|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
October 21st 04, 05:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Steve,
Most of the people I have talked to definitely do *not* consider these "max" intervals. They are level 4 VO2 intervals. Hard, but certainly not max. The general rule seems to be 4-5 minutes per interval and 15-20 minutes of work in each session. This is enough work to produce the desired adaptations, but by keeping these intervals under control and having a relatively short total work time in each session, it should not be too much to handle. As you say, the "goal" intensity is not acheived until well into the interval. In fact, I would say it is more like a minute to 90 seconds before the goal intensity is achieved. This leaves 2.5-3.5 minutes at the goal intensity, which the physiologists tell us is about the right amount of time to spend to achieve the adaptations we're seeking. I'm not sure I follow your logic on why this makes HR monitoring difficult. Certainly, during the "warmup" period of each interval, HR is pretty meaningless. But once you hit the meat of the interval, you should be on target between 90-95% of max HR. If your HR is higher than this, you are heading more into the anaerobic zone and you will acheive some different effects. Is this what you're saying? Or am I confused? -Nathan www.nsavage.com "Steve McGregor" wrote in message om... Since you mentioned heart rate, I will add this.. max intervals like these is/are(?) one type of training that doesn't lend itself well to HR monitoring. If you are talking about a 4 min interval, it's going to take at least 30 s if not a minute for HR to get into the range you are talking about. So, don't do the interval for 4 min at the zone 5 HR, because that turns out to be a 4.5-5 min interval at max and 5 min is about the max amount of time you should spend at this pace. You really need to go all out for a pace you think you can maintaini for 4 min. At the end of the interval, you can check HR and see if it is reasonable for a max interval. On the next one, you can adjust your effort based on this feedback. If doing a block, you will get the feeling of the correct effort pretty quick. (Chris Pella) wrote in message . com... Nathan, When you say 4x4 Roll Classic, are you referring to striding uphill? I can get my heart rate into zone 4 by double-poling but only barely and it takes some time to get there. I've avoided striding because I find it difficult to keep classic rollerskis lined up and under control - perhaps because they are so heavy - and my technique suffers. Chris "Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ... Hi Tim, I have tried the intensity blocks in my own training and with several athletes that I coach and we've all had great success with it. The science seems to show that a block of between 5 and 9 days works best for most people. More than that and people kill themselves, less than that and the VO2max increase is not as dramatic. In my experience, I've noticed that at the end of the block, even though I am much more tired than when I started, my times are faster and the training feels more comfortable. One of my coaching clients freaked out about his intensity block that I prescribed a few weeks before the Chicago Marathon. He did it, though, and ended up taking 37 minutes off of his PR and said he could have run faster but he was too scared to open too hard. Out of everything that we did in preparing him for the race, he attributed the biggest success to the intensity block. Some key elements of the intensity blocks from my experiences: 1. Level 4 training is not level 5 training. It must be done at the right intensity to be successful. 2. An athlete must be prepared for the intensity block. As in all things training, it is good to build up at a pace that allows your body to adapt slowly. Don't hop off the couch and expect that doing intervals for six days is a good idea. You need to have done at least some threshold work and a little bit of level 4 intensity before jumping off into a block of level 4 intensity training. 3. There must be adequate rest between the intervals and between the interval sessions. There should not be much more than strength prescribed during the intensity blocks aside from the intensity itself. Older skiers and those at altitude should probably not do more than 3-4 sessions in a row without a break from intensity for a day. 4. Try to make the intensity sessions as specific as possible to gain the biggest benefits. 5. Find a way to objectively evaluate the success of the block. There are several ways to do this. You can do a field test or get a VO2 test before and after the block. You can also judge this as you do your intensity block by repeating intervals sessions throughout the block. For example, the following block of training will give you a fairly good feel for improvements while they are happening: Day 1: Interval session 4x4 Roll SK at location 1. Day 2: Interval session 5x4 Hill Bounding Location 2. Day 3: 4x4 Roll Classic location 3. Day 4: 4x4 Roll SK location 1 Day 5: 5x4 Hill Bounding Location 2 Day 6: 4x4 Roll CL Location 3. Good luck, they really do work. They better, because doing a block of training like this can be pretty tough! Nathan "Tim Kelley" wrote in message ups.com... I'm wondering what readers of rec.nordic.skiing think of the interval block training that the US Ski Team, for instance, is doing this year. Is it the wave of the future, a fad, or not a good idea? I'm thinking that this form of training reflects the demands of new racing formats. With mass starts becoming the predominant race format and sprint racing ever growing - you need to be very powerful and able to run your heart to the redline often to hang with breaks. I think compressed blocks of interval sessions will acheive these this. I also think this is a ballsy move on the part of the USST to go this route. And I appreciate the fact that they taking risks that may get them higher on the World Cup result lists. But I'm sure other r.s.n have different opinions. And I think this topic may make a good discussion thread. I'm also wondering how the Canadians national team members may be training different that the US. These days the Canadians may not have a Kris Freeman ... but man, they sure have depth!! I don't every remember seeing such strength in numbers with the Canadian men (look at US Nationals results or New Zealand results). Have the Canadian men been inspired by Golden Beckie, do they subscribe to compressed interval block training or is the beer in Canada these days really that much better than US beer!?! TK 
|
| Ads |
|
#22
October 21st 04, 07:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#23
October 21st 04, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan said it better than I could. Just wanted to add that if I went
4 mins at maximum effort, I probably would have to wait much longer than 3 mins before I was able to do another one, and the protocol would be blown. The purpose of the VO2 intervals is not to train lactate tolerance, although that is going to happen as a side-effect. When I was in high school track we middle distance runners would do repeat 400s at max effort, and the work time per interval was more like 70s. You really felt like puking after the last one. That's my idea of level 5 max effort. Chris "Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ... Hi Steve, Most of the people I have talked to definitely do *not* consider these "max" intervals. They are level 4 VO2 intervals. Hard, but certainly not max. The general rule seems to be 4-5 minutes per interval and 15-20 minutes of work in each session. This is enough work to produce the desired adaptations, but by keeping these intervals under control and having a relatively short total work time in each session, it should not be too much to handle. As you say, the "goal" intensity is not acheived until well into the interval. In fact, I would say it is more like a minute to 90 seconds before the goal intensity is achieved. This leaves 2.5-3.5 minutes at the goal intensity, which the physiologists tell us is about the right amount of time to spend to achieve the adaptations we're seeking. I'm not sure I follow your logic on why this makes HR monitoring difficult. Certainly, during the "warmup" period of each interval, HR is pretty meaningless. But once you hit the meat of the interval, you should be on target between 90-95% of max HR. If your HR is higher than this, you are heading more into the anaerobic zone and you will acheive some different effects. Is this what you're saying? Or am I confused? -Nathan www.nsavage.com "Steve McGregor" wrote in message om... Since you mentioned heart rate, I will add this.. max intervals like these is/are(?) one type of training that doesn't lend itself well to HR monitoring. If you are talking about a 4 min interval, it's going to take at least 30 s if not a minute for HR to get into the range you are talking about. So, don't do the interval for 4 min at the zone 5 HR, because that turns out to be a 4.5-5 min interval at max and 5 min is about the max amount of time you should spend at this pace. You really need to go all out for a pace you think you can maintaini for 4 min. At the end of the interval, you can check HR and see if it is reasonable for a max interval. On the next one, you can adjust your effort based on this feedback. If doing a block, you will get the feeling of the correct effort pretty quick. (Chris Pella) wrote in message . com... Nathan, When you say 4x4 Roll Classic, are you referring to striding uphill? I can get my heart rate into zone 4 by double-poling but only barely and it takes some time to get there. I've avoided striding because I find it difficult to keep classic rollerskis lined up and under control - perhaps because they are so heavy - and my technique suffers. Chris "Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ... Hi Tim, I have tried the intensity blocks in my own training and with several athletes that I coach and we've all had great success with it. The science seems to show that a block of between 5 and 9 days works best for most people. More than that and people kill themselves, less than that and the VO2max increase is not as dramatic. In my experience, I've noticed that at the end of the block, even though I am much more tired than when I started, my times are faster and the training feels more comfortable. One of my coaching clients freaked out about his intensity block that I prescribed a few weeks before the Chicago Marathon. He did it, though, and ended up taking 37 minutes off of his PR and said he could have run faster but he was too scared to open too hard. Out of everything that we did in preparing him for the race, he attributed the biggest success to the intensity block. Some key elements of the intensity blocks from my experiences: 1. Level 4 training is not level 5 training. It must be done at the right intensity to be successful. 2. An athlete must be prepared for the intensity block. As in all things training, it is good to build up at a pace that allows your body to adapt slowly. Don't hop off the couch and expect that doing intervals for six days is a good idea. You need to have done at least some threshold work and a little bit of level 4 intensity before jumping off into a block of level 4 intensity training. 3. There must be adequate rest between the intervals and between the interval sessions. There should not be much more than strength prescribed during the intensity blocks aside from the intensity itself. Older skiers and those at altitude should probably not do more than 3-4 sessions in a row without a break from intensity for a day. 4. Try to make the intensity sessions as specific as possible to gain the biggest benefits. 5. Find a way to objectively evaluate the success of the block. There are several ways to do this. You can do a field test or get a VO2 test before and after the block. You can also judge this as you do your intensity block by repeating intervals sessions throughout the block. For example, the following block of training will give you a fairly good feel for improvements while they are happening: Day 1: Interval session 4x4 Roll SK at location 1. Day 2: Interval session 5x4 Hill Bounding Location 2. Day 3: 4x4 Roll Classic location 3. Day 4: 4x4 Roll SK location 1 Day 5: 5x4 Hill Bounding Location 2 Day 6: 4x4 Roll CL Location 3. Good luck, they really do work. They better, because doing a block of training like this can be pretty tough! Nathan "Tim Kelley" wrote in message ups.com... I'm wondering what readers of rec.nordic.skiing think of the interval block training that the US Ski Team, for instance, is doing this year. Is it the wave of the future, a fad, or not a good idea? I'm thinking that this form of training reflects the demands of new racing formats. With mass starts becoming the predominant race format and sprint racing ever growing - you need to be very powerful and able to run your heart to the redline often to hang with breaks. I think compressed blocks of interval sessions will acheive these this. I also think this is a ballsy move on the part of the USST to go this route. And I appreciate the fact that they taking risks that may get them higher on the World Cup result lists. But I'm sure other r.s.n have different opinions. And I think this topic may make a good discussion thread. I'm also wondering how the Canadians national team members may be training different that the US. These days the Canadians may not have a Kris Freeman ... but man, they sure have depth!! I don't every remember seeing such strength in numbers with the Canadian men (look at US Nationals results or New Zealand results). Have the Canadian men been inspired by Golden Beckie, do they subscribe to compressed interval block training or is the beer in Canada these days really that much better than US beer!?! TK
|
|
#24
October 21st 04, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
One very important note is that most "part-time" athletes are not fit
enough to do more than 3 or 4 sessions in a block without at least a little rest. So, no, you shouldn't feel like you are capable of doing 9 days of hard intervals in a row, nor should you try. Leave that to the guys like Eloffson.  Nathan, I think your last paragraph is a KEY POINT that masters should heed! To often in the past World Cup or USST training schedules have been scaled down to fit masters schedules. Often the result is a bad plan for masters athletes. I remember when many coaches were saying Wassberg, Svan, Daehlie ... they do 90-95% easy distance ... easy distance is the key! So masters were often told to focus on easy distance, with intervals only now and then. And by some miracle - by going slow all the time, they would ski fast at race time. The deal here is that elite skiers train 800-900 hours a year do a low% of speed and interval work as a proportion of their total. But if you only train 400 hours a year, your intensity percentage should be higher. So - over the years many masters were coached to ski much slower than they could by paterning their training after WC and USST models. With World Cup / USST racers doing interval blocks of 5 to 9 days, I think masters could be duped into thinking this will help them. Like you said - for a master training 250 - 400 hours a year ... doing 5 to 9 straight days of intervals would be just flat ass dumb. When the big boys come into 5-9 day interval blocks they are coming off of a 80-100 hour month. They also have time to rest (I mean REALLY rest - sleep over 7 hours a night, nap, not work). So reducing the training volume for 9 days to fluff up their VO2 Max is okay. But most masters need to improve their base fitness. The fitness needed to do 2 to 3 hour races. I've got to think that a better solution is a mix of intervals and distance in this case. I've been playing with "micro blocks of intervals". A conservative approach, I pick 3 days and do intensive intervals these days, and beef up the distance on the other days. Also I think the 4x4 minute intervals make sense if you are doing 5-9 days worth. But a 4x4 minute workout IMHO is a puny workout. I think if you do a 3 day block, you are better off going 6x4 or more. Hopefully not too many "part time" skiers will get burned by this current craze (unless, of course, they are my competition !! ;-) ) Tim Kelley
|
|
#25
October 21st 04, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ...
Hi Steve, Most of the people I have talked to definitely do *not* consider these "max" intervals. They are level 4 VO2 intervals. Hard, but certainly not max. The general rule seems to be 4-5 minutes per interval and 15-20 minutes of work in each session. This is enough work to produce the desired adaptations, but by keeping these intervals under control and having a relatively short total work time in each session, it should not be too much to handle. Agreed, the level definitions are variable depending on who you talk to. I was using max as a shorthand for VO2max, as opposed to anaerobic all out max. I personally don't do these much for skiing, but on a bike so I can nail the intensity with a powermeter. I don't run, but running is good to use the track as Chris was talking about. Pace and or power are the best measures as opposed to HR. On rollerskis, pace can work okay, as long as equipment issues are controlled for. On snow, perceived exertion is probably best due to the plethora of factors that affect pace. As you say, the "goal" intensity is not acheived until well into the interval. In fact, I would say it is more like a minute to 90 seconds before the goal intensity is achieved. This leaves 2.5-3.5 minutes at the goal intensity, which the physiologists tell us is about the right amount of time to spend to achieve the adaptations we're seeking. I would argue, that intensity would be measured by the work done, and if done correctly, that intensity is reached immediately. The way most people measure intensity, HR, lags, and as we both agree, it takes a while to get to the correct level. The problem is, many people rely on their HRM too much, and try to get the HR into the correct zone immediately, and overcook the beginning of the interval, so, it turns out being an anaerobic interval that is too hard. So, within the context of the exact interval itself, HR is not a great measure, the pace would be. Get to your taget pace and maintain that. For assessment matters, if you use downloadable HRM, the HR will actually be in the right zone for approximately the correct amount of time, as HR will lag after the inteval and remain elevated. Depending on fitness, probably