Base Training vs Higher Intensities

CakeLovinBeast

I'm just after opinions on this really, as I've read so many conflicting views.

Some sources (Pete Read's Black Book, as an example) say that when you're in your base training phase, that you should do nothing else. All of your time should be spent in zone 2. The paragraph that stuck in my mind was:

While you are creating this all-important base it is essential that you do not become involved in any high intensity effort whatsoever. This means no sprinting, no racing with club mates and no hard circuit training in the gym. In fact don't to see your heart rate exceed the top of Level 2 even when climbing. To ensure this doesn't happen, I suggest you stay on flat or slightly undulating terrain for the time being. Any high heart rate training before the aerobic base is fully developed will simply cancel out the benefits so don't do it!

Some sources suggest that it's OK to do aerobic training in the same training phase as your base training, but you shouldn't combine them in the same ride. Finally, other places I've read say that it makes no difference what you do, because training your aerobic fitness will have the knock-on effect of improving your base levels.

I'm curious to know what people think about this. Not being a pro, or being even remotely good for that matter, I can struggle to find time to train most weeks. Now if spending the next 3-4 weeks on the turbo spinning my bottom off is genuinely going to make a difference in June/July, then it's a torture that I can (probably) deal with, at the possible expense of my sanity. However, I live in Devon and we have hills down here - I'd rather be out and riding, but only if I'm not going to be expected to get off and walk up each and every bloomin' one of them. Similarly, if I can base train whilst going out and trying to make my legs fall off, I'm sure I'll be a happier bunny in the long run!

So what do people think? Is it a case of take the boredom, or can a decent base be trained whilst doing other types of riding?

Alex_Simmons/RST

Been covered here before. It's a load of tripe. Only time you need to have a couple of weeks very steady stuff is after a long lay off from training and starting back. Otherwise one should not be concerned with mixing in a little intensity.

CakeLovinBeast

Thanks Alex, appreciate the prompt response.

Pseudonym

It's not a case of 'opinions' - I think the point that Alex is making is that Mr Read's principle has been largely disproved.

doyler78

joe2008 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

It's a load of tripe.

According to YOU and that's your opinion but there are plenty, including Pete Read, who take a different stance and that's their opinion, it doesn't mean it's tripe.

OK so what's your experience?

jibberjim

Pseudonym wrote:

It's not a case of 'opinions' - I think the point that Alex is making is that Mr Read's principle has been largely disproved.

His reason (killing baby mitochondria) has unquestionably been disproved. So it's certainly tripe. That doesn't mean the whole package of training won't work, but for a coach to continue pedalling incorrect science to back up their coaching is a problem. Why not just say "this is what I've found to be successful" rather than appealling to incorrect science. That's the sign of a quack, not of a serious coach.

CakeLovinBeast

OK then, if I can turn it around a little:

What benefits (preferably the quantifiable kind) are there in doing low intensity training over higher intensity? I suspect that I know the answer(s) (or at least some of them), but I'm curious to hear from the more experienced folks.

Also, appropos of nothing at all really, I've just noticed that Pete Read's HR zones are different to how I would expect them to look. His "zone 2" (admittedly, he works on a z0 - z4 based system) is equivalent to 75-85% HRMax, putting it more in-line with zone 3 when aligned with my own HR zones.

Pseudonym

the number of zones don't matter - it's the numbers in each zone that matter...

CakeLovinBeast

I appreciate that, but my point is that the two don't really correspond anyway. The Black Book's "Zone 2", which is where Pete Read says you should be doing your base training, is equivalent to 75-85% MaxHR. Everything (other than the black book) that I've read suggests that "base" training should be more like 65-75% MaxHR.

amaferanga

Does Pete Read still coach using the same ideas that are in the Black Book? I hope not. I figured he'd have moved on from that.

mclarent

If you followed Joe Friel's plan to the letter, you would do 12 weeks of base in 3 blocks of 4 weeks (3 on, 1 off). The first block has no intensity, the second block you're adding 1 high intensity workout, by block 3 you're up to 50% base 50% intensity. Then the fun starts...

Pseudonym

CakeLovinBeast wrote:

I appreciate that, but my point is that the two don't really correspond anyway. The Black Book's "Zone 2", which is where Pete Read says you should be doing your base training, is equivalent to 75-85% MaxHR. Everything (other than the black book) that I've read suggests that "base" training should be more like 65-75% MaxHR.

I suppose it depends how you define 'base' - I would suggest it is a combination of both...

CakeLovinBeast

amaferanga wrote:

Does Pete Read still coach using the same ideas that are in the Black Book? I hope not. I figured he'd have moved on from that.

Fair point...

ric/rstsport

jibberjim wrote:

Pseudonym wrote:

It's not a case of 'opinions' - I think the point that Alex is making is that Mr Read's principle has been largely disproved.

His reason (killing baby mitochondria) has unquestionably been disproved. So it's certainly tripe. That doesn't mean the whole package of training won't work, but for a coach to continue pedalling incorrect science to back up their coaching is a problem. Why not just say "this is what I've found to be successful" rather than appealling to incorrect science. That's the sign of a quack, not of a serious coach.

i thought it was about 'bursting capillaries'. not that it matters, it's rubbish!

ric/rstsport

CakeLovinBeast wrote:

OK then, if I can turn it around a little:

What benefits (preferably the quantifiable kind) are there in doing low intensity training over higher intensity? I suspect that I know the answer(s) (or at least some of them), but I'm curious to hear from the more experienced folks.

Also, appropos of nothing at all really, I've just noticed that Pete Read's HR zones are different to how I would expect them to look. His "zone 2" (admittedly, he works on a z0 - z4 based system) is equivalent to 75-85% HRMax, putting it more in-line with zone 3 when aligned with my own HR zones.

our HR zones (for people who don't have a power meter) are probably different again, but i don't think this makes any difference (it's about spending time at a specific intensity). I'd be loathe to prescribe training that was all low intensity and i'd be loathe to prescribe training that was was all at one intensity. i don't think it's the best way of working, which isn't to say you can't get fit from it, but there may be better options depending on your goals and time availability. Just training at one intensity can be somewhat boring, and that could turn you off. Sometimes you just need to change up or down an intensity to spice up an otherwise dull session

for e.g. yesterday i rode the turbo and my goal was to complete 90-mins on it at a specific intensity. however, just trundling along at the same effort i'd have been bored out of mind and never complete it -- so i added in 3 x 1-min at 105 to 110 % of MAP just to 'spice' things up!

ric

CakeLovinBeast

Thanks again for all of the replies.

Mostly, it's reassuring to know that I'm not going to adversely effect my training by mixing up various zones, so long as I pay attention to all of them. In fact, it gives me greater leeway to enjoy myself more!

jermas

Personally I'd still not be training at the highest zones at this time of year. Keep your intensity lower than you would in summer. On the hills - use them for strength training (lowish cadence, stay seated) this stops your heart rate soaring. If your fitness isn't great it can be too frustrating trying to keep your heart rate in zone 2 on hills. High cadence workouts are something else to do. As mentioned above variety is key-just don't push things too hard, save that for spring/summer.

Alex_Simmons/RST

CakeLovinBeast wrote:

Thanks again for all of the replies.

Mostly, it's reassuring to know that I'm not going to adversely effect my training by mixing up various zones, so long as I pay attention to all of them. In fact, it gives me greater leeway to enjoy myself more!

Exactly.

What matters more is consistency of training, and one needs motivation and to enjoy the training to help with that. Being a "one-speed Paul" is dull and probably counterproductive.

You can mix in all intensities at all times, it's just the balance of how much volume at higher intensity you do that changes.

No one is advocating 2-3 high intensity interval sessions/week at this time, but hitting a few hills hard on a ride each week is fine if you feel like it, or just tempo up them it if that's all you feel like doing. If on the indoor trainer, then mixing in efforts is fine and breaks up the session, makes it more interesting.

Enjoy the training, no need to become a "zone drone".

shockedsoshocked

Pseudonym wrote:

CakeLovinBeast wrote:

I appreciate that, but my point is that the two don't really correspond anyway. The Black Book's "Zone 2", which is where Pete Read says you should be doing your base training, is equivalent to 75-85% MaxHR. Everything (other than the black book) that I've read suggests that "base" training should be more like 65-75% MaxHR.

