Endurance - time crunched?

GarryM

Interested to hear the Forum's views on this. I've read a few books on training as well as on-line articles and threads on here. I've also read Chris Carmichael's 'Time Crunched Cyclist' where he takes the view that adaptation for endurance takes place whether you are riding steadily or whether you are doing the intense intervals he suggests in his book. So, if you don't have much time, train as hard as you can and gain endurance adaptations at the same time as building power, strength and lactate tolerance.

Just read this month's Cycling Plus which, in one of the training plans, stresses that on the longer rides that the rider must avoid allowing the heart rate to exceed zone 2 or 3 as that would stop (endurance) adaptation due to "other energy pathways coming into use" (or some phrase like that - I haven't got the article to hand.) They're talking about medical/physiological science here but there's not much 'proof' to support either view.

So who's right? (sorry if this has been covered before - I expect it has but my poor efforts at searching didn't find anything!)

napoleond

I'm sure it's not an issue if the odd time your HR goes up a bit higher than 'zone 3' when going up hill.

I am very 'time crunched' and do intervals. Works for me.

cyco2

I couldn't train for endurance because I didn't have time. No longer than 90mins was my limit but less than an hour at high intensity. I did do the odd long ride for the fun of it and lots of RR and TT. However, when I went on a long tour I rode on the readings of a HR monitor. It was to make sure I didn't go over 75% of MHR. This was on the hills as well. So, with a saddlebag I was climbing very,very slowly on the hills. This did help my endurance riding because I was not so tired at the end of the day. When riding for endurance I guess the energy the writer is inferring to is fat but this could be risky. So, you would need to take an energy supplement or drink to top it up, a cake stop maybe. Why didn't the writer state what energy system they meant ?
So, even if you ride at higher intensities for much of your time the writers are saying to slow down when on endurance rides because you're likely to bonk. Common-sense init !!

SBezza

You can do all intensities and still build up endurance. I have never managed to go up any decent hill, and not gone out of my endurance zone, the only way I could do it would be to get off and walk.

The only thing I would say is that if you were going on a 5/6 hour bike ride, you would spend most of the time in the endurance zone, as you just wouldn't generally be able to do this length of ride at a much higher intensity. I would say the aim of endurance rides are to try and keep within the zone, and try and ensure the average HR for the ride is within the zone. Don't worry about going outside of it on hills.

Now if you are time crunched, less than 6 hours in my book, then you will not have the spare time to do Z2 rides. I would stick to higher intensities. Z2 rides in my book should be at least 3 to 4 hours to get any real benefit from them.

GarryM

When referring to 'endurance' the writers are referring to adaptations the body undergoes during endurance training over an extended period of time (weeks, months, even years) not individual 'long/endurance' rides. Adaptation will involve increased mitochondrial density and increased capillary density/blood supply, both of which, I would think, will take quite some time to achieve.

I think it's interesting that the typical advice (and something I've believed for years) is to do long steady rides to build endurance. I know high intensity training is effective for me as I've done that too (to some degree) but even Carmichael says it is a substitute for doing it 'properly' which is only possible if you have a lot of time to train (is that more than 8hrs a week or is it 20+hrs a week?)

I have about 8 - 15 hours a week which seems to fit most programs you see published in magazines. Almost without exception they recommend long steady rides to build endurance and it was Cycling Plus this month that made me think about it again as it says you 'must' stay in the zone or the endurance adaptations will not take place (or at least not as effectively.)

SBezza - your post appeared as I was typing (I'm a bit slow!) - I agree with what you say in that long rides will necessarily be at a lower intensity than short ones. That said, I wonder if you would get a better result in terms of adaptation if you religiously kept to zone 2/3? Carmichael says 'no' others say 'yes'!

I know it's not a big deal either way - I'm not hung up on whether my HR goes over a specific zone. It just interests me that experts state these opposing things with such conviction. Also, I suppose, if I was confident one way was 'correct' I might make more of an effort to train in that way.