not as long as it took to get up, but close enough for horseshoes. I'm not sure I follow your logic on why this makes HR monitoring difficult. Certainly, during the "warmup" period of each interval, HR is pretty meaningless. But once you hit the meat of the interval, you should be on target between 90-95% of max HR. If your HR is higher than this, you are heading more into the anaerobic zone and you will acheive some different effects. Is this what you're saying? Or am I confused? -Nathan www.nsavage.com "Steve McGregor" wrote in message om... Since you mentioned heart rate, I will add this.. max intervals like these is/are(?) one type of training that doesn't lend itself well to HR monitoring. If you are talking about a 4 min interval, it's going to take at least 30 s if not a minute for HR to get into the range you are talking about. So, don't do the interval for 4 min at the zone 5 HR, because that turns out to be a 4.5-5 min interval at max and 5 min is about the max amount of time you should spend at this pace. You really need to go all out for a pace you think you can maintaini for 4 min. At the end of the interval, you can check HR and see if it is reasonable for a max interval. On the next one, you can adjust your effort based on this feedback. If doing a block, you will get the feeling of the correct effort pretty quick. (Chris Pella) wrote in message . com... Nathan, When you say 4x4 Roll Classic, are you referring to striding uphill? I can get my heart rate into zone 4 by double-poling but only barely and it takes some time to get there. I've avoided striding because I find it difficult to keep classic rollerskis lined up and under control - perhaps because they are so heavy - and my technique suffers. Chris "Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ... Hi Tim, I have tried the intensity blocks in my own training and with several athletes that I coach and we've all had great success with it. The science seems to show that a block of between 5 and 9 days works best for most people. More than that and people kill themselves, less than that and the VO2max increase is not as dramatic. In my experience, I've noticed that at the end of the block, even though I am much more tired than when I started, my times are faster and the training feels more comfortable. One of my coaching clients freaked out about his intensity block that I prescribed a few weeks before the Chicago Marathon. He did it, though, and ended up taking 37 minutes off of his PR and said he could have run faster but he was too scared to open too hard. Out of everything that we did in preparing him for the race, he attributed the biggest success to the intensity block. Some key elements of the intensity blocks from my experiences: 1. Level 4 training is not level 5 training. It must be done at the right intensity to be successful. 2. An athlete must be prepared for the intensity block. As in all things training, it is good to build up at a pace that allows your body to adapt slowly. Don't hop off the couch and expect that doing intervals for six days is a good idea. You need to have done at least some threshold work and a little bit of level 4 intensity before jumping off into a block of level 4 intensity training. 3. There must be adequate rest between the intervals and between the interval sessions. There should not be much more than strength prescribed during the intensity blocks aside from the intensity itself. Older skiers and those at altitude should probably not do more than 3-4 sessions in a row without a break from intensity for a day. 4. Try to make the intensity sessions as specific as possible to gain the biggest benefits. 5. Find a way to objectively evaluate the success of the block. There are several ways to do this. You can do a field test or get a VO2 test before and after the block. You can also judge this as you do your intensity block by repeating intervals sessions throughout the block. For example, the following block of training will give you a fairly good feel for improvements while they are happening: Day 1: Interval session 4x4 Roll SK at location 1. Day 2: Interval session 5x4 Hill Bounding Location 2. Day 3: 4x4 Roll Classic location 3. Day 4: 4x4 Roll SK location 1 Day 5: 5x4 Hill Bounding Location 2 Day 6: 4x4 Roll CL Location 3. Good luck, they really do work. They better, because doing a block of training like this can be pretty tough! Nathan "Tim Kelley" wrote in message ups.com... I'm wondering what readers of rec.nordic.skiing think of the interval block training that the US Ski Team, for instance, is doing this year. Is it the wave of the future, a fad, or not a good idea? I'm thinking that this form of training reflects the demands of new racing formats. With mass starts becoming the predominant race format and sprint racing ever growing - you need to be very powerful and able to run your heart to the redline often to hang with breaks. I think compressed blocks of interval sessions will acheive these this. I also think this is a ballsy move on the part of the USST to go this route. And I appreciate the fact that they taking risks that may get them higher on the World Cup result lists. But I'm sure other r.s.n have different opinions. And I think this topic may make a good discussion thread. I'm also wondering how the Canadians national team members may be training different that the US. These days the Canadians may not have a Kris Freeman ... but man, they sure have depth!! I don't every remember seeing such strength in numbers with the Canadian men (look at US Nationals results or New Zealand results). Have the Canadian men been inspired by Golden Beckie, do they subscribe to compressed interval block training or is the beer in Canada these days really that much better than US beer!?! TK
|
|
#27
October 21st 04, 09:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anders,
I see where you are going as this whole intensity block thing has taken the US Scene by storm and has definitely become a fad. There are definitely dangers in that, but there are few things that I have seen in my skiing and coaching career that seem to work as well as this and work for such a broad range of athletes, from the average Joe to some of the best skiers in the world. But from all the evidence I've seen, both scientific and analogous, intensity blocks really make a difference. My intent was never to say that he took 37 minutes off of his marathon time exclusively due to the intensity block intervals he did. But I think it is noteworthy that he felt that the intensity block dramatically improved his speed at race pace and made running fast feel more comfortable. I apologize if this made me sound like a cheerleader. But the old truth - that for someone whose trained a bit longer and done any kind of VO2max workouts with any regularity, there is no such significant or quick gain in his marathon pace to be gained by increasing his VO2max by block interval training - is still true, isnīt it? Or did I indeed miss an essential part, such as that the VO2max which was previously thought to plateau (earlyish) has now been shown to increase (above what traditional methods resulted in) after a short period of block interval training? The key thing that you are missing here is that VO2max, even though a specific athlete's maximum recorded value will max out pretty early in a serious athlete's career, is not constant throughout the year. During certain periods of training and racing, values for top male skiers can change by as much as 10-15% in the course of a month. This VO2 block training bumps up the VO2max in ways that regular, steady VO2 training just will not do. The runner in the anecdote I gave who took off 37 minutes from his marathon time was not a plodding beginner. He was by no means an experienced elite, but he was not untrained. Before his first running marathon, he had been training seriously for 18 months under my coaching and had been doing a regimented program of intervals, both threshold and VO2. Before that he had trained seriously for about two years on his own. When he ran his second marathon a year later, certainly, he benefited from another 12 months of regimented training I just finished a 6 day block Monday and found that I was feeling very strong at the end. 3 of the 5 workouts were running. When I went for zone 1 hour run the next day it felt even more ridiculously easy than normal. FWIW I seem to have good days and bad days for no particular reason:-) Well, yes that is true, some days we just feel better than others. But I think there is enough evidence here to support my claim. There are many athletes who have reported similar experiences to mine - both elite and citizen-level. It seems more than just random chance that after 3 days of doing hard intervals if I repeat those exact intervals for another three days that my performance has increased over the first 3 days while feeling easier. In fact, it seems logical that my performance should decrease because I should be tired. So, why not give it a try? What do you have to lose? If it works for you, then great. If not, then don't do them again. The point is to try to educate people with my experience as an athlete and coach and let them make their own judgements. I can't do much more than that. I sincerely believe that interval block training is a great tool for elites especially, but also for well-prepared non-elites as well. I don't make any claim that these or any other training methods I describe are absolutely the best way to do anything. -Nathan www.nsavage.com
|
|
#28
October 21st 04, 09:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve,
All good points you made in the last email. HR monitors are great tools, but like all tools, they have weaknesses. We as skiers unfortunately have a huge disadvantage over many other sports in measuring the activity that we do. Snow speed changes from minute to minute, and rollerskis are more consistent, yet have too many confounding variables such as wheel temperature and pavement hardness to give a really precise, consistent measurement. Like you say, perceived exertion has to come into play for the skier, and unfortunately, that is something that only really works with experience. HR monitors help in that they can tell you to slow down or speed up, but only once you've reached a steady state. You need to know how fast that pace is when you start the interval, and this can only be found through experience. The 30/30 intervals you mention are a great way to raise VO2max. But they can have a little more anaerobic character if not done very controlled. I've never heard of those being used throughout an entire season, and I think it is because of this. I've only heard of this type of a workout being used for increasing aerobic and anaerobic power, not capacity, which is what the traditional longer intervals are generally perceived to do. Plus, what kind of a wuss would say that they are better because they don't hurt as much? -Nathan www.nsavage.com "Steve McGregor" wrote in message ... I will also add that there is a school of thought that the traditional 4 x 4, or something like that, approach is not the optimal way to train VO2max, but a criss cross type of training using very short 30 s intervals is best. In this case, you would do 30 s on, 30 s off, 30s on, etc.. This seems to be less stressful from a perceived exertion standpoint and allows the person to stay at VO2max for a continuous period of time up to 15 min. Using this approach, the 30 s recovery is short enough that all the factors contributing to VO2max metabolism are still turned on, but you get a perceived rest. I don't know if I would totally replace the 4 x 4 or 5, but might substitute for one or two workouts. Steve (Chris Pella) wrote in message . com... Nathan said it better than I could. Just wanted to add that if I went 4 mins at maximum effort, I probably would have to wait much longer than 3 mins before I was able to do another one, and the protocol would be blown. The purpose of the VO2 intervals is not to train lactate tolerance, although that is going to happen as a side-effect. When I was in high school track we middle distance runners would do repeat 400s at max effort, and the work time per interval was more like 70s. You really felt like puking after the last one. That's my idea of level 5 max effort. Chris "Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ... Hi Steve, Most of the people I have talked to