Training adaptations

[[email protected]]

Hi All,

I am working on a training plan for this season. I'm not into
following a detailed plan, so I'm more working on a training guide.

I'm losing weight and before any of this year's events I'll be down to
about 92kg. That will put my VO2max at around 64 ml/kg/min which I
have no reason to think can be greatly improved upon and I have (for
current needs) more than enough sprint and short burst stomping power.
Even now, up short hills I cannot be dropped by anyone I race with.

The problems come of course when the effort is sustained. When over
threshold, I of course build up lactate and get dropped.

This suggests to me that what I need to improve my results is to grow
more capillaries, and more mitochondria to up my LT. So I should be
concentrating on long rides, and not worrying about tiny marginal
improvements from interval and other intense training which come at
the expense of more recovery time and thus less time spent building
better local muscular O2 delivery.

Does that make sense?

Joseph

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 11:23 am, "

> So I should be
> concentrating on long rides, and not worrying about tiny marginal
> improvements from interval and other intense training which come at
> the expense of more recovery time
>
> Does that make sense?

Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
threshold without incurring excessive recovery.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 9:29*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:23 am, "
>
> > So I should be
> > concentrating on long rides, and not worrying about tiny marginal
> > improvements from interval and other intense training which come at
> > the expense of more recovery time
>
> > Does that make sense?
>
> Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
> threshold without incurring excessive recovery.

In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will
necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops
capillaries and mitochondria.

In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15
hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours
with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can
count on having time for.

Joseph

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 12:37 pm, "
> > Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
> > threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
>
> In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will
> necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops
> capillaries and mitochondria.
>
> In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15
> hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours
> with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can
> count on having time for.
>
> Joseph

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspot.html

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:37 pm, "
>>> Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
>>> threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
>> In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will
>> necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops
>> capillaries and mitochondria.
>>
>> In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15
>> hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours
>> with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can
>> count on having time for.
>>
>> Joseph
>
> http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspot.html


If your training will allow capillary growth and mitochondrial growth,
and if you are still losing weight, why do you think your VO2 max won't
improve?

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Ted van de Weteringe]

wrote:
> I am working on a training plan for this season.

Step 1: get an unambitious part-time job.
Step 2: make the acquaintance of several good, but attractive, woman riders.
Step 3: no more time for alibis; motive and opportunity say you will now
ride for 2.5h/day, 6d/week. No max efforts, just 2 abreast (har) or them
in your wheel and you pacing yourself.
Step 4: three months into the program, it's late spring now, dump your
girlfriends but not your girlfriend (she'll be buying you new wheels
later on) and tack on to the fastest group you can find.
Step 5: do two training rides a week all through the summer. Don't get
dropped until you puke, then hold on for another mile. Don't try, do!
Use other days for recovery rides by yourself, 2 short (1.5-2h), 3 long
(3h). This time, you won't need slower riders to hold you back... Call
in sick at work once a week to get extra bed rest.
Step 6: from early autumn, enter two races a week, both on the weekend.
Each week, pick one beforehand that you will target, where you want to
win. The other one, finish. ALWAYS finish.
Step 7: when the road racing ends, with your new-found rhythm, survive
the winter on an mtb or cx bike. LiveDRUNK often but not regularly. Do
some spin classes to scout new talent for the spring rides.

Next January, email our offices for the second year program.

[Phil Holman]

> wrote in message
...
> Hi All,
>
> I am working on a training plan for this season. I'm not into
> following a detailed plan, so I'm more working on a training guide.
>
> I'm losing weight and before any of this year's events I'll be down to
> about 92kg. That will put my VO2max at around 64 ml/kg/min which I
> have no reason to think can be greatly improved upon and I have (for
> current needs) more than enough sprint and short burst stomping power.
> Even now, up short hills I cannot be dropped by anyone I race with.
>
> The problems come of course when the effort is sustained. When over
> threshold, I of course build up lactate and get dropped.
>
> This suggests to me that what I need to improve my results is to grow
> more capillaries, and more mitochondria to up my LT. So I should be
> concentrating on long rides, and not worrying about tiny marginal
> improvements from interval and other intense training which come at
> the expense of more recovery time and thus less time spent building
> better local muscular O2 delivery.
>
> Does that make sense?
>

Your biggest opportunity for improvement is to get you weight down below
180 lb.