Eyorerox

Why not go for a decent ride say 4-5 hrs and just attack the hills and ride comfortably on the flats, thats sort of interval training is it not?

ut_och_cykla

My take is that if you're a regular, pretty much all year kind of rider you probably have a pretty good endurance base already - and topping that off with harder shorter sessions will be fine - as long as you are prepared (food & pace wise) for longer steadier efforts later. If you're new to cycling /regular exercise a period of progressively longer steadier rides will allow all kinds of adaptations to take place and would be wise before upping the intensity of efforts. I spent all last winter doing slower longer rides ( on a coaches advice!) and detrained quite noticeably - the fitter you are the harder you have to work to keep it and the suggested average pulse was too low for me.

inseine

I am very 'time crunched' and do intervals. Works for me.

'Cept you're always saying your endurance is crap!

napoleond

It is, but it works for what I do (short time trials / short road races). I'm limited to those events by my limited training time. However I am sure I could manage a 100 mile sportive as a result of those intervals.
Partly why my endurance is crap is bad asthma

GarryM

ut_och_cykla wrote:

... I spent all last winter doing slower longer rides ( on a coaches advice!) and detrained quite noticeably ...

I think I've experienced a similar thing but how did you determine the 'detraining'? Could it have been a gain in endurance but at the expense of power/strength/lactate tolerance? Then when you add back in the more intense exercise you make a greater gain, i.e. one step back, two steps forward?
Having said that, I think you're right (your training HR was just too low) which is why more programs these days suggest long rides at steady zone 2 or 3 rather than 1 or 2. Riding at really low HR has never made sense to me but then so many experts have recommended it over the years.

inseine

I spent all last winter doing slower longer rides ( on a coaches advice!) and detrained quite noticeably

This is interesting. There are tons of posts which state 'I did that and I'm this good' but not many about people who changed their training and gone noticably quicker/slower except those who've just started doing more which will inevitatbly bring changes. Alos there seems to be a lot in the press about 'going slower to go quicker'.
As a matter of interest did you back up your longer rides with more or less intense work compared to before?
Thanks

Pseudonym

ut_och_cykla wrote:

I spent all last winter doing slower longer rides ( on a coaches advice!) and detrained quite noticeably

Long steady rides in isolation are not going to make you faster - not sure what you were expecting to happen? They are designed to give you an endurance base upon which you can add higher intensity sessions. If all you do is LSD (without any higher intensity stuff on top) then that is all you will be capable of.

colinsmith123

To the OP, after 9 months of riding pretty much without structure, I did the Time Crunched Cyclist Programme for the last 10 weeks of 2011 and to be honest found it hard going towards the end. Diagnosis, not as aerobically fit as I thought.

So with tacit approval of the boss, I'm currently following an eight week high volume low intensity schedule as part of a 9 month training programme.
My single line progress report would be: 'I'm able to maintain my original endurance pace at a lower heart rate for longer.'

My schedule changes slightly this week to include some harder efforts and riding a mix of tempo, endurance and recovery pace.

ut_och_cykla

Pseudonym wrote:

ut_och_cykla wrote:

I spent all last winter doing slower longer rides ( on a coaches advice!) and detrained quite noticeably

Long steady rides in isolation are not going to make you faster - not sure what you were expecting to happen? They are designed to give you an endurance base upon which you can add higher intensity sessions. If all you do is LSD (without any higher intensity stuff on top) then that is all you will be capable of.

What I paid for was a hope for slightly more speed and better climbing for Quebrantaheusos ride (200kms , 3000m climbing). The (for me) expected higher intensity stuff never really happened. Bad weather (in Sweden) meant a lot of pootling on the turbo too. The too low pulse/ too easy efforts were pointed out but dismissed - 'speed will come' but it didn't.
And even the higher effort stuff I was scheduled was not challenging enough for me/my level of fitness. In the run up to my target ride I was slower on rides generally and the challenge itself was the most miserable psychologically grim thing I have ever done. With time cut off points all round I just limped in after 11 1/4 hours - just 15 mins rest (toilet & food fillups) and only 45 mins left :shock: ( I have since confirmed my upper threshold pulse is over 90% - not closer to 80 as coach imagined!!

