[LMN]

A couple of little nuggest of information that I have picked up in conferences.


1. Threshold and MAP always have the same ratio between them. Training one, trains the other.
2. After 12 to 17 days of training a perticular way the gains from that training method level off.
3. Aerobic Capacity takes a truly stunning 18 months to develope.

 

[88 rex]

Thanks for the info!

What's MAP though?

 

[LMN]

MAP: maximum aerobic power. Generally the average power for a maximal 6 minute effort.

 

[noah19692000]

2. After 12 to 17 days of training a perticular way the gains from that training method level off.

Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean by this? In any one week period my training varies between intervals, tempos, and long rides/runs at differing paces and distances along with some x-training. But I do this for months at a time in a similar way...

 

[LMN]

2. After 12 to 17 days of training a perticular way the gains from that training method level off.

Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean by this? In any one week period my training varies between intervals, tempos, and long rides/runs at differing paces and distances along with some x-training. But I do this for months at a time in a similar way...

It sounds like you are changing your training constantly.

Many people break their training into blocks. For example they may do a threshold at block that consists of 2x20 minute @threshold two or three times a week for a three week block.

What this means is another three week block of the similar interval would result in minimal gains.

 

[Ausable]

A couple of little nuggest of information that I have picked up in conferences.
3. Aerobic Capacity takes a truly stunning 18 months to develope.

Very interesting, had no idea it took so long.
I guess that the decrease rate from inactivity is a little quicker... any figure?
Thanks!
fab

 

[Manicmtbr]

Thanks LMN. Keep 'em coming please!

 

[dkri]

LMN -
Thanks, these are valuable. I have a couple of questions if you don't mind.

1. How different do things need to be in order to achieve constant improvement? For example, if I switch from doing 2x20's @90-95% LT to doing 6x5's @110% LT (both of which I'd consider to be workouts focused on improving LT), would that be enough of a focus shift to beat that plateau?

2. Similar question, but if you do a block of LT training and then do a block of MAP training, is that a way to keep improving both without ever hitting that plateau?

3. Was there any discussion of the physiological cost of training MAP vs LT? For example, I generally feel pretty wiped after MAP workouts and can only do say 2 of those in a week versus doing 3 LT workouts in a week. Is there a cost/benefit of doing more LTs versus fewer MAPs?

Thanks

 

[toolbag]

Surely we all develop at a different pace and with different restraints on our ultimate level.

 

[LMN]

Surely we all develop at a different pace and with different restraints on our ultimate level.

Yes.

But you have lost me a bit on how this ties into the discussion.

 

[toolbag]

Yes.

But you have lost me a bit on how this ties into the discussion.

"2. After 12 to 17 days of training a perticular way the gains from that training method level off.
3. Aerobic Capacity takes a truly stunning 18 months to develope."

I suppose statements like the above seem a bit broad to me.

 

[LMN]

"2. After 12 to 17 days of training a perticular way the gains from that training method level off.
3. Aerobic Capacity takes a truly stunning 18 months to develope."

I suppose statements like the above seem a bit broad to me.

Maybe. Those are from a source which I shouldn't name in a public forum, but the source is one of top exercise physiologists in North America.

Really though there is lots of wiggle room in those statements.

The first one implies that the most rapid gains come in the first three weeks of training and after that the rate levels off. The rate of the gains the amount it levels off is going to vary from individual to individual and there will be cases where which are different. But as a generality it is valid.

The second one says the work you do now in developing your aerobic base does not pay dividends this season, it pays dividends next season.

 

[millennium]

3. Aerobic Capacity takes a truly stunning 18 months to develop. . . .
The second one says the work you do now in developing your aerobic base does not pay dividends this season, it pays dividends next season.

Aerobic Capacity--isn't that basically talking about MAP? In other words, could your Aerobic Capacity be measured by your MAP? I ask because you correlate aerobic base and aerobic capacity. It seems to me that aerobic base improves aerobic capacity, but aerobic base does not improve your aerobic capacity as effectively/quickly as 5-6 min intervals (i.e. specificity). Am I misreading?

 

[HSCoach2]

Aerobic Capacity--isn't that basically talking about MAP? In other words, could your Aerobic Capacity be measured by your MAP? I ask because you correlate aerobic base and aerobic capacity. It seems to me that aerobic base improves aerobic capacity, but aerobic base does not improve your aerobic capacity as effectively/quickly as 5-6 min intervals (i.e. specificity). Am I misreading?

It is confusing because of the way the word aerobic is used in many different terms. Add to that, it seems as though there are several sets of terminology, as well as older terms no longer in favour, and newer ones meaning essentially the same thing in a practical sense, but for different physiological reasons! Therefore, my understanding of these terms may be different from that of LMN's physiologist.

I take Aerobic Capacity to be very similar to MAP, which is in turn related to VO2 Max (but not exactly the same thing), meaning the power you can sustain for a brief time while working at your highest aerobic level. I don't know if that's how the physiologist that LMN is quoting is using it though.

Because aerobic refers to all levels of exercise from L1 to L5, and is still being used at its maximum above that, I believe that Aerobic Base is no different from Endurance Base or just Base. I think it's referring to that upon which you build all the rest of your training, and it does take years to develop.