Phil H

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Ted van de Weteringe > wrote:

> wrote:
> > I am working on a training plan for this season.
>
> Step 1: get an unambitious part-time job.
> Step 2: make the acquaintance of several good, but attractive, woman riders.
> Step 3: no more time for alibis; motive and opportunity say you will now
> ride for 2.5h/day, 6d/week. No max efforts, just 2 abreast (har) or them
> in your wheel and you pacing yourself.
> Step 4: three months into the program, it's late spring now, dump your
> girlfriends but not your girlfriend (she'll be buying you new wheels
> later on) and tack on to the fastest group you can find.
> Step 5: do two training rides a week all through the summer. Don't get
> dropped until you puke, then hold on for another mile. Don't try, do!
> Use other days for recovery rides by yourself, 2 short (1.5-2h), 3 long
> (3h). This time, you won't need slower riders to hold you back... Call
> in sick at work once a week to get extra bed rest.
> Step 6: from early autumn, enter two races a week, both on the weekend.
> Each week, pick one beforehand that you will target, where you want to
> win. The other one, finish. ALWAYS finish.
> Step 7: when the road racing ends, with your new-found rhythm, survive
> the winter on an mtb or cx bike. LiveDRUNK often but not regularly. Do
> some spin classes to scout new talent for the spring rides.
>
> Next January, email our offices for the second year program.

LIVEDRUNK (please note capitalization) would like to see a revised
program with more LIVEDRINKING in Steps 1 through 6.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 12:23*am, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > I am working on a training plan for this season. I'm not into
> > following a detailed plan, so I'm more working on a training guide.
>
> > I'm losing weight and before any of this year's events I'll be down to
> > about 92kg. That will put my VO2max at around 64 ml/kg/min which I
> > have no reason to think can be greatly improved upon and I have (for
> > current needs) more than enough sprint and short burst stomping power.
> > Even now, up short hills I cannot be dropped by anyone I race with.
>
> > The problems come of course when the effort is sustained. When over
> > threshold, I of course build up lactate and get dropped.
>
> > This suggests to me that what I need to improve my results is to grow
> > more capillaries, and more mitochondria to up my LT. So I should be
> > concentrating on long rides, and not worrying about tiny marginal
> > improvements from interval and other intense training which come at
> > the expense of more recovery time and thus less time spent building
> > better local muscular O2 delivery.
>
> > Does that make sense?
>
> Your biggest opportunity for improvement is to get you weight down below
> 180 lb.
>
> Phil H

Fortunately I don't suffer from BIID. So 195 or so is absolute
minimum.

Joseph

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 10:09*pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 12:37 pm, "
> >>> Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
> >>> threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
> >> In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will
> >> necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops
> >> capillaries and mitochondria.
>
> >> In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15
> >> hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours
> >> with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can
> >> count on having time for.
>
> >> Joseph
>
> >http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspot.html
>
> * * * * If your training will allow capillary growth and mitochondrial growth,
> and if you are still losing weight, why do you think your VO2 max won't
> improve?
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001

I presume it is maxed out because I've been riding at times hard for a
few years now, and it is already pretty high.

It will improve slightly as my weight goes down, but mostly I figure
it doesn't even have to improve as I already have enough max power. I
need sustainable power from raising my LT as a percentage of max.

Joseph

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 10:14*pm, Ted van de Weteringe
> wrote:
> wrote:
> > I am working on a training plan for this season.
>
> Step 1: get an unambitious part-time job.
> Step 2: make the acquaintance of several good, but attractive, woman riders.
> Step 3: no more time for alibis; motive and opportunity say you will now
> ride for 2.5h/day, 6d/week. No max efforts, just 2 abreast (har) or them
> in your wheel and you pacing yourself.
> Step 4: three months into the program, it's late spring now, dump your
> girlfriends but not your girlfriend (she'll be buying you new wheels
> later on) and tack on to the fastest group you can find.
> Step 5: do two training rides a week all through the summer. Don't get
> dropped until you puke, then hold on for another mile. Don't try, do!
> Use other days for recovery rides by yourself, 2 short (1.5-2h), 3 long
> (3h). This time, you won't need slower riders to hold you back... Call
> in sick at work once a week to get extra bed rest.
> Step 6: from early autumn, enter two races a week, both on the weekend.
> Each week, pick one beforehand that you will target, where you want to
> win. The other one, finish. ALWAYS finish.
> Step 7: when the road racing ends, with your new-found rhythm, survive
> the winter on an mtb or cx bike. LiveDRUNK often but not regularly. Do
> some spin classes to scout new talent for the spring rides.
>
> Next January, email our offices for the second year program.

But I'm gay.