definitely do *not* consider these "max" intervals. They are level 4 VO2 intervals. Hard, but certainly not max. The general rule seems to be 4-5 minutes per interval and 15-20 minutes of work in each session. This is enough work to produce the desired adaptations, but by keeping these intervals under control and having a relatively short total work time in each session, it should not be too much to handle. As you say, the "goal" intensity is not acheived until well into the interval. In fact, I would say it is more like a minute to 90 seconds before the goal intensity is achieved. This leaves 2.5-3.5 minutes at the goal intensity, which the physiologists tell us is about the right amount of time to spend to achieve the adaptations we're seeking. I'm not sure I follow your logic on why this makes HR monitoring difficult. Certainly, during the "warmup" period of each interval, HR is pretty meaningless. But once you hit the meat of the interval, you should be on target between 90-95% of max HR. If your HR is higher than this, you are heading more into the anaerobic zone and you will acheive some different effects. Is this what you're saying? Or am I confused? -Nathan www.nsavage.com "Steve McGregor" wrote in message om... Since you mentioned heart rate, I will add this.. max intervals like these is/are(?) one type of training that doesn't lend itself well to HR monitoring. If you are talking about a 4 min interval, it's going to take at least 30 s if not a minute for HR to get into the range you are talking about. So, don't do the interval for 4 min at the zone 5 HR, because that turns out to be a 4.5-5 min interval at max and 5 min is about the max amount of time you should spend at this pace. You really need to go all out for a pace you think you can maintaini for 4 min. At the end of the interval, you can check HR and see if it is reasonable for a max interval. On the next one, you can adjust your effort based on this feedback. If doing a block, you will get the feeling of the correct effort pretty quick. (Chris Pella) wrote in message . com... Nathan, When you say 4x4 Roll Classic, are you referring to striding uphill? I can get my heart rate into zone 4 by double-poling but only barely and it takes some time to get there. I've avoided striding because I find it difficult to keep classic rollerskis lined up and under control - perhaps because they are so heavy - and my technique suffers. Chris "Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ... Hi Tim, I have tried the intensity blocks in my own training and with several athletes that I coach and we've all had great success with it. The science seems to show that a block of between 5 and 9 days works best for most people. More than that and people kill themselves, less than that and the VO2max increase is not as dramatic. In my experience, I've noticed that at the end of the block, even though I am much more tired than when I started, my times are faster and the training feels more comfortable. One of my coaching clients freaked out about his intensity block that I prescribed a few weeks before the Chicago Marathon. He did it, though, and ended up taking 37 minutes off of his PR and said he could have run faster but he was too scared to open too hard. Out of everything that we did in preparing him for the race, he attributed the biggest success to the intensity block. Some key elements of the intensity blocks from my experiences: 1. Level 4 training is not level 5 training. It must be done at the right intensity to be successful. 2. An athlete must be prepared for the intensity block. As in all things training, it is good to build up at a pace that allows your body to adapt slowly. Don't hop off the couch and expect that doing intervals for six days is a good idea. You need to have done at least some threshold work and a little bit of level 4 intensity before jumping off into a block of level 4 intensity training. 3. There must be adequate rest between the intervals and between the interval sessions. There should not be much more than strength prescribed during the intensity blocks aside from the intensity itself. Older skiers and those at altitude should probably not do more than 3-4 sessions in a row without a break from intensity for a day. 4. Try to make the intensity sessions as specific as possible to gain the biggest benefits. 5. Find a way to objectively evaluate the success of the block. There are several ways to do this. You can do a field test or get a VO2 test before and after the block. You can also judge this as you do your intensity block by repeating intervals sessions throughout the block. For example, the following block of training will give you a fairly good feel for improvements while they are happening: Day 1: Interval session 4x4 Roll SK at location 1. Day 2: Interval session 5x4 Hill Bounding Location 2. Day 3: 4x4 Roll Classic location 3. Day 4: 4x4 Roll SK location 1 Day 5: 5x4 Hill Bounding Location 2 Day 6: 4x4 Roll CL Location 3. Good luck, they really do work. They better, because doing a block of training like this can be pretty tough! Nathan "Tim Kelley" wrote in message ups.com... I'm wondering what readers of rec.nordic.skiing think of the interval block training that the US Ski Team, for instance, is doing this year. Is it the wave of the future, a fad, or not a good idea? I'm thinking that this form of training reflects the demands of new racing formats. With mass starts becoming the predominant race format and sprint racing ever growing - you need to be very powerful and able to run your heart to the redline often to hang with breaks. I think compressed blocks of interval sessions will acheive these this. I also think this is a ballsy move on the part of the USST to go this route. And I appreciate the fact that they taking risks that may get them higher on the World Cup result lists. But I'm sure other r.s.n have different opinions. And I think this topic may make a good discussion thread. I'm also wondering how the Canadians national team members may be training different that the US. These days the Canadians may not have a Kris Freeman ... but man, they sure have depth!! I don't every remember seeing such strength in numbers with the Canadian men (look at US Nationals results or New Zealand results). Have the Canadian men been inspired by Golden Beckie, do they subscribe to compressed interval block training or is the beer in Canada these days really that much better than US beer!?! TK