Given that, I thikn your last statement is exactly right, with the caveat that the 5-6 minute intervals really won't help much without having a good Aerobic Base. They are what gets you ready to race with whatever base you have this year, but they can't take you beyond that.

 

[LMN]

You are right there are so many different terms out there to describe what you are training.

When I refer to aerobic capacity I am referring to the your aerobic threshold, which is much lower than FTP. Some would define this as the defection point on a Blood Lactate vs. Power curve.

MAP or Aerobic Power to me at least is different then Aerobic Capacity.

I am guessing to match our vocabularly
Aerobic Base = Aerobic Capacity.

 

[HSCoach2]

You are right there are so many different terms out there to describe what you are training.

When I refer to aerobic capacity I am referring to the your aerobic threshold, which is much lower than FTP. Some would define this as the defection point on a Blood Lactate vs. Power curve.

MAP or Aerobic Power to me at least is different then Aerobic Capacity.

I am guessing to match our vocabularly
Aerobic Base = Aerobic Capacity.

So you're thinking more along the lines of Lydiard did for runners, then? He like them to spend a lot of time near 80% MHR (iirc) or a "good aerobic pace" which I believe is a fair bit lower than FTP, but not unlike the Sweet Spot training many of us do (hard enough to benefit, easy enough to recover)

Or, what Physiologists would call LTHR (which even though its been common practice for years to equate it with one hour pace or FTP, is as you say, a fair bit lower)

Am I right in MAP being a bit higher, but closely related to VO2Max? I'm thinking that a MAP test would yield a result roughly ~130% of FTP, whereas VO2Max is usually considered to be around 115-120% of FTP.

 

[millennium]

You are right there are so many different terms out there to describe what you are training.

When I refer to aerobic capacity I am referring to the your aerobic threshold, which is much lower than FTP. Some would define this as the defection point on a Blood Lactate vs. Power curve.

MAP or Aerobic Power to me at least is different then Aerobic Capacity.

I am guessing to match our vocabularly
Aerobic Base = Aerobic Capacity.

LMN: Thank you for helping us get our terminology in snyc.

Now I'm curious about the physiologist speaker--what did HE mean by Aerobic Capacity? Did he discuss what he meant by that? I think if he meant aerobic base/fitness, then his statement has very different implications than if he meant maximum aerobic fitness (i.e. vo2 max or close to MAP).

I ask because I've always associated the term "Aerobic Capacity" with "Maximal Aerobic Capacity", but apparently, to an exercise physiologist, "Aerobic Capacity" is a more generic term without specific meaning--see the quote below from Andy Coggan a well-known cycling exercise physiologist (not sure if he was your speaker) from 2001 that I pulled from the google groups wattage forum.

Quote from Andy Coggan (google groups wattage forum):
""Aerobic capacity" is a bit more of a generic term...if you say
"MAXIMAL aerobic capacity", then to an exercise physiologist that is
synonymous with maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). Having a high VO2max is
very important, since it sets the upper limit of your rate of aerobic
energy production, but the fraction or percentage of your VO2max that
you can utilize for more than a couple of minutes at a time is
determined by your lactate threshold. W/o the modifier "maximal",
however, the writer/speaker could be referring to a number of different
physiological properties...inclunding, quite possibly, lactate
threshold!"

 

[HSCoach2]

LMN: Thank you for helping us get our terminology in snyc.

Now I'm curious about the physiologist speaker--what did HE mean by Aerobic Capacity? Did he discuss what he meant by that? I think if he meant aerobic base/fitness, then his statement has very different implications than if he meant maximum aerobic fitness (i.e. vo2 max or close to MAP).

I ask because I've always associated the term "Aerobic Capacity" with "Maximal Aerobic Capacity", but apparently, to an exercise physiologist, "Aerobic Capacity" is a more generic term without specific meaning--see the quote below from Andy Coggan a well-known cycling exercise physiologist (not sure if he was your speaker) from 2001 that I pulled from the google groups wattage forum.

Quote from Andy Coggan (google groups wattage forum):
""Aerobic capacity" is a bit more of a generic term...if you say
"MAXIMAL aerobic capacity", then to an exercise physiologist that is
synonymous with maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). Having a high VO2max is
very important, since it sets the upper limit of your rate of aerobic
energy production, but the fraction or percentage of your VO2max that
you can utilize for more than a couple of minutes at a time is
determined by your lactate threshold. W/o the modifier "maximal",
however, the writer/speaker could be referring to a number of different
physiological properties...inclunding, quite possibly, lactate
threshold!"

Exactly why I was confused. Once we get our terminolgy in sync, as you say, we can continue to access free coaching (or at least "nuggets") from LMN.

 

[millennium]

BTW -- Despite my questions about "aerobic capacity", I am most surprised by the first statement: "1. Threshold and MAP always have the same ratio between them. Training one, trains the other." It seems to me that your ANaerobic capacity will have a decent influence on your MAP number because MAP is something close to your best six minute power. To illustrate: What if I trained only doing 1 min or 2 min intervals with plenty of rest between them (i.e. focusing on increasing my anaerobic capacity)? Wouldn't that increase my MAP more than it would increase my threshold power? That said, I understand that training one will increase the other, but I don't understand how they always have the same ratio between them. Again, I'm probably misunderstanding the speaker's point--maybe it's a terminology issue.