Joseph

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 10:00*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:37 pm, "
>
> > > Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
> > > threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
>
> > In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will
> > necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops
> > capillaries and mitochondria.
>
> > In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15
> > hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours
> > with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can
> > count on having time for.
>
> > Joseph
>
> http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspot.html

There we go! I guess Eddy Merckx was right.

Joseph

[Donald Munro]

Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
> Step 1: get an unambitious part-time job. Step 2: make the acquaintance of
> several good, but attractive, woman riders. Step 3: no more time for
> alibis; motive and opportunity say you will now ride for 2.5h/day,
> 6d/week. No max efforts, just 2 abreast (har) or them in your wheel and
> you pacing yourself. Step 4: three months into the program, it's late
> spring now, dump your girlfriends but not your girlfriend (she'll be
> buying you new wheels later on) and tack on to the fastest group you can
> find. Step 5: do two training rides a week all through the summer. Don't
> get dropped until you puke, then hold on for another mile. Don't try, do!
> Use other days for recovery rides by yourself, 2 short (1.5-2h), 3 long
> (3h). This time, you won't need slower riders to hold you back... Call in
> sick at work once a week to get extra bed rest. Step 6: from early autumn,
> enter two races a week, both on the weekend. Each week, pick one
> beforehand that you will target, where you want to win. The other one,
> finish. ALWAYS finish. Step 7: when the road racing ends, with your
> new-found rhythm, survive the winter on an mtb or cx bike. LiveDRUNK often
> but not regularly. Do some spin classes to scout new talent for the spring
> rides.

What about moving to a high altitude location or persuading your
girlfriends to sleep in an altitude tent ?

[Donald Munro]

wrote:
> This suggests to me that what I need to improve my results is to grow more
> capillaries, and more mitochondria to up my LT. So I should be
> concentrating on long rides, and not worrying about tiny marginal
> improvements from interval and other intense training which come at the
> expense of more recovery time and thus less time spent building better
> local muscular O2 delivery.

Perhaps specific types of interval training is better suited to building
mitochondria. Apparently mitochondria growth can occur in interval
training in response to lactic acid production:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060420235214.htm

If the Internet was functioning on Vulcan our CSO would probably be able
to comment.

[Steven Bornfeld]

wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:09 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 3, 12:37 pm, "
>>>>> Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
>>>>> threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
>>>> In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will
>>>> necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops
>>>> capillaries and mitochondria.
>>>> In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15
>>>> hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours
>>>> with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can
>>>> count on having time for.
>>>> Joseph
>>> http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspot.html
>> If your training will allow capillary growth and mitochondrial growth,
>> and if you are still losing weight, why do you think your VO2 max won't
>> improve?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> --
>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
>> Brooklyn, NY
>> 718-258-5001
>
> I presume it is maxed out because I've been riding at times hard for a
> few years now, and it is already pretty high.
>
> It will improve slightly as my weight goes down, but mostly I figure
> it doesn't even have to improve as I already have enough max power. I
> need sustainable power from raising my LT as a percentage of max.
>
> Joseph


I figure (now, remember--I haven't studied biochem in 35 years), that
your VO2 max is figured per kg mass, so there should be direct
proportionality (or very close, since fat doesn't use much oxygen unless
it is being metabolized). Also, increasing those mitochondria and those
ribosomes will increase oxidative phosphorylation. Either way you win.
Of course, I don't know what your training volume is now. But the old
conventional wisdom is that you raise your LT by doing those damned
intervals. Does recent research refute that?

Steve

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 2:33*pm, Steven Bornfeld >
wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 10:09 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> > > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 3, 12:37 pm, "
> >>>>> Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
> >>>>> threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
> >>>> In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will
> >>>> necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops
> >>>> capillaries and mitochondria.
> >>>> In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15
> >>>> hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours
> >>>> with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can
> >>>> count on having time for.
> >>>> Joseph
> >>>http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspot.html
> >> * * * * If your training will allow capillary growth and mitochondrial growth,
> >> and if you are still losing weight, why do you think your VO2 max won't
> >> improve?
>
> >> Steve
>
> >> --
> >> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
> >> Brooklyn, NY
> >> 718-258-5001
>
> > I presume it is maxed out because I've been riding at times hard for a
> > few years now, and it is already pretty high.
>
> > It will improve slightly as my weight goes down, but mostly I figure
> > it doesn't even have to improve as I already have enough max power. I
> > need sustainable power from raising my LT as a percentage of max.
>
> > Joseph
>
> * * * * I figure (now, remember--I haven't studied biochem in 35 years), that
> your VO2 max is figured per kg mass, so there should be direct
> proportionality (or very close, since fat doesn't use much oxygen unless
> it is being metabolized). *Also, increasing those mitochondria and those
> ribosomes will increase oxidative phosphorylation. *Either way you win.
> * Of course, I don't know what your training volume is now. *But the old
> conventional wisdom is that you raise your LT by doing those damned
> intervals. *Does recent research refute that?
>
> Steve

My 64 figure is a projected value based on my target weight which is
realistic. I seem to have enough capacity to produce high power for
short periods, so my total capacity to process O2 does not need to
increase. But I do need to increase how much O2 I can process
comfortably and with better fat metabolism.