Pseudonym

ut_och_cykla wrote:

I have since confirmed my upper threshold pulse is over 90% - not closer to 80 as coach imagined!!

ok - but you shouldn't be 'imagining' this kind of stuff. You should have been tested and the numbers verified before the plan was worked out...

mikey_748

NapoleonD wrote:

It is, but it works for what I do (short time trials / short road races). I'm limited to those events by my limited training time. However I am sure I could manage a 100 mile sportive as a result of those intervals.
Partly why my endurance is crap is bad asthma

My asthma's never got to the stage I'd describe it as bad unless I caught without an inhaler and then I'm stuffed. Has improved greatly recently with a regular steroid spray that would get me banned by the UCI but biggest improvements have been had from using one of these twice a day.

http://www.powerbreathe.com/powerbreathe-products.html

Worth a look for those who don't have asthma as well

Apologies if this annoys - I hate the well meaning "have you tried this....." comments about some of my other ailments that can't be fixed and I just need to live with.

GarryM

Thanks for all the replies. Very interesting that the long slow distance and time crunched programs have been followed by people here and neither has produced ideal results.

I guess we all know that a successful training program includes both long distance rides and shorter rides/intervals and whilst you can do short rides at high intensity, you obviously can't expect to do really long rides at high intensity. It seems to me that some writers make an extra leap though and state that you 'must' do long rides at low intensity or endurance adaptations will not take place. Or, that you don't need long rides to build endurance. I'm inclined to believe that 'ride slower to go faster' and other similar phrases are a load of twaddle.

Pseudonym

GarryM wrote:

Thanks for all the replies. Very interesting that the long slow distance and time crunched programs have been followed by people here and neither has produced ideal results.

Hang on, that's not what has been said at all. If all you do is long slow distance, then that is all you will be good at. It's ridiculous to expect any speed improvement without adding in some high intensity sessions as well - but that is not the same as saying that LSD rides are no use, because they are...

GarryM

I didn't say - "LSD rides are no use" - I said following one specific approach such as LSD didn't produce an ideal result for someone here. I'm saying that a balanced approach is the right way despite what some experts tell us. You must have seen "ride slower to go faster"?
I also find it interesting that Joe Friel (who I rate highly) suggests that if you are a novice you should ride LSD for 3 years before you add in high intensity stuff. I suppose it depends just how much of a novice you are but Carmichael, on the other hand (who I also rate highly), suggests a novice should get straight into HI intervals after only a few weeks familiarization.

RoadMeridaBen

I was doing 3-4 hours a week last year and did the majority of my riding at about 75-85% HR and managed a 21 min 10 and a 53 min 25 (25/3 so cant really count that lol) been doing 8-10 hours a week since november so we'l see if theres any improvement!

spokegeezer

GarryM wrote:

Thanks for all the replies. Very interesting that the long slow distance and time crunched programs have been followed by people here and neither has produced ideal results.

I guess we all know that a successful training program includes both long distance rides and shorter rides/intervals and whilst you can do short rides at high intensity, you obviously can't expect to do really long rides at high intensity. It seems to me that some writers make an extra leap though and state that you 'must' do long rides at low intensity or endurance adaptations will not take place. Or, that you don't need long rides to build endurance. I'm inclined to believe that 'ride slower to go faster' and other similar phrases are a load of twaddle.

^^^ you can say that again ^^^

sagalout

If you follow any of the pros on Strava, eg Dean Downing or the likes of Team Sky on their blogs, they do lots and lots of low intensity rides. Seems to work for them, but obviously they have the time.

In previous years ive just done sufferfest sessions, which have brought me to a decent level of fitness quickly but then plateuad. I've been using a coach since the start of the year and have been doing a lot of z1 and 2 on the turbo, plus a bit of z3. I use a power meter and it's interesting comparing time in zone with a road ride. I can go out on a 3 hr road ride and only have 45 mins in the correct zone, usually about the same in recovery zone and the rest spread across the range (I live in a hilly area). If I spend 90 mins on the turbo about 85 of them are bang in the zone I'm supposed to be training at.

It's early days, and the intensity is starting to increase now, but I'm feeling really strong on the bike at the moment. My only aim for this year is TTs do everything is aimed towards those.....I'll see in a few months what the effects are.

ut_och_cykla

Pseudonym wrote:

ut_och_cykla wrote:

I have since confirmed my upper threshold pulse is over 90% - not closer to 80 as coach imagined!!

ok - but you shouldn't be 'imagining' this kind of stuff. You should have been tested and the numbers verified before the plan was worked out...

