Cyclocross during base training

milese

I'm writing myself a training plan from Jo Friels 'The Cyclists Training Bible', and there are some CX races I want to ride during base 1 and 2.

Obviously these zones are meant to be low intensity, but he does mention using cx as a form of cross training. Is there any harm in having an anaerobic hour within these base periods? We are talking about 5 races that end at the start of December.

The other challenge will be completing the weekly hours whilst racing for only an hour on the Sunday, as it limits the time I should ride on the Saturday too in prep. I can work around that, but when doing a cx race should I adjust the total weekly hours down to account for the additional workload (and fatigue) that an hour of cx brings compared to an hour of easy z2?

Thanks.

ric/rstsport

Joe's ideas that base training should be low intensity is founded on an incorrect notion that isn't proven in science. That is, some people used to (still do?) believe that high intensity training would damage aerobic ability because it would literally damage aerobic machinery within the muscles (e.g. destroying capillaries). This, however, is not the case. In fact, the opposite is true, that high intensity training around FTP and MAP/VO2max creates the biggest growth in capillaries and mitochondria. So, for the vast majority of athletes doing some intensity year round is absolutely fine. In fact it's probably crucial to continued development.

On the other hand, as intense as cyclo X is, it's a predominantly aerobic sport, and has only a very small anaerobic contribution. Even something as gut bustingly difficult as the individual pursuit (which is 4 and quarter minutes long at elite levels) is predominantly aerobic (~75 - 80 % aerobic).

There are a few riders i coach who will do cross during the winter period. Or will race track. By and large without knowing specifics of you, it should be fine to do.

Presuming that these races are mainly low priority events (i.e., not your main targets which presumably occur within the March to September period) then i wouldn't bother reducing the hours around them (or perhaps only marginally). So, you could do an hour to 90-mins before a cross doing some steady riding and the same after the cross race. and just ride normally on the saturday (maybe slightly less intense than usual; or slightly shorter).

Ric

BenderRodriguez

I would say that Ric is pretty much right in what he says.

One thing that I would say is that some very good riders I have have raced with didn't do very much high-intensity training when 'base building' not because of some supposed deleterious effect of going harder, but because they felt doing so left them mentally much fresher and ready to give it some real stick when the time came to do a cycle of higher intensity training.

It might be useful to think about whether any high level stuff you do is intended to enhance your 'top end' or just maintain it. I would agree that some high level work all year round is desirable, but if you are in a 'maintenance' or base building phase very relatively little high-quality is needed to maintain gains you have already made, and doing this is unlikely to demand that you reduce the amount of base work you do much, if at all. In comparison, if you are looking to increase your top end, you will need to do significantly more quality work and will have to cut the 'base' mileage in compensation if you are not to end up wasted.

In short, I feel that the old principle of adopting a cyclical training plan is still a good idea, there is just no need to approach things in a very black and white way, instead just manipulate the balance between the different levels of intensity.

Returning to the old 'mental freshness' thing, I guess that some riders are able to bash away all year doing high-intensity training, and they may have little choice than to do this if their training time is limited. However, for many people a more cyclical approach is best. That said, the old saying 'A change is as good as a rest' also makes a lot of sense, and I feel that it is quite possible to do something that involves making high-intensity efforts, such a cyclo-cross or riding on an indoor track, without this leading to psychological staleness or a reluctance to hammer your self six months down the road, largely because they are both fun and 'different' to what you normally do.

milese

Thanks for the replies.

So the only disadvantage to base training from riding at a higher intensity is that its time that I'm not spending building base fitness?

ric/rstsport

Milese wrote:

Thanks for the replies.

So the only disadvantage to base training from riding at a higher intensity is that its time that I'm not spending building base fitness?

???

milese

I'll try and be clearer....

My understanding is that during the base period you are working on building your aerobic fitness, which is achieved by riding long and steady at Z2. We've discussed that adding some intensity to this period isn't damaging, and infact could be benefical so long as I dont cut my overall hours.

My point was that if I'm riding for 10 hours strictly to Joe's plan then I'm probably going to do 10 hours in Z2. If I now do an hours CX then I'll be riding 9 hours in Z2, and 1 hour in Z5 (or 10 hours in Z2 and 1 hour in Z5), but either way, the opportunity cost to my base training, of spending an hour in Z5 is that its an hour I'm not spending in Z2.

Is your view of base training that its better to do more than the odd hour a week with some intensity during base? Or is an hour of CX (or CX type training on non race weeks) what your recommend?

Does it matter if one of my Z2 rides becomes a Z3 ride, or has some large Z3 (or Z4) sections in it?

If I have to ride on the turbo to do the hours, should I do a steady Z2 ride, or would a more interesting interval session (Sufferfest) be more benifical?

Sorry, following a plan is new to me. Advice is much appreciated.

ric/rstsport

Me to (!). I'll try to be clearer.

It is an old, and outdated idea that to build aerobic fitness you must ride at low intensity. The (incorrect) reasons, given for riding at low intensity are

1) to build capillaries
2) to build mitochondria
3) to prevent existing capillaries being damaged (by high intensity work). which are supposed to 'burst' the capillaries

points 1 and 2 are correct - that is, low/moderate intensity *does* build capillaries and mitochondria. However, training at zone 4 to 5 (FTP to MAP) builds significantly more mitochondria and capillaries

3) is complete and utter *tosh*.

So, the point i am making is that winter training does not need to be low intensity/zone 2. There may be reasons for doing lots of zone 2 work, but you don't need to do it exclusively.

Finally, your aerobic fitness is measured by VO2max/MAP or FTP/lactate threshold which are increased by more intense work (primarily zone 4 to 5).