I've been working mostly off the info here:

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/timecors.htm

Joseph

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 3, 1:14*pm, Ted van de Weteringe >
wrote:


Let's cut out the fluff and make it simple:

> Step 1: get an unambitious part-time job.

Step 1: get a guvmint job.

(Because it is less than unambitious.)

> Step 5: do two training rides a week all through the summer. Don't get
> dropped until you puke, then hold on for another mile. Don't try, do!

Fine, as-is, except maybe three rides.

Aux: Any other doodles you can fit in, but that should happen
naturally as a guvmint employee.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 4, 12:14*am, "
> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:14*pm, Ted van de Weteringe
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > I am working on a training plan for this season.
>
> > Step 1: get an unambitious part-time job.
> > Step 2: make the acquaintance of several good, but attractive, woman riders.
> > Step 3: no more time for alibis; motive and opportunity say you will now
> > ride for 2.5h/day, 6d/week. No max efforts, just 2 abreast (har) or them
> > in your wheel and you pacing yourself.
> > Step 4: three months into the program, it's late spring now, dump your
> > girlfriends but not your girlfriend (she'll be buying you new wheels
> > later on) and tack on to the fastest group you can find.
> > Step 5: do two training rides a week all through the summer. Don't get
> > dropped until you puke, then hold on for another mile. Don't try, do!
> > Use other days for recovery rides by yourself, 2 short (1.5-2h), 3 long
> > (3h). This time, you won't need slower riders to hold you back... Call
> > in sick at work once a week to get extra bed rest.
> > Step 6: from early autumn, enter two races a week, both on the weekend.
> > Each week, pick one beforehand that you will target, where you want to
> > win. The other one, finish. ALWAYS finish.
> > Step 7: when the road racing ends, with your new-found rhythm, survive
> > the winter on an mtb or cx bike. LiveDRUNK often but not regularly. Do
> > some spin classes to scout new talent for the spring rides.
>
> > Next January, email our offices for the second year program.
>
> But I'm gay.

Then replace girlfriend with "liberal."

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:37 pm, "
>>> Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
>>> threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
>> In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will
>> necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops
>> capillaries and mitochondria.
>>
>> In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15
>> hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours
>> with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can
>> count on having time for.
>>
>> Joseph
>
> http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspot.html


Do they mean anaerobic threshold by "threshold power"?

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Donald Munro]

Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> Of course, I don't know what your training volume is now. But the old
> conventional wisdom is that you raise your LT by doing those damned
> intervals. Does recent research refute that?

Dumbass,
In the Carmichael tradition that should read DamnedIntervals(tm).

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 6:07*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 12:14*am, "
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 10:14*pm, Ted van de Weteringe
>
> > > wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > I am working on a training plan for this season.
>
> > > Step 1: get an unambitious part-time job.
> > > Step 2: make the acquaintance of several good, but attractive, woman riders.
> > > Step 3: no more time for alibis; motive and opportunity say you will now
> > > ride for 2.5h/day, 6d/week. No max efforts, just 2 abreast (har) or them
> > > in your wheel and you pacing yourself.
> > > Step 4: three months into the program, it's late spring now, dump your
> > > girlfriends but not your girlfriend (she'll be buying you new wheels
> > > later on) and tack on to the fastest group you can find.
> > > Step 5: do two training rides a week all through the summer. Don't get
> > > dropped until you puke, then hold on for another mile. Don't try, do!
> > > Use other days for recovery rides by yourself, 2 short (1.5-2h), 3 long
> > > (3h). This time, you won't need slower riders to hold you back... Call
> > > in sick at work once a week to get extra bed rest.
> > > Step 6: from early autumn, enter two races a week, both on the weekend..
> > > Each week, pick one beforehand that you will target, where you want to
> > > win. The other one, finish. ALWAYS finish.
> > > Step 7: when the road racing ends, with your new-found rhythm, survive
> > > the winter on an mtb or cx bike. LiveDRUNK often but not regularly. Do
> > > some spin classes to scout new talent for the spring rides.
>
> > > Next January, email our offices for the second year program.
>
> > But I'm gay.
>
> Then replace girlfriend with "liberal."

