Base Training

[Paul H]

“Base” is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as a fundamental principle or underlying concept of a system or theory. Cycling performance does indeed have such a base, though its popular definition in cycling circles has blurred the concept by focusing on large volumes of lower powered riding. The performance-rooted cycling definition of base is simply power at “threshold”. Power at “threshold” has many definitions, but I define it as 20 minute mean maximal power or 20MP.


The traditional definition of cycling base training seems to have evolved out of the general concept of periodization largely credited to Dr. Tudor O. Bompa. Periodization is a method of planned training cycles which ideally lead to peak performances. I believe periodization can be a valuable means of eliciting future performance in cycling, but I have a different perspective than many on how to go about it. Generally, periodization is intended to address the most basic aspects of performance, and then the finer details are built around that in order to achieve maximal performance. What is more basic to cycling performance than 20MP or power at “threshold”? Everything else is peripheral, including large volumes of low intensity riding.


As long as I have been involved in the sport of cycling (since 1984), base has not carried this definition. Base has almost always been defined as something to do with long, easier rides before higher intensity training or racing begins, and it has been suggested that this approach is a prerequisite for future performance. Some base traditionalists have been known to prescribe power or heart-rate ceilings in order to limit training intensity for many weeks or months during their base period. The rationale is that this builds “endurance” and enhances future higher intensity training. The issue with this more traditional approach is that endurance is primarily a function of 20MP, as 20MP influences nearly every power-duration relationship in cycling. The primary benefit of long, low intensity rides is that they train your body to sit on the bike for longer; however, these efforts have a limited impact on 20MP, and by definition, overall cycling performance.


How does 20MP dictate nearly all the power-duration relationships? There are two main parts, but they are both connected. First, intensities above 20MP cannot be sustained for very long and require recovery below that intensity to repeat the effort. Basically, every little bit harder than 20MP an effort is the shorter the duration that effort can be sustained. The power-duration relationships become curvilinear in that the duration drops exponentially as power rises above 20MP. Whether climbing in a mountain-bike race or road race, holding a wheel in a cross-wind, time-trialing, or positioning for a sprint, 20MP influences the intensities sustainable during these efforts and what capacity is available to launch above it before failure and necessary recovery. In other words, the higher the 20MP, the higher the absolute powers which are sustainable for durations shorter than 20 minutes up to the genetic limitations of fiber type and neuromuscular make-up.






Figure 1. Sample of power-duration curve.


Second, the duration one can sustain a given power output below 20MP increases with decreasing intensity, and this relationship is rather linear with a shallow slope. In other words, small drops in power result in large increases in duration. This is primarily due to an energy source shift away from glycogen as intensities decrease below 20MP (as implied by Holloszy and Coyle, 1984; Coyle et al. 1988; Romijn et al. 1993). Generally, more fats are used to generate that energy and glycogen is spared. Put more simply, the higher the 20MP, the longer a lower absolute power can be sustained and the faster a power relative to 20MP will be. For example, my 20MP is about 290 watts right now. For every little bit easier I ride below 290w the duration I can hold that lower power increases. If I was to improve my 20MP to 310w, I suddenly would be able to ride at 290w for a lot longer than 20 minutes. I very well could ride at 290W for an hour. By increasing my 20MP, I increase the amount of time I can spend at every power level below it. Longer rides are not absolutely necessary for improvement in power-duration relationships – improve 20MP and everything else for longer durations will follow.


These two parts of basically the same principle illustrate how 20MP strongly influences power-duration performance. The higher your 20MP, the more power you can sustain for nearly every duration attempted (some extremely short sprint-like efforts may not be changed). This is one reason why 20MP is the base of cycling performance.


Traditional base often suggests that there are unique physiological adaptations which only occur during slower, longer rides. This is not the case with the exception of glycogen storage in the particular muscle fibers used during these lower power rides. Let’s take a look at a summary of the primary components which come together to produce 20MP in order to illustrate how long, slower rides only have a limited and secondary role in performance.


20MP is primarily a product of two things: mitochondrial density or activity and oxygen delivery. There are other aspects which affect 20MP such as clearance of metabolic byproducts, acid tolerance, motor-unit recruitment patterns, a small “anaerobic” power component, and the like, but for purposes of comparison to lower intensity training (and traditional base definitions), mitochondrial density and O2 delivery are the most applicable.