|
|
#29
October 22nd 04, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
First of all, are you calling me a wuss? Watch it or you'll get an
Alulite over the head. Granted I'm so wimpy I don't even use Aluminum poles anymore, so, I might not be able to swing it over you head. You are right that the 30/30s if not done properly might have the wrong characteristic, but,... they do increase capacity if done properly. Proponents would argue that they increase capacity to a greater extent than the traditional approach because they allow the subject.. er..... athlete to maintian actual VO2max metabolism and physiological responses longer, hence inducing a greater overload. I'm not necessarlity recommending them as a replacement, just putting forth the arguments. The data is pretty convincing though that they do increase capacity, although, I'm not aware of a direct head to head comparison of effectiveness under controlled situations. So, since most traditionalists would not be convinced of the effectiveness of the approach, I am not surprised that nobody would recommend them (I remember my intial reaction when I started reading papers demonstrating the effectiveness of the approach). I would say though that they would be worth trying in running or cycling, as a cross training adjunct to skiing, where workload can be more effectively controlled. With regard to the perceived exertion, I am horrible at it, and I have been training for a long, long, time. I was essentially married to my heart rate monitor for years, then had to get a divorce so I could marry my present wife. I still use HR to assess big picture training intensity, but have moved more to pace in rollerskiing, and (god love em) power measurement in cycling. If I were to base perceived exertion recommendations on my own experience, I wouldn't even use them, but for most trained individuals PE is pretty good. "Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ... Steve, All good points you made in the last email. HR monitors are great tools, but like all tools, they have weaknesses. We as skiers unfortunately have a huge disadvantage over many other sports in measuring the activity that we do. Snow speed changes from minute to minute, and rollerskis are more consistent, yet have too many confounding variables such as wheel temperature and pavement hardness to give a really precise, consistent measurement. Like you say, perceived exertion has to come into play for the skier, and unfortunately, that is something that only really works with experience. HR monitors help in that they can tell you to slow down or speed up, but only once you've reached a steady state. You need to know how fast that pace is when you start the interval, and this can only be found through experience. The 30/30 intervals you mention are a great way to raise VO2max. But they can have a little more anaerobic character if not done very controlled. I've never heard of those being used throughout an entire season, and I think it is because of this. I've only heard of this type of a workout being used for increasing aerobic and anaerobic power, not capacity, which is what the traditional longer intervals are generally perceived to do. Plus, what kind of a wuss would say that they are better because they don't hurt as much? -Nathan www.nsavage.com "Steve McGregor" wrote in message ... I will also add that there is a school of thought that the traditional 4 x 4, or something like that, approach is not the optimal way to train VO2max, but a criss cross type of training using very short 30 s intervals is best. In this case, you would do 30 s on, 30 s off, 30s on, etc.. This seems to be less stressful from a perceived exertion standpoint and allows the person to stay at VO2max for a continuous period of time up to 15 min. Using this approach, the 30 s recovery is short enough that all the factors contributing to VO2max metabolism are still turned on, but you get a perceived rest. I don't know if I would totally replace the 4 x 4 or 5, but might substitute for one or two workouts. Steve (Chris Pella) wrote in message . com... Nathan said it better than I could. Just wanted to add that if I went 4 mins at maximum effort, I probably would have to wait much longer than 3 mins before I was able to do another one, and the protocol would be blown. The purpose of the VO2 intervals is not to train lactate tolerance, although that is going to happen as a side-effect. When I was in high school track we middle distance runners would do repeat 400s at max effort, and the work time per interval was more like 70s. You really felt like puking after the last one. That's my idea of level 5 max effort. Chris "Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ... Hi Steve, Most of the people I have talked to definitely do *not* consider these "max" intervals. They are level 4 VO2 intervals. Hard, but certainly not max. The general rule seems to be 4-5 minutes per interval and 15-20 minutes of work in each session. This is enough work to produce the desired adaptations, but by keeping these intervals under control and having a relatively short total work time in each session, it should not be too much to handle. As you say, the "goal" intensity is not acheived until well into the interval. In fact, I would say it is more like a minute to 90 seconds before the goal intensity is achieved. This leaves 2.5-3.5 minutes at the goal intensity, which the physiologists tell us is about the right amount of time to spend to achieve the adaptations we're seeking. I'm not sure I follow your logic on why this makes HR monitoring difficult. Certainly, during the "warmup" period of each interval, HR is pretty meaningless. But once you hit the meat of the interval, you should be on target between 90-95% of max HR. If your HR is higher than this, you are heading more into the anaerobic zone and you will acheive some different effects. Is this what you're saying? Or am I confused? -Nathan www.nsavage.com "Steve McGregor" wrote in message