z4 and 2 days at Z6+.... Is this about right for general road race training?

Alex_Simmons/RST

I'd only suggest 2 x Z6 focussed training days if you were specifically attempting to peak for an event or racing block or you are certain that threshold power has plateaued and need to give your top end a boost in order to make further gains. Some adaptations that comes from Z6 work tend to plateau relatively quickly (e.g. 6-8 weeks) so one needs to dose those efforts carefully.