Mitochondria are the energy factories of working muscle cells. Basically, the higher the mitochondrial density a muscle cell has the more power it can generate over time. Mitochondrial markers do not appear to increase under low intensity conditions very quickly. They appear to only increase when the rate of energy demand over time in an individual muscle fiber outstrips the cellular mitochondrion’s ability to provide it. The maximum stimulus for mitochondrial development as a whole appears to exist at the edge of aerobic power production or 20MP (as suggested by Dudley, 1982 and subsequently Terjung, 1995). When you ride hard enough for long enough such that the muscle fiber overload is nearly maximized, it appears that the biochemical environment is primed for mitochondrial growth – and this is a good thing. Lower powered efforts predominantly only use muscle fiber profiles which have already mostly adapted to this stimulus in prior training. These muscle fiber-profiles are already equipped and respond much slower since as a whole, the biochemical stimulus for mitochondrial growth is minimal – one just isn’t going hard enough to be very productive.


O2 delivery is similar. Vascularity only adapts if the rate of muscular oxygen demand increases. Gains in blood-vessel measures appear to respond similarly to mitochondrial measures in that it is the rate of oxygen demand which stimulates the greatest demands for vascular adaptation as mitochondrial improvements appear to parallel vascular improvements (Coggan et al. 1992; Poole, 1996; Charifi et al. 2004; McAllister et al. 2005). The heart responds in much the same way. If the heart is not forced to pump hard and fast, it is just pumping. Lower intensities do not provide the same stimulus for O2 delivery as 20MP focused training.


The biggest decision in training choice and prescription addresses the cost-benefit relationship between time and intensity. Hypothetically, if you trained at lower intensities for large amounts of time (per day/week for many weeks) and increased the training power a few watts every week, you might eventually reach your genetic limits for O2 delivery and mitochondrial density and therefore maximize your 20MP. The costs incurred with this approach are time and the large volume of overall fatigue caused by exposure to the weather and the mental and physical stress of all those endless hours on the bike. This fatigue can result in immune-system depression, psychological depression, depression of “good” hormone levels, and over-use injuries caused by such huge volumes of repetitive motion to name a few. These potential liabilities suggest that this approach may not be worth it, especially when you can accomplish the same adaptations in a small fraction of the time.


Why waste your time and incur these significant costs? Even professional riders do not have time to waste. Time is better spent riding harder, recovering sooner, and avoiding unnecessary fatigue when building your base. There is a proper application for those longer, easier rides which shift adaptations towards glycogen storage in lower powered muscle fiber profiles, but they are not the base of cycling performance. 20MP is this base.

[Robh]

Who's the author Paul? Not you is it?

It's Kraig Willett http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/base.htm

Here's a challenge to that thread from Juerg 6th Sept 08:-

Hallo to all.
Thanks Rob , A very great article and many many good points made and well taken as really great info.
To add some words to this article.
As we can see there is many many times the wording used, that we need to find the optimal "intensity " so that all this explained physiological adaptations can take place.
So if the 20 MP is this simple answer, than that would be so great.
I just after many years of working with people , ( not with motors) have the slightly problem to accept the fact that physiological adaptations really have this clear cut answer.
One fits all.
I will do some 20MP testing and assess the "stimulation on metabolic reactions and cardiac , as well as on pulmonary reactions and we will see, whether all the nice adaptations in the 20 MP really have this effect or whether perhaps some systems are lacking behind and would be better on being stressed at a different intensity . ?
PS Interesting is always the 2 name , who come up Dudley as for any person , who likes to "sell" high intensity workouts and Holloszy if you like to sell LSD workouts. Check this two so many times used names and what they really tell us and how long the test and research was done,.
Than ask the "basic " question on structural and functional reactions and make your own opinion.
This is a fascinating article and one of the really big advantage is , that tis is easy to follow , and easy to sell as a training idea, as we have one simple way to go . Age,male or female. heart situation , pulmonary situation , muscle situation temperature, altitude and all of this seems to be not that relevant, as by taking 20 MP and you are set to go. Hmmm live is easy and fun ( smile )

http://www.fact-canada.com/discus/messa ... 1220735870

[Paul H]

It wasnt me and I didnt think anybody would think that either

[quote]This is a fascinating article and one of the really big advantage is , that tis is easy to follow , and easy to sell as a training idea, as we have one simple way to go . Age,male or female. heart situation , pulmonary situation , muscle situation temperature, altitude and all of this seems to be not that relevant, as by taking 20 MP and you are set to go. Hmmm live is easy and fun ( smile )

[quote="Paul H"]It wasnt me and I didnt think anybody would think that either

[quote]This is a fascinating article and one of the really big advantage is , that tis is easy to follow , and easy to sell as a training idea, as we have one simple way to go . Age,male or female. heart situation , pulmonary situation , muscle situation temperature, altitude and all of this seems to be not that relevant, as by taking 20 MP and you are set to go. Hmmm live is easy and fun ( smile )

[MattI]

Sorry Paul, but in the battle of the long-winded quotes, you're falling way behind.
You see, Rob posts lots of complicated and colourful diagrams .
You really need to up your game and start posting some of these.
If nothing else, they make each post about 50% longer.