Then I'd waste all my time arguing!

Joseph

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>> Of course, I don't know what your training volume is now. But the old
>> conventional wisdom is that you raise your LT by doing those damned
>> intervals. Does recent research refute that?
>
> Dumbass,
> In the Carmichael tradition that should read DamnedIntervals(tm).
>


Thank you. I'll try to remember that.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 9:23 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> wrote:

> Do they mean anaerobic threshold by "threshold power"?

Not exactly. AT or LT or or OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation)
or a host of other similar terms usually refer to a physiological
measurement. Functional threshold power (I think the "functional" is
important) is more of an output-focused measure: it's the power you
can maintain for maybe an hour.

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

wrote:
> On Mar 4, 9:23 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> > wrote:
>
>> Do they mean anaerobic threshold by "threshold power"?
>
> Not exactly. AT or LT or or OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation)
> or a host of other similar terms usually refer to a physiological
> measurement. Functional threshold power (I think the "functional" is
> important) is more of an output-focused measure: it's the power you
> can maintain for maybe an hour.


Thanks--that's clearer not.
Some of these technical terms seem a bit more plastic to me than when
I was in school. You've probably heard of the study that showed higher
death rates from lung cancer for patients who got screening chest
x-rays. This apparently contradicted the previously "definitive" study
that showed increased average life expectancy for patients getting
screened. (I'm not sure I've gotten that right). That led to a
discussion of using survival time vs. death rate as a criteria for
whether screening was a good idea. The discussion left me totally confused.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 11:58 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 9:23 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Do they mean anaerobic threshold by "threshold power"?
>
> > Not exactly. AT or LT or or OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation)
> > or a host of other similar terms usually refer to a physiological
> > measurement. Functional threshold power (I think the "functional" is
> > important) is more of an output-focused measure: it's the power you
> > can maintain for maybe an hour.
>
> Thanks--that's clearer not.

Then the simple answer is they're not the same but they go up and down
together (mostly).

> Some of these technical terms seem a bit more plastic to me than when
> I was in school. You've probably heard of the study that showed higher
> death rates from lung cancer for patients who got screening chest
> x-rays. This apparently contradicted the previously "definitive" study
> that showed increased average life expectancy for patients getting
> screened. (I'm not sure I've gotten that right). That led to a
> discussion of using survival time vs. death rate as a criteria for
> whether screening was a good idea. The discussion left me totally confused.

I hadn't heard of that but I'll look it up and see whether I can use
that example next time I talk about survival models and hazard rates.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 8:58*pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 9:23 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Do they mean anaerobic threshold by "threshold power"?
>
> > Not exactly. AT or LT or or OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation)
> > or a host of other similar terms usually refer to a physiological
> > measurement. Functional threshold power (I think the "functional" is
> > important) is more of an output-focused measure: it's the power you
> > can maintain for maybe an hour.
>
> * * * * Thanks--that's clearer not.
> * *Some of these technical terms seem a bit more plastic to me than when
> I was in school. *You've probably heard of the study that showed higher
> death rates from lung cancer for patients who got screening chest
> x-rays. *This apparently contradicted the previously "definitive" study
> that showed increased average life expectancy for patients getting
> screened. *(I'm not sure I've gotten that right). *That led to a
> discussion of using survival time vs. death rate as a criteria for
> whether screening was a good idea. *The discussion left me totally confused.
>
> Steve
>

I think a key is that it is an achievable, maintainable, for the most
part aerobic output for any non-short length of time. It could be 15
minutes, it could be 2 hours. The actual output levels will be
different, and shorter efforts will be over the OBLA, but I think of
it as whatever is the maximum sustainable effort level for the chosen
distance/time.

That's what it means to me at least.

Joseph

[Ted van de Weteringe]

wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:58 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>> Thanks--that's clearer not.
>
> Then the simple answer is

Don't you think he meant 'now'?

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 9:15*pm, Ted van de Weteringe >
wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 11:58 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >> * * * * Thanks--that's clearer not.
>
> > Then the simple answer is
>
> Don't you think he meant 'now'?

Not.

