FaCT Clear and Simple .....part 2

[quote]Oh Paul, up until this point I have had a great respect for your ideas, but in the blink of an eye, it's all gone!

[Michelle]

Paul H said
[quote]If he was sick all year he wouldnt have been able to do any fast riding or be the strongest ACC rider in the handicap series (stronger than Adam as well?).

[Marky Mark]

I was wondering what different effects this Balance point trianing has on.........

1. Me, very little muscle mass and new quiet new to riding.

2. An ACC racer with years of training.

Am I in a better position (just asking ) long term in starting from scratch, i.e. I'm laying down good foundations in the form of STF development. The base work to support the piramid of power.

Another point I've been thinking about lately....... Why is it that when I go down on the drops, my HR goes up?
I have noticed this on my Turbo (Lab conditions) during a constant run, HR @ 130 doing a cadence of 90. On the drops HR goes up over 135, with same cadence.
Am I restricting blood flow by folding my body in half? (that reminds me, it's pilatis tomorrow!)
Will it be better when my large belly has reduced in size?

Marky Mark

[Robh]

As a newbie Mark you will see bigger gains than an experienced ACC racer with years of training. You have much more areas for improvments. Any form of training you do Mark you will improve if it's using LBP or watts under the controlled overload principle.

I witnessed this myself in the early years of training in 2002 using a power meter to monitor progress, I got back on the bike in 2001.

Why does HR go up when on the drops? Well I personally don't see this myself on the turbo. Heart rate increases during exercise because the heart has to pumps faster to supply blood to active muscles. Maybe your activating more when your on the drops to support your stomach?

What would be intresting is to see what your HRV is doing when your HR goes up as I have seen people HRV's change during the test as they move about.

[Snoop Doug]

[quote="Paul H"]Its not easy to tell why somebody gets sick and there is no evidence it is down to the way he trains - as I said before, I would guess that it is his diet, and going to college mixing with loads of young people who tend to pick up more infections. I have had the misfortune of smelling some of the crap he puts in his body on some of our rides. Stu did seem to get sick in July & August, which also coincided with finishing his exams and I guess beer, socialising and women.

Rob, you can post as many fancy diagrams as you like,
The fact is a lot of it goes over people’s heads and just serve to obscure what you are trying to get across. If you could keep the language simple and in your own words, it would really help.
For example, on your graph, I’ve no idea what Vital –stat adjustment is nor morphologic 8 weeks.

Anyway, back to my point.
You say [quote]Immediate response is functional & long term adapatation is structural.

[Robh]

For the record I'm not one of those guys I'm just a mechanical design engineer by day.

Like everyone use the internet to search what those terms means as I don't have a PhD in physiology and don't know everything Juerg writes about either so I go searching to try understand what it means. It's called self learning process and that's what I'm tring to do right now.

Morpholgy means the form and structure of an organism.
Vital–stat adjustment can't find what this means would have to ask Juerg/Andrew.

I don't believe working out @ a low HR is right for everyone as everyone is different so you have to test and see if your getting the gains you want. I need 5 more years and then I might be able to give the answers you desire and my own experiences in understanding Juerg's work. Sorry but that's life, taking 2 courses in lactate testing does not give me an understanding of 20 years worth of Juerg's thoughts & ideas.

I'm very sorry I can't answer every question that's posted on here so like I said give me 5 years or go directly onto the FaCT forum and ask Juerg.

Yes it's a cop out but I'm trying to being honest so please don't shoot me down as I had that last week.

Cheers Rob

[Snoop Doug]

I spent a very enjoyable few hours in Rob's garage last night. A thought struck me (in addition to blimey I'm cooked!). Rob is spending a huge amount of time (in exchange for a very modest fee) offering to perform some interesting and potentially valuable tests on fellow club members. He's learning, we're learning. I don't know where he finds the time, Mrs Rob is v understanding methinks.

It's clear these threads aren't for everyone. I only "get" some of the stuff put up around here. I don't have the time to understand it all, and based on last night's experience I'm sure Rob doesn't have the time to explain all the gory detail. If I think somethings really important and I don't get it, I ask. Pardon me but of late some of these threads seem to have deteriorated into little more than slanging matches. I take what I want, I leave what I don't. Maybe there's a philosophy hidden in there somewhere...aren't we the agreeables after all?