om... Since you mentioned heart rate, I will add this.. max intervals like these is/are(?) one type of training that doesn't lend itself well to HR monitoring. If you are talking about a 4 min interval, it's going to take at least 30 s if not a minute for HR to get into the range you are talking about. So, don't do the interval for 4 min at the zone 5 HR, because that turns out to be a 4.5-5 min interval at max and 5 min is about the max amount of time you should spend at this pace. You really need to go all out for a pace you think you can maintaini for 4 min. At the end of the interval, you can check HR and see if it is reasonable for a max interval. On the next one, you can adjust your effort based on this feedback. If doing a block, you will get the feeling of the correct effort pretty quick. (Chris Pella) wrote in message . com... Nathan, When you say 4x4 Roll Classic, are you referring to striding uphill? I can get my heart rate into zone 4 by double-poling but only barely and it takes some time to get there. I've avoided striding because I find it difficult to keep classic rollerskis lined up and under control - perhaps because they are so heavy - and my technique suffers. Chris "Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ... Hi Tim, I have tried the intensity blocks in my own training and with several athletes that I coach and we've all had great success with it. The science seems to show that a block of between 5 and 9 days works best for most people. More than that and people kill themselves, less than that and the VO2max increase is not as dramatic. In my experience, I've noticed that at the end of the block, even though I am much more tired than when I started, my times are faster and the training feels more comfortable. One of my coaching clients freaked out about his intensity block that I prescribed a few weeks before the Chicago Marathon. He did it, though, and ended up taking 37 minutes off of his PR and said he could have run faster but he was too scared to open too hard. Out of everything that we did in preparing him for the race, he attributed the biggest success to the intensity block. Some key elements of the intensity blocks from my experiences: 1. Level 4 training is not level 5 training. It must be done at the right intensity to be successful. 2. An athlete must be prepared for the intensity block. As in all things training, it is good to build up at a pace that allows your body to adapt slowly. Don't hop off the couch and expect that doing intervals for six days is a good idea. You need to have done at least some threshold work and a little bit of level 4 intensity before jumping off into a block of level 4 intensity training. 3. There must be adequate rest between the intervals and between the interval sessions. There should not be much more than strength prescribed during the intensity blocks aside from the intensity itself. Older skiers and those at altitude should probably not do more than 3-4 sessions in a row without a break from intensity for a day. 4. Try to make the intensity sessions as specific as possible to gain the biggest benefits. 5. Find a way to objectively evaluate the success of the block. There are several ways to do this. You can do a field test or get a VO2 test before and after the block. You can also judge this as you do your intensity block by repeating intervals sessions throughout the block. For example, the following block of training will give you a fairly good feel for improvements while they are happening: Day 1: Interval session 4x4 Roll SK at location 1. Day 2: Interval session 5x4 Hill Bounding Location 2. Day 3: 4x4 Roll Classic location 3. Day 4: 4x4 Roll SK location 1 Day 5: 5x4 Hill Bounding Location 2 Day 6: 4x4 Roll CL Location 3. Good luck, they really do work. They better, because doing a block of training like this can be pretty tough! Nathan "Tim Kelley" wrote in message ups.com... I'm wondering what readers of rec.nordic.skiing think of the interval block training that the US Ski Team, for instance, is doing this year. Is it the wave of the future, a fad, or not a good idea? I'm thinking that this form of training reflects the demands of new racing formats. With mass starts becoming the predominant race format and sprint racing ever growing - you need to be very powerful and able to run your heart to the redline often to hang with breaks. I think compressed blocks of interval sessions will acheive these this. I also think this is a ballsy move on the part of the USST to go this route. And I appreciate the fact that they taking risks that may get them higher on the World Cup result lists. But I'm sure other r.s.n have different opinions. And I think this topic may make a good discussion thread. I'm also wondering how the Canadians national team members may be training different that the US. These days the Canadians may not have a Kris Freeman ... but man, they sure have depth!! I don't every remember seeing such strength in numbers with the Canadian men (look at US Nationals results or New Zealand results). Have the Canadian men been inspired by Golden Beckie, do they subscribe to compressed interval block training or is the beer in Canada these days really that much better than US beer!?! TK
|
|
#30
October 24th 04, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Watching on TV today the Team Sprints from Dusseldorf I was
reminded of this thread. A 1.5Km loop approx, each racer doing 3.0 to 3.5 mins flat out with the same rest time for 6 times. During that rest time they had to walk to the waxing bench, grab a drink and somehow try to rest before skis back on and race. I can see now why Nathan has become an expert on this topic!! Mike
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Roller Ski Question | Diva | Nordic Skiing | 24 | February 29th 04 05:02 PM |
| Near fatal ski incident | Me | Nordic Skiing | 22 | February 27th 04 01:47 PM |
| Skate technique USST two cents | Pete Vordenberg | Nordic Skiing | 52 | January 22nd 04 02:31 PM |
| 5km race training | Jeff Kalember | Nordic Skiing | 7 | August 24th 03 07:17 PM |
| LT Training for Lance, Why Not Nordic Skiers? | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 4 | August 18th 03 04:41 PM |
Linear Mode