Joseph

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 10:00*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:37 pm, "
>
> > > Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
> > > threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
>
> > In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will
> > necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops
> > capillaries and mitochondria.
>
> > In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15
> > hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours
> > with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can
> > count on having time for.
>
> > Joseph
>
> http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspot.html

Any suggestions on how to convert those 7 zones to PE or HR? I know
you're not a fan of HR due to all the variation, but as a guide since
I still haven't scammed a power meter yet it will give me a reasonable
starting point.

Joseph

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:58 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 9:23 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Do they mean anaerobic threshold by "threshold power"?
>>> Not exactly. AT or LT or or OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation)
>>> or a host of other similar terms usually refer to a physiological
>>> measurement. Functional threshold power (I think the "functional" is
>>> important) is more of an output-focused measure: it's the power you
>>> can maintain for maybe an hour.
>> Thanks--that's clearer not.
>
> Then the simple answer is they're not the same but they go up and down
> together (mostly).

Sorry Robert--you'll have to believe me when I say I was TRYING to type
"that's clearer NOW". Really. ;-)

Fraudian slip? ;-)
>
>> Some of these technical terms seem a bit more plastic to me than when
>> I was in school. You've probably heard of the study that showed higher
>> death rates from lung cancer for patients who got screening chest
>> x-rays. This apparently contradicted the previously "definitive" study
>> that showed increased average life expectancy for patients getting
>> screened. (I'm not sure I've gotten that right). That led to a
>> discussion of using survival time vs. death rate as a criteria for
>> whether screening was a good idea. The discussion left me totally confused.
>
> I hadn't heard of that but I'll look it up and see whether I can use
> that example next time I talk about survival models and hazard rates.


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 11:58 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>> Thanks--that's clearer not.
>>
>> Then the simple answer is
>
> Don't you think he meant 'now'?


Yeah, I did. Your English is officially better than mine :-)

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[A R:nen]

" > writes:

> Any suggestions on how to convert those 7 zones to PE or HR? I know
> you're not a fan of HR due to all the variation, but as a guide since
> I still haven't scammed a power meter yet it will give me a reasonable
> starting point.

From Allen & Coggan's book "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" (which
I would like to recommend even if you don't have a power meter (yet)):

1: 68% of anaerobic threshold HR or less, PE <2 (on a scale from 0 to 10)
2: 69-83%, PE 2-3
3: 84-94%, PE 3-4
4: 95-105%, PE 4-5
5: 106% or more, PE 6-7
6 and 7: HR not applicable, PE >7

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 12:15 pm, Ted van de Weteringe
> wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 11:58 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >> Thanks--that's clearer not.
>
> > Then the simple answer is
>
> Don't you think he meant 'now'?

It's usually closer to the mark to presume I'm being unclear.

[Phil Holman]

> wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 12:23 am, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > I am working on a training plan for this season. I'm not into
> > following a detailed plan, so I'm more working on a training guide.
>
> > I'm losing weight and before any of this year's events I'll be down
> > to
> > about 92kg. That will put my VO2max at around 64 ml/kg/min which I
> > have no reason to think can be greatly improved upon and I have (for
> > current needs) more than enough sprint and short burst stomping
> > power.
> > Even now, up short hills I cannot be dropped by anyone I race with.
>
> > The problems come of course when the effort is sustained. When over
> > threshold, I of course build up lactate and get dropped.
>
> > This suggests to me that what I need to improve my results is to
> > grow
> > more capillaries, and more mitochondria to up my LT. So I should be
> > concentrating on long rides, and not worrying about tiny marginal
> > improvements from interval and other intense training which come at
> > the expense of more recovery time and thus less time spent building
> > better local muscular O2 delivery.
>
> > Does that make sense?
>
> Your biggest opportunity for improvement is to get you weight down
> below
> 180 lb.
>
> Phil H

Fortunately I don't suffer from BIID. So 195 or so is absolute
minimum.

Good, but you are at a distinct disadvantage on climbs over 1 mile. Most
big riders can gut it out up till then but .......well, I'm sure you
know the rest.
I'm 6' 2" and raced at 170 and on long climbs could hang fairly well
with the front bunch.

Phil H

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 4, 3:31*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 4, 12:15 pm, Ted van de Weteringe
>
> > wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 11:58 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > >> * * * * Thanks--that's clearer not.
>
> > > Then the simple answer is
>
> > Don't you think he meant 'now'?
>
> It's usually closer to the mark to presume I'm being unclear.

Not to unclear what is not clearer now than not before, but did you
not unclearly now mean:

"It's usually closer to Mark [not Steve (Bornfeld)] to presume I'm
being unclear."