[Paul H]

[quote]Sorry Paul, but in the battle of the long-winded quotes, you're falling way behind.
You see, Rob posts lots of complicated and colourful diagrams .

[Scott]

[quote] I try to keep my stuff simple so hopefully the average ACCer understands. Probably failed though.

[Paul H]

id better watch out tomorrow

[Scott]

You'll be safe from me, as I am off to Wembley to watch a bunch of overpaid , stupid athletes...(not lab rats though)!

[Daniel Gee]

I know I'm gonna regret getting involved but what exactly do people mean when the say threshold?

Is it a bodies maximum sustainable aeobic effort?

If yes then how is it different from the LBP?

Are they not the same thing one expressed in terms of power & the other in terms of HR?

& can any of this actulaly make me go faster or would I be better off just dating a pharmacist?

[Robh]

Juerg questioned LT does it really exist and posted an example...

When people have asked if it's the same to LBP juerg has said it's always lower than LT if people want to compare.

[Paul H]

Dan - youve got the general idea. I can explain further down the cafe if you want.

[Daniel Gee]

cool;

this meeting a pharmacist idea is harder than I thought it would be.

[Robh]

ermartin wrote:

Andrew-
I have been using the FaCT protocol while doing some performance work here in Portland. I was wondering if you could answer a question for me-that clients ask-preferably in terms that I can explain to them.

Why LBP as opposed to LT? Of course, all of us scientists have used traditional LT protocols for years-and I am now trying to use the FaCT protocol more regularly in the sports arena-and it is going to take a lot of convincing to integrate it into the U of O performance center-and I will be doing a TON of work in the next few years there in our new Bowerman Performance testing facility for Athlete Excellence. So, what is the difference between the LBP and LT "numbers" and why is it that one's LBP is lower than their LT-and why is this a critical part of their training.



Andrew Sellars responds :-

LBP as opposed to LT?

We ll first, we don't beleive there is a true threshold...that is there is neither one absolute number (2 or 4 mmol) that accurately reflects the complex metabolic process of energy production, nor is there a point at which the body rapidly accumulates lactate. As I am sure you have seen by now, with just a few test, the trend of lactate responses to exercise are much more revealing than the absolute numbers themselves. You can try some fun ways to challenge the threshold myth, by simply doing a resting lactate reading, and repeating it after a good wholesome meal. At our camp in J.Tree we regularly saw lactate readings of 3.5-5.3 post-breakfast (Juerg has discussed the cause of this in previous forum posts, and we discuss this in the Level II Course).

We often see LBP results measured lower than LT results, because we believe the LT protocol is flawed, and overestimates the point at which an athlete can remain in balance. That is maintain stable HR, wattage, and lactate. You can test this theory by having an athlete return a few days after testing, and asking them to perform a step test up to LBP, and then hold them at that HR for 20-45 minutes. If they are reasonably trained athletes, they will be able to hold this HR, with no change in wattage, and no change in lactate readings (if you care to check them every 5 minutes). This was actually proven in a study from the University of Bern a number of years ago. You can try the same thign at a reported LT....and what you often find, is the athlete can not maintain this reported HR, without a gradual decrease in performance, and increase in lactate. This clearly shows, the athlete is no longer in balance, and physiologically is changing to meet the demands of the test...

LBP is not the critical part for training...it is the understanding of the physiology at LBP, and how we adapt our training to match the physiology that matters. We then use the test again, to see if our training had the effect we were hoping for. If not, then we change our training...if our test confirms our theory, we proceed and test again.

So we feel LBP illustrates what we are trying to measure...the point at which the body can no longer balance the needs for energy production, with the clearance of metabolites from that same process.

Good luck with convincing the other scientists...maybe if they actually want to challenge themselves, they will try the example I gave above to look at how the different tests can be used by the athletes. We have been trying for years to help them look at lactate testing in a different light.


http://www.fact-canada.com/discus/messa ... 1206335209