Have a good day y'all.

Snoop

[Robh]

Had a bit more time to think about this during work time :-

[quote]Now given that, I’m trying to ascertain why you believe that working out at a very low heart rate will allow you to produce more or better structural change than doing the traditional threshold /V02 workouts. I’m also questioning why you think that doing traditional threshold/V02 workouts won’t produce structural change.
It seems that the whole FaCT philosophy rests on this (counter-intuitive) assumption.
Can you enlighten me on this?

[Robh]

[quote="Marky Mark"]:? I was wondering what different effects this Balance point trianing has on.........

1. Me, very little muscle mass and new quiet new to riding.

2. An ACC racer with years of training.

[-Adam-]

I think if you skim off all the science, what the FaCT principal advocates is that lower intensity riding will improve your base line aerobic fitness.

This is nothing new, this is very traditional view. It is what the majority of 'old school' racers do year in year out. I don't pretend to 'get' much of the science that Rob and Jeurg try to promote. But it makes sense from the point of view that it is traditional training with numbers added in. It really is nothing new. Where the arguments come in, is over its effectiveness for people with varying lifestyles. The reality is, that unless you have 10+ hours per week it is not neccessarily going to work for you, where higher intensity will give you more improvements quicker. The next argument is over the longevity of these quick 'easy' gains. And thats where I can't help!

Like I say, there isn't anything particularly different about the LBP idea, it's just Juerg has worked out a way to quantify how 'slow' someone has to go in order to make actual gains. The trouble is how can you prove it works? Well, history shows it does.

I.e, my very non-scientific coach, who is very much a 'keep it simple' advocate is still getting me to do a large amount of time riding at around 130bpm. Which I suspect is more like LBP-30/35 for me! But come March I suspect I'll still be able to kick the ass of all the training group (in a race, when it counts of course). You do the maths! But remember I have more time to train, hence it works for me. When was the last time I rode in the training group? When was the last time a TG member beat me in a race? Well, I can't remember either scenario!!

So, what I'm trying to say is that, just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's bo!!ocks. I would have given up my degree a long time ago if I had that attitude.

Everyday is a school day...

[-Adam-]

[quote="Robh"]There appears to be better recovery from anaerobic efforts if a large aerobic base is present.

[Marky Mark]

Cheers Rob,

Looks like building a good base is the 'secret' to to a long term balance of output.
It's still worth giving it a go and what every happens in the future, I know I gave it a good go.

QUOTE "The best system so far for endurance athletes appears to be building an aerobic base over a long period then adding anaerobic intervals. There appears to be some adaptation to power output while aerobic if anaerobic training is done. There appears to be better recovery from anaerobic efforts if a large aerobic base is present."

Put me down for one of them then

[Paul H]

[quote]But come March I suspect I'll still be able to kick the ass of all the training group (in a race, when it counts of course). You do the maths! But remember I have more time to train, hence it works for me. When was the last time I rode in the training group? When was the last time a TG member beat me in a race? Well, I can't remember either scenario!!

[Tony]

Adam's earlier comments are pretty much spot on the money. Apart from the bit about him being a better rider than all the current crop of ACC racers.

There's a whole heap of dimensions to any training regime - including your current level of fitness, specific strengths and weakness, what (realistic} goals you have, etc, etc. I suspect there are as many different training regimes as there are different diets and almost as much confusion and hot-air generated. There is no golden bullet in either case - but the basics are really simple in both cases. Dieting essentially boils down to stuffing less food in your mouth. Training essentially boils down to spending quality miles on the bike.

Any rider competing at 'typical' standard (say 2nd Cat or less) can follow pretty much any 'sensible' training regime and they will improve. Above this sort of level, it pays to get a bit more focused. E.g. if you're going to ride a heap of road races in quick succession or compete in stage races or ride longer events (75+ miles) you will benefit from increased focus on your enduarance 'base'. If you're planning on hammering round Palace a few times a year or once a week and burn it up on the clubrun, then there's very little need to focus on endurance.