[Steven Bornfeld]

wrote:
>
> I hadn't heard of that but I'll look it up and see whether I can use
> that example next time I talk about survival models and hazard rates.

This is where I read about the study (from the NY Times):

http://tinyurl.com/ywuoma


....and the JAMA paper cited (I haven't read this one yet):

http://tinyurl.com/369dfa

Steve

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 5:02 pm, Steven Bornfeld >
wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I hadn't heard of that but I'll look it up and see whether I can use
> > that example next time I talk about survival models and hazard rates.
>
> This is where I read about the study (from the NY Times):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ywuoma
>
> ...and the JAMA paper cited (I haven't read this one yet):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/369dfa
>
> Steve

Ah, excellent, thanks. Sort of similar to the prostate cancer
screening tests, and possibly similar to the breast cancer stage of
detection results. Unfortunately, neoplasms are heterogeneous in both
their lethality and their "detectability."

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Mar 4, 6:07*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE > wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 12:14*am, "
> >
> >
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > On Mar 3, 10:14*pm, Ted van de Weteringe
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I am working on a training plan for this season.
> >
> > > > Step 1: get an unambitious part-time job.
> > > > Step 2: make the acquaintance of several good, but attractive, woman
> > > > riders.
> > > > Step 3: no more time for alibis; motive and opportunity say you will
> > > > now
> > > > ride for 2.5h/day, 6d/week. No max efforts, just 2 abreast (har) or
> > > > them
> > > > in your wheel and you pacing yourself.
> > > > Step 4: three months into the program, it's late spring now, dump your
> > > > girlfriends but not your girlfriend (she'll be buying you new wheels
> > > > later on) and tack on to the fastest group you can find.
> > > > Step 5: do two training rides a week all through the summer. Don't get
> > > > dropped until you puke, then hold on for another mile. Don't try, do!
> > > > Use other days for recovery rides by yourself, 2 short (1.5-2h), 3 long
> > > > (3h). This time, you won't need slower riders to hold you back... Call
> > > > in sick at work once a week to get extra bed rest.
> > > > Step 6: from early autumn, enter two races a week, both on the weekend.
> > > > Each week, pick one beforehand that you will target, where you want to
> > > > win. The other one, finish. ALWAYS finish.
> > > > Step 7: when the road racing ends, with your new-found rhythm, survive
> > > > the winter on an mtb or cx bike. LiveDRUNK often but not regularly. Do
> > > > some spin classes to scout new talent for the spring rides.
> >
> > > > Next January, email our offices for the second year program.
> >
> > > But I'm gay.
> >
> > Then replace girlfriend with "liberal."
>
> Then I'd waste all my time arguing!
>
> Joseph

I'm starting to seriously question your commitment to your cycling
performance. Start small: meet a nice girl, tell her you just prefer
cuddling. They love that sort of stuff.

For the purposes of the above program, that's about as straight as you
need to be.

Results demand sacrifices,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Howard Kveck]

In article <Lyizj.12462$v47.415@trnddc08>,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld > wrote:

> Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> On Mar 4, 11:58 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >>> Thanks--that's clearer not.
> >>
> >> Then the simple answer is
> >
> > Don't you think he meant 'now'?
>
>
> Yeah, I did. Your English is officially better than mine :-)

Oh, your English is fine. It was your proofreading that was lacking a bit that
time.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 1:37 pm, "
> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 9:29 pm, wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 11:23 am, "
>
> > > So I should be
> > > concentrating on long rides, and not worrying about tiny marginal
> > > improvements from interval and other intense training which come at
> > > the expense of more recovery time
>
> > > Does that make sense?
>
> > Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
> > threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
>
> In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will
> necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops
> capillaries and mitochondria.
>
> In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15
> hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours
> with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can
> count on having time for.

Mitochondria, shmitochondria.

If you want to get better at riding somewhere near lactate
threshold power, the way to do that is to ride somewhere
near lactate threshol power. It all depends on what you
consider "intervals" and what you consider "easy," but I don't
think riding at a moderately relaxed pace is going to do
much for that. 20-30 minute intervals or the equivalent -
that is, long enough that you are spending most of the
time near threshold, not spiking above it and then spending
most of the ride recovering - are more likely to help.

I feel like we've had this discussion before.