I wouldn't have people doing exclusively zone 2 work. I don't know what you should do, because other than you mentioning about cross racing i have no idea about you (when a new athlete starts with us, we have them fill out a 15 page questionnaire to get the initial understanding of what they're looking for and how they work).

Cheers
Ric

milese

Thanks Ric that is clear and I appreciate what you are saying about specific, personal advice.

Do you still build annual training plans based on periodisation around base, build, peak & race? As said, I'm new to this and am unsure as to whether there are any fundermentally different approaches.

ric/rstsport

i build a general plan for each rider i coach. these could be thought of as a coach note!

at RST Sport we don't call then base, build, etc. these are made up names that Joe has invented. And, we've made up our own names that reflect the coaching we do. However, you could call them whatever you like (e.g., period 1, 2, 3, etc). It's immaterial.

As regards the content of our training, based on what you've said, i would say that there are significant differences in the way that Joe and RST Sport would coach the same rider.

Ric

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

low/moderate intensity *does* build capillaries and mitochondria. However, training at zone 4 to 5 (FTP to MAP) builds significantly more mitochondria and capillaries

True enough, if you simply look at the size of the effect per minute spent training.

The other part of the equation is that high-intensity training is much more psychologically and physically stressful, may need a longer recovery phase and so on, so you can only sustain a relatively small volume of such training. Whether you go for a lower volume of higher intensity training, or a higher volume of lower intensity training, the outcome could be pretty similar.

For many riders higher volumes of lower intensity training is the method of choice outside the competition phase, not least because doing this also gives a break from the psychological stress of constantly going in to the red during the racing season. (The concept of 'sweet spot' training is yet another attempt at striking a balance between making training hard enough in order to get significant returns whilst not invoking chronic fatigue.)

Naturally, if you have limited time to train you won't get much of a training load if you go too slowly. Also, every rider is different with some enjoying spending extended sessions on the bike at lower volumes, even in the winter, and others preferring to spend a shorter period at a higher intensity, perhaps on a turbo.

This has already been discussed elsewhere on here and I made the suggestion that any training that is below the 'red line' can be considered to be 'base' training as long as duration is properly matched to intensity.

It has also been argued that relatively low intensity base training has other benefits not mentioned so far, such as enhancing the ability to utilise fat as a fuel. On the face of it this does seems to make sense, as at higher levels of intensity little energy is derived from fat, so why should such a level of effort specifically enhance one's ability to burn fat as a fuel? True enough, high level work will raise your threshold and so increase the time you can sustain a given level of intensity right across the board, but to me ignoring the 'fat burning' part of the equation is a mistake. That is, assuming the events you will be riding will be long enough to make being an efficient 'fat burner' important.

BenderRodriguez

Milese wrote:

Does it matter if one of my Z2 rides becomes a Z3 ride, or has some large Z3 (or Z4) sections in it?

I would suggest that as long as you do not go 'into the red', you are building aerobic base, so there is nothing wrong with riding up to your threshold on climbs and so forth, and in fact doing so would be positively beneficial. Just don't do so much at these relatively higher intensities that you can't complete the whole distance without blowing!

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

at RST Sport we don't call then base, build, etc. these are made up names that Joe has invented... we've made up our own names

And these are?

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

at RST Sport we don't call then base, build, etc. these are made up names that Joe has invented... we've made up our own names

And these are?

they're made-up - what does it matter what they are called? Maybe they are called 'pinky', 'perky' and 'daffy'....

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

at RST Sport we don't call then base, build, etc. these are made up names that Joe has invented... we've made up our own names

And these are?

they're made-up - what does it matter what they are called? Maybe they are called 'pinky', 'perky' and 'daffy'....

Because, presumably, the names chosen reflect the functional role(s) of each 'stage', and I wanted more insight into the 'RST approach to training', without being relieved of at least £450 first!

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Imposter wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

at RST Sport we don't call then base, build, etc. these are made up names that Joe has invented... we've made up our own names

And these are?

they're made-up - what does it matter what they are called? Maybe they are called 'pinky', 'perky' and 'daffy'....

Because, presumably, the names chosen reflect the functional role(s) of each 'stage', and I wanted more insight into the 'RST approach to training', without being relieved of at least £450 first!

Give it a rest Trev. Your constant sniping at Ric or Alex (or indeed anyone else with a progressive interest in improving cycling performance) is getting very dull.

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

Give it a rest Trev. Your constant sniping at Ric or Alex (or indeed anyone else with a progressive interest in improving cycling performance) is getting very dull.

One, I am not 'Trev'. :roll:

Secondly, it would say that it is people like Ric who do the 'sniping'; dismissing what others say as being 'nonsense' and so forth without bothering to give proper explanations as to why he disagrees, calling every other poster who questions what he says 'Trev' and all the rest. RS seems to post on here on primarily in order to try to drum up business, and yet the tone he adopts hardly exudes professionalism.

(With regards to promoting his services, the forum rules state that advertising is not allowed, and yet at the bottom of everyone of his posts is pretty much what I would call and advertisement for rstsport. Perhaps the rules don't apply on here if you are a mate of Jeff Jones.)

Plenty of posters have said that what I have posted accords with their experience, 'makes sense' and so forth, so unless Ric is some sort of 'Big Brother' figure who must not be questioned, I would say that my posts make as much of a contribution to the debate as anyone else's.

By that way, did you even read my very first response in this thread to what Ric said when he replied to the original poster?

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I would say that Ric is pretty much right in what he says.

So much for doing nothing but 'sniping' at Ric!

:roll: