Help me understand Zones - what the %'s of Max HR are

Tom Dean

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Targeting specific intensity may be more important at higher levels, but that doesn't mean it has no value at lower levels.

'No' is a pretty absolute term. How about:

"Targeting specific intensities is much more important at higher levels than it is at lower levels."

Use the word 'much' if you like,. It makes no difference.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

I don't argue that adaptation will occur. I'm interested in how best to achieve this, I don't know why you are not.

Perhaps this hinges on what you mean by 'best'. As the study I cited shows, even specific capacities, such as the ability to utilise blood lactate at high levels of intensity, can be equally developed with very different approaches to training, so there is no single 'best' way to promote adaptation. I would accept that if you were limited by some other external constraint, say having a limited amount of time available, then not all methods would be equal, as with limited time the advantage would naturally favour intensity.

I didn't originally read what you quoted from a study as I didn't want to get bogged down in the detail of the physiology, which neither of us understand. I have had a look (thanks for not bothering to link). The study found similar adaptations in runners (...) training at threshold, and doing over/unders. Here is the point: the 'over' and 'under' portions of the latter are performed AT SPECIFIC EFFORT LEVELS. Nothing in this supports your rather vague approach. I am not arguing for one training method over another.

Max Bridges

Not sure if Coggan has updated this since 2001 but if you want to understand training levels this is probably as good as anything.


http://freewebs.com/velodynamics2/traininglevels.pdf


A final caveat: defining various training ‘levels’ is only the first step in developing a training plan; what matters
as well is the distribution of training time or effort devoted to each level. Discussion of such follows shortly, but
two points I wish to emphasize are: 1) I believe that training should be highly individualized, to account for each
athlete’s unique abilities, goals, and state of development (e.g., age, training background), and 2) compared to
some, I tend to place more value in training at Levels 2, 3, and 4 – indeed, what many consider to be ‘junk
training.’ In that regard, my philosophy apparently parallels that of Peter Keen, or at least how his ideas are
reflected in British Cycling Federation training guidelines.

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

I have had a look (thanks for not bothering to link).

If it is references you want I took this study from 'Things your mother forgot to tell you about blood lactate' by O. Anderson. Peak performance.100, Feb 1998, p. 1-6.

I can't see the review article I have on line but the same author also referred to the study in this shorter article:

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/how-increasing-your-lactate-threshold-will-improve-your-fitness-and-performance-678

For an abstract of the original article see:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00868134

Tom Dean wrote:

The study found similar adaptations in runners (...) training at threshold, and doing over/unders. Here is the point: the 'over' and 'under' portions of the latter are performed AT SPECIFIC EFFORT LEVELS. Nothing in this supports your rather vague approach.

Au contraire. True, the study looked at the training effect of 'specific effort levels', but the conclusion was that, in terms of outcome, IT DIDN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT EFFORT LEVEL WAS CHOSEN. At least, this was the case when '10 mile pace' and '7.5 minute interval' efforts were being compared and the duration of the effort was adjusted to match the intensity.

I would suggest that the same holds true for training in general. Want to enhance your ability to utilise blood lactate? Then simply ride hard! You could do a 40 minute constant effort, or a couple of 15 minute intervals at a faster pace, or 3 x 7 minute intervals at a faster pace still, or climb every hill at threshold or whatever. As long as you put all you have into the chosen time interval, the end result will be much the same.

Same with building 'aerobic base'. If you have a few hours to spare and that is what you want to do, ride at 'endurance pace' for 3 hours. Alternatively do a shorter but faster 'tempo' ride', or include some extended 'sweet spot' efforts as part of a yet shorter ride. As long as you match duration to intensity, the end result will be pretty much the same.

Tom Dean wrote:

I am not arguing for one training method over another.

So what is your idea of 'training better'?

Tom Dean

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

I have had a look (thanks for not bothering to link).

If it is references you want I took this study from 'Things your mother forgot to tell you about blood lactate' by O. Anderson. Peak performance.100, Feb 1998, p. 1-6.

I can't see the review article I have on line but the same author also referred to the study in this shorter article:

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/how-increasing-your-lactate-threshold-will-improve-your-fitness-and-performance-678

For an abstract of the original article see:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00868134

Tom Dean wrote:

The study found similar adaptations in runners (...) training at threshold, and doing over/unders. Here is the point: the 'over' and 'under' portions of the latter are performed AT SPECIFIC EFFORT LEVELS. Nothing in this supports your rather vague approach.

Au contraire. True, the study looked at the training effect of 'specific effort levels', but the conclusion was that, in terms of outcome, IT DIDN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT EFFORT LEVEL WAS CHOSEN. At least, this was the case when '10 mile pace' and '7.5 minute interval' efforts were being compared and the duration of the effort was adjusted to match the intensity.

The summary mentions nothing about adjusting duration to match intensity. Nowhere does it say that a longer, easier effort is equivalent to a shorter, harder one.

The study compares steady-state and non steady-state training at specific intensities. The finding that the two produced similar results does not imply what you conclude in caps above. Have another read.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I would suggest that the same holds true for training in general. Want to enhance your ability to utilise blood lactate? Then simply ride hard! You could do a 40 minute constant effort, or a couple of 15 minute intervals at a faster pace, or 3 x 7 minute intervals at a faster pace still, or climb every hill at threshold or whatever. As long as you put all you have into the chosen time interval, the end result will be much the same.

Are you really saying the results of doing 40 min and 7 min intervals are the same?

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

I am not arguing for one training method over another.

So what is your idea of 'training better'?

Training as close to optimally as I can within the constraints I am under.

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

The summary mentions nothing about adjusting duration to match intensity. Nowhere does it say that a longer, easier effort is equivalent to a shorter, harder one.

Follow the link I gave. The 'interval' group did a total of half the time doing 'quality' work as the '30 minute' group, with almost identical results.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

So what is your idea of 'training better'?

Tom Dean wrote:

Training as close to optimally as I can within the constraints I am under.

And you accuse me of being 'vague'! Come on, lets see hear some details of what you do and why.

Tom Dean

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Au contraire. True, the study looked at the training effect of 'specific effort levels', but the conclusion was that, in terms of outcome, IT DIDN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT EFFORT LEVEL WAS CHOSEN.

Another point to bear in mind when comparing steady-state and non steady-state: although when the mean output is the same, the adaptation is similar as the study suggests; the non steady-state effort is harder. So you are creating more stress for the same benefit.

Tom Dean

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

The summary mentions nothing about adjusting duration to match intensity. Nowhere does it say that a longer, easier effort is equivalent to a shorter, harder one.

Follow the link I gave. The 'interval' group did a total of half the time doing 'quality' work as the '30 minute' group, with almost identical results.

haha so now only the higher level work is 'quality'? The 30 minute group were at threshold. The 7.5 min group's mean output was the same, so this wasn't 7.5 on/7.5 off. If you try to translate this to cycling (stupid I know...) what would this look like? - with the 30 min group at threshold, the 7.5 min group could do maybe 90-95%/105-110% to achieve the same mean output. Harder than the 30 min constant power and not an on/off interval session. So you are right that the same gains can be achieved through a variable output compared to a steady output - it's just that you have to work harder for them.

I can only assume you post this stuff assuming no-one will bother to dig down into it and show how it doesn't say what you say it does.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

So what is your idea of 'training better'?

Tom Dean wrote:

Training as close to optimally as I can within the constraints I am under.

And you accuse me of being 'vague'! Come on, lets see hear some details of what you do and why.

You actually want to hear details of my training! Sorry to ignore you before I thought you were wilfully misreading my comment. Since the details are of no use to anyone, i'll have to be vague again: I try to make the best use of my time and effort.

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

haha so now only the higher level work is 'quality'? The 30 minute group were at threshold. The 7.5 min group's mean output was the same, so this wasn't 7.5 on/7.5 off. blah blah blah

Look, you are clearly just being argumentative for the sake of it and don't appear to have actually read the articles I linked to. For one I never said that running at '10 mile pace' did not constitute a 'quality' effort. In fact, the implication of what I said was that the '10 mile pace' group spent twice as much time doing 'quality' as the interval group. Read my sentence again (nice and slowly...)

The 'interval' group did a total of half the time doing 'quality' work as the '30 minute' group.

Oh, and the intervals clearly were done as an 'on and off' session.

a group (NSS) which divided the 30 min of training into 7.5-min blocks at intensities which alternated between being below the Th... and above

Tom Dean wrote:

You actually want to hear details of my training! Sorry to ignore you before I thought you were wilfully misreading my comment. Since the details are of no use to anyone, i'll have to be vague again: I try to make the best use of my time and effort.

Forget 'the details', just outline the basic principles you follow and the evidence that supports the approach you have adopted.

I will end my comments on this there, being happy to let anyone make up their own minds about who is talking the most sense here, preferably after reading the sources I referred to.

Tom Dean

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

haha so now only the higher level work is 'quality'? The 30 minute group were at threshold. The 7.5 min group's mean output was the same, so this wasn't 7.5 on/7.5 off. blah blah blah

Look, you are clearly just being argumentative for the sake of it and don't appear to have actually read the articles I linked to. For one I never said that running at '10 mile pace' did not constitute a 'quality' effort. In fact, the implication of what I said was that the '10 mile pace' group spent twice as much time doing 'quality' as the interval group. Read my sentence again (nice and slowly...)

I am being argumentative because you chipped in with your pet theory which isn't relevant to the original question and does not make any sense. The OP seemed grateful though to be fair. Weird.

The abstract of the study you quote mentions nothing about '10 mile pace'. lets add that to the list of things you have wrongly claimed it says?

BenderRodriguez wrote:

The 'interval' group did a total of half the time doing 'quality' work as the '30 minute' group.

Oh, and the intervals clearly were done as an 'on and off' session.

a group (NSS) which divided the 30 min of training into 7.5-min blocks at intensities which alternated between being below the Th... and above

Wrong. 'below the Th...' is not the same as 'rest' is it? A 30 minute session of equal on/off intervals where the mean output is equal to threshold is not physically possible.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

You actually want to hear details of my training! Sorry to ignore you before I thought you were wilfully misreading my comment. Since the details are of no use to anyone, i'll have to be vague again: I try to make the best use of my time and effort.

Forget 'the details', just outline the basic principles you follow and the evidence that supports the approach you have adopted.

I will end my comments on this there, being happy to let anyone make up their own minds about who is talking the most sense here, preferably after reading the sources I referred to.

Good, yes lets.

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

The abstract of the study you quote mentions nothing about '10 mile pace'... 'below the Th...' is not the same as 'rest' is it?

one group of athletes trained exactly at LT, a very popular way to attempt to heighten LT, for 30 minutes per workout... actual LT intensity is more like 15-K to 10-mile race pace.

In the second group, the 'below-LT' intensity (which was used for two of the four 7.5-minute intervals) corresponded to an intensity of about 60 to 73 per cent of VO2max, a very, very moderate intensity... which is unlikely to have much impact on LT.

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/how-inc ... rmance-678

No comment. :roll:

Tom Dean

Ok they ran at 10-mile pace. I apologise for my tone. It doesn't actually make any difference though.

- I would argue that easy running is still a significant effort level, this doesn't actually make any difference to my main point either.

- By what measure was the mean intensity the same for the two groups?