Ben

[Steven Bornfeld]

wrote:
> On Mar 4, 5:02 pm, Steven Bornfeld >
> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I hadn't heard of that but I'll look it up and see whether I can use
>>> that example next time I talk about survival models and hazard rates.
>> This is where I read about the study (from the NY Times):
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ywuoma
>>
>> ...and the JAMA paper cited (I haven't read this one yet):
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/369dfa
>>
>> Steve
>
> Ah, excellent, thanks. Sort of similar to the prostate cancer
> screening tests, and possibly similar to the breast cancer stage of
> detection results. Unfortunately, neoplasms are heterogeneous in both
> their lethality and their "detectability."


I found it interesting to hear on the radio a few years back that a
study of young men (age criteria not mentioned) with prostate cancer had
for the first time demonstrated longer survival after total
prostatectomy than young prostate ca patients who were not treated
surgically.
Kinda made me wonder about the many years this surgery was done
apparently with no clear evidence that it was effective.

Steve

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 7:28 pm, Steven Bornfeld >
wrote:

> Kinda made me wonder about the many years this surgery was done
> apparently with no clear evidence that it was effective.

Procedures (not only surgical but medical, too) don't get the same
kind of scrutiny that pharmaceuticals get. A large fraction of
procedures have never gone through a RCT.

[Steven Bornfeld]

wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:28 pm, Steven Bornfeld >
> wrote:
>
>> Kinda made me wonder about the many years this surgery was done
>> apparently with no clear evidence that it was effective.
>
> Procedures (not only surgical but medical, too) don't get the same
> kind of scrutiny that pharmaceuticals get. A large fraction of
> procedures have never gone through a RCT.


I had to look that up. (Don't forget who you're replying to) I was
wondering what root canal treatment had to do with it.

Steve

[Donald Munro]

wrote:
> I feel like we've had this discussion before.

Google groups used to be called dejanews before google bought them.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 5, 4:09*am, " >
wrote:
> On Mar 3, 1:37 pm, "
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 9:29 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 11:23 am, "
>
> > > > So I should be
> > > > concentrating on long rides, and not worrying about tiny marginal
> > > > improvements from interval and other intense training which come at
> > > > the expense of more recovery time
>
> > > > Does that make sense?
>
> > > Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your
> > > threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
>
> > In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will
> > necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops
> > capillaries and mitochondria.
>
> > In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15
> > hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours
> > with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can
> > count on having time for.
>
> Mitochondria, shmitochondria.
>
> If you want to get better at riding somewhere near lactate
> threshold power, the way to do that is to ride somewhere
> near lactate threshol power. *It all depends on what you
> consider "intervals" and what you consider "easy," but I don't
> think riding at a moderately relaxed pace is going to do
> much for that. *20-30 minute intervals or the equivalent -
> that is, long enough that you are spending most of the
> time near threshold, not spiking above it and then spending
> most of the ride recovering - are more likely to help.

This sweet spot stuff suggests that (using my values) I can ride at
about 75-80% of max HR and get good training that helps raise LT. My
schedule allows me to ride 3-4 times per week, for however long I
chose. If I try to ride at or near LT for my 3-4 rides, how many hours
could I bear to do that? What would the total training effect be? At
lower intensity I know I could go for much longer, with less stress.


>
> I feel like we've had this discussion before.

I'm looking for my free lunch!

Joseph

[Donald Munro]

wrote:
> This sweet spot stuff suggests that (using my values) I can ride at about
> 75-80% of max HR and get good training that helps raise LT. My schedule
> allows me to ride 3-4 times per week, for however long I chose. If I try
> to ride at or near LT for my 3-4 rides, how many hours could I bear to do
> that? What would the total training effect be? At lower intensity I know I
> could go for much longer, with less stress.

Depends on how much recovery time there is between the riding days ie if
the days can be spread out across a 7 day week then you can have say 1 day
with long intervals, 2 days short easy and 2 days with long rides with 1
shorter easier day between. Personally I've found mixing intervals and
medium LSD on one hard day (ie say an hour to an hour and a half intervals
followed by 3 to 3 and 1/2 hours easy pace increasing to medium pace ) and
then taking it very easy the next 2 days before doing shorter intervals
the next day works better for me. I expect as you get older you need more
time to recover after the hard days.

> I'm looking for my free lunch!

As always, greg will provide.

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:31 pm, wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 12:15 pm, Ted van de Weteringe
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 4, 11:58 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>>>> Thanks--that's clearer not.
>>>> Then the simple answer is
>>> Don't you think he meant 'now'?
>> It's usually closer to the mark to presume I'm being unclear.
>
> Not to unclear what is not clearer now than not before, but did you
> not unclearly now mean:
>
> "It's usually closer to Mark [not Steve (Bornfeld)] to presume I'm
> being unclear."
>


Wait I'll ask him...

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001