I suppose it depends how you define 'base' - I would suggest it is a combination of both...

It's a broad definition. Personally I use anything up to lactate threshold as a base/endurance/aerobic capacity building zone, with the intensity being measured by the time I have available basically. Which at the moment isn't a lot of time so everything is short and hard!

Slack

If you've been regularly cycling for a while, you will already have a base.

Focusing on Base training only will condition/train you to ride slowly. I tried it last year, and ended coming out of February being very slow. I also live in Devon and in my view, due to the terrain, we have no choice but to just get out and temper effort with length of ride. There's no way I will do a 60mile ride up to Princetown averaging 18; around the South Hams though, a 30 mile ride can be at 18.

ut_och_cykla

Slack wrote:

If you've been regularly cycling for a while, you will already have a base.

Focusing on Base training only will condition/train you to ride slowly. I tried it last year, and ended coming out of February being very slow. I also live in Devon and in my view, due to the terrain, we have no choice but to just get out and temper effort with length of ride. There's no way I will do a 60mile ride up to Princetown averaging 18; around the South Hams though, a 30 mile ride can be at 18.

+1 my feelings & similar experience.

fish156

Slack wrote:

Focusing on Base training only will condition/train you to ride slowly.

Personally I don't consider base training "slow". Steady doesn't mean slow. Typically 3 hours mixing just endurance, tempo and sweet spot riding is tough. "Relentless" is a good word for it.

doyler78

fish156 wrote:

Slack wrote:

Focusing on Base training only will condition/train you to ride slowly.

Personally I don't consider base training "slow". Steady doesn't mean slow. Typically 3 hours mixing just endurance, tempo and sweet spot riding is tough. "Relentless" is a good word for it.

It does if you stick to typical zone 2 rides that a lot of traditionalists mean when they are talking about base training however it has evolved into something below threshold which all together more challenging if you ride hard for the time you have available.

SBezza

doyler78 wrote:

fish156 wrote:

Slack wrote:

Focusing on Base training only will condition/train you to ride slowly.

Personally I don't consider base training "slow". Steady doesn't mean slow. Typically 3 hours mixing just endurance, tempo and sweet spot riding is tough. "Relentless" is a good word for it.

It does if you stick to typical zone 2 rides that a lot of traditionalists mean when they are talking about base training however it has evolved into something below threshold which all together more challenging if you ride hard for the time you have available.

No it doesn't, I can stick mainly in z2 and still do 18mph+ mph 6 hour rides quite easily, I just choose the most suitable roads for this kind of work. The thing to remember if you are going to do Z2 work, you need to do it for a fair while, a 3 hour ride in Z2 is too easy for some, and hence I would suggest for this duration going a bit harder.

Trust me doing base DOES NOT mean training yourself to ride slow, if you are going that slow then you are more likely in Z1 (recovery), and then that does very little for you.

doyler78

SBezza wrote:

doyler78 wrote:

fish156 wrote:

Slack wrote:

Focusing on Base training only will condition/train you to ride slowly.

Personally I don't consider base training "slow". Steady doesn't mean slow. Typically 3 hours mixing just endurance, tempo and sweet spot riding is tough. "Relentless" is a good word for it.

It does if you stick to typical zone 2 rides that a lot of traditionalists mean when they are talking about base training however it has evolved into something below threshold which all together more challenging if you ride hard for the time you have available.

No it doesn't, I can stick mainly in z2 and still do 18mph+ mph 6 hour rides quite easily, I just choose the most suitable roads for this kind of work. The thing to remember if you are going to do Z2 work, you need to do it for a fair while, a 3 hour ride in Z2 is too easy for some, and hence I would suggest for this duration going a bit harder.

Trust me doing base DOES NOT mean training yourself to ride slow, if you are going that slow then you are more likely in Z1 (recovery), and then that does very little for you.

It's still slower in comparison to how you would ride a 3 hour tempo ride and the fact that you can ride 18+mph is simply a function of your FTP and how aero you are, terrain and weather you have to contend with and proves nothing other than you have high FTP and have a pretty aero riding position or you have very, very long roads with a tailwind. Slow in the context of this discussion is only relative to the person being discussed so the fact you can do it and then compare yourself to someone who may find it difficult to average that in an hour is to rather miss the point. By training in zone 2 at 18+mph your training effect is going to be no different to the person riding in zone 2 at 12mph except that you will clearly be much fitter and therefore more likely to recover more quickly and be able to ride for longer.

shockedsoshocked

Zone 2 rides up here means you're lucky to break 16mph average!

SBezza

Yes, slow compared to a race, but not that different to tempo speeds if I am honest, I just make sure I push on the pedals LOL.

Riding in Z2 doesn't just limit you to riding at that speed though as has been claimed, it is a foundation building exercise, and if you want to do well putting in harder efforts later on, it is pretty useful, if not essential IMO. I do alot of Z2 riding, yet my FTP has gone up, fitness has gone up, weight has come down. Admittedly I do alot of tempo as well, but if you are doing lots of hours you can't physically do it all at Z3 and above, or you are likely to become overtrained fairly quickly.

If you are short on hours < 10 a week, then obviously spend more time at Z3 and above, but I still feel you get big benefits from Z2 if you can do a decent length ride ie 4 hours upwards, and do them hard enough so they are no where near Z1.

I would always advocate a mixture of intensities to get better, but also like to debunk the myth that riding mainly at Z2 will make you a slow rider, it doesn't well not for me anyhow.

shockedsoshocked

SBezza wrote:

Riding in Z2 doesn't just limit you to riding at that speed though as has been claimed, it is a foundation building exercise, and if you want to do well putting in harder efforts later on, it is pretty useful, if not essential IMO. I do alot of Z2 riding, yet my FTP has gone up, fitness has gone up, weight has come down. Admittedly I do alot of tempo as well, but if you are doing lots of hours you can't physically do it all at Z3 and above, or you are likely to become overtrained fairly quickly.

Sounds about right. I've always understood that (certain) adaptations take place even at low intensities if the volume is enough.

CakeLovinBeast

What I have been doing, rightly or wrongly, is to tackle my lower-intensity training on the turbo at horrible-o'clock in the morning. It provides a decent wake up and as time goes on, then I can look to include some tempo efforts, or introduce some cadence speedwork, or whatever, for variation. Based on that (3 - 5 hours per week usually), I can head out into the real world at the weekends without worrying so much about how much over a particular zone I'm working. Having discussed it here, it's just nice to be able to justify what I've been trying without any real knowledge, by listening to the people who are more knowledgeable.

SBezza

How long is the low intensity of the turbo, if it is less than 4 hours, up the intensity, 3 hours on the turbo should be OK at a lowish intensity, but I just don't see the point in doing 1 hour of low intensity. Save the low intensity rides for the longer duration rides outside, and the shorter turbo rides for the intensity.

CakeLovinBeast

I can't do more than an hour on the turbo, regardless of the workout/intensity. Every little ache is intensified and my brain turns to porridge. I'm getting a bike fit later in the month which should help with the aches... The boredom I'm working on...

My current schedule is that Monday is a "recovery" day with a full hour in Z2/Z3 (I use six zones for training). After warming up, I spend the time slowly moving from the bottom of Z2, to the middle of Z3 and then back again.

Tuesday I try to incorporate speedwork: 5 minutes low intensity, 1 minute high cadence (with an emphasis on speed rather than effort), rinse & repeat.

Wednesday is an effort session, so no "proper" low intensity at all. Typically either a 2x20 or 5x4.

Thursday is the same as Tuesday, but emphasis on power rather than speed: 5 minutes easy pedalling, 30 secs overgeared, all-out pedalling effort.

Friday is normally a rest day, though is interchangeable (depending on my schedule) with Monday.

Saturday & Sunday is when I try and get the bike into the outside world and largely ignore my HR and ride for time/distance/enjoyment. I suppose that my issue is that I find it much more difficult to maintain a lower intensity when I'm out in the real world - hills and the like get in the way. Obviously that will improve as my fitness comes along, but it's one of the things that I have the most difficulty with right now.