I was fully tested (but by another instance) and reported the figures to the new one. I wanted to try something new and was happy to ride more gently to start with - but it never ramped up sufficiently and there was far too much L slow D . The coach was on personal recomendation too - but it didn't work out for me at all.

KnowAllKnowNowt

Seems to me that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.
I think that a coach is the best route but one who keeps up to date, rather than books and theories from people who for whatever reason have failed.
For a long distance event you need to ride long distances as a minimum I would have thought??!!
Speed is the least of my worries if I can't get to the end because I'm too fat or unfit to get there.
That's why I recently got a coach.... and yes, I am fat and slow. But sure I will reach my target as I will ride in any weather, anytime just to make sure that I get value for my money spent on the trip, and the coach - well I have to believe in him and after two months it seems to be working

spokegeezer

Once had a coach (a good one apparently) - all it did for me was make me dislike training and reduce my bank balance. Total waste of money at our level I reckon.

Pseudonym

spokegeezer wrote:

Once had a coach (a good one apparently) - all it did for me was make me dislike training

how did the coach make you 'dislike' training..?

SBezza

GarryM wrote:

I have about 8 - 15 hours a week which seems to fit most programs you see published in magazines. Almost without exception they recommend long steady rides to build endurance and it was Cycling Plus this month that made me think about it again as it says you 'must' stay in the zone or the endurance adaptations will not take place (or at least not as effectively.)

Try doing 15 hours at Z3 and above, you will get extremely tired and likely overtrained. If you have 15 hours you are certainly NOT time crunched, and I would suggest you could benefit from a more traditional periodisation approach, though thats not to say spend 15 hours at Z2 efforts. If you were very unfit, then spending more time in Z2 is likely to be helpful in getting you fit enough to do high intensities session of good quality.

GarryM wrote:

SBezza - your post appeared as I was typing (I'm a bit slow!) - I agree with what you say in that long rides will necessarily be at a lower intensity than short ones. That said, I wonder if you would get a better result in terms of adaptation if you religiously kept to zone 2/3? Carmichael says 'no' others say 'yes'!

I know it's not a big deal either way - I'm not hung up on whether my HR goes over a specific zone. It just interests me that experts state these opposing things with such conviction. Also, I suppose, if I was confident one way was 'correct' I might make more of an effort to train in that way.

I relie on my coach to guide me the best way to train based on my season goals and the races I take part in. I do an all round approach to training, and don't really stick to one type of training. I think some of the information in the magazine is just old stuff rehashed time over time, and it certainly is not written by experts IMO. I don't train via HR either, and I know the limitations of it, so take some of the things mentioned in books with a pinch of salt.

The only way to get the best perscription for yourself and your own goals, not just some generic ones, you need a experienced coach to guide you IMO, especially if you want to get the best out of yourself. Don't forget alot of the plans in the magazine are targetted at more leisure cyclists than racing cyclists.

Gains from endurance work also take along time, and we are talking years here, you can't just write it off after a few months, and as mentioned before these are not the be all and end all of training, you need the higher intensities work, but without a solid endurance base, you may find performance and progression very erratic to say the least, and may struggle to keep at a decent level for a whole racing season.

SBezza

spokegeezer wrote:

Once had a coach (a good one apparently) - all it did for me was make me dislike training and reduce my bank balance. Total waste of money at our level I reckon.

There is a huge range of levels on this forum, you can't state that and be taken seriously IMO. Training is hard end of, if you enjoy training the whole time, you are not training hard enough . It is very very unpleasent sometimes.

chipperleenie

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm sure it's not an issue if the odd time your HR goes up a bit higher than 'zone 3' when going up hill.

I am very 'time crunched' and do intervals. Works for me.

Over 12700 posts on here - you can't be that time crunched?

napoleond

I have all the time in the world stuck at home with the kids. Unfortunately that doesn't translate to training time

Not forgetting the 7 months immobile due to broken leg/back/shoulder

It averaes out at about 8 posts a day (joined in 2007, got banned for a few months last year)