Compressed Interval Block Training - Good or Bad?

Ken,

I'm definitely not saying that rollerski time trials are useless. Just
that they are a great way to buff up your confidence because if you beat
your last time then it is due to fitness gains, and if for some reason your
time is slower, then it's due to hard pavement, wind, wheel issues...

In the TeamToday post on their web site (www.teamtoday.org), Pete made a
very explicit warning about overanalyzing times from rollerski time
trials...

And on the issue or repeatability: How could one control the
temperature of 3km of asphalt? Rollerski wheels vary wildly in performance
depending on many factors such as wear, manufacturing batch and seemingly
the phase of the moon. They have a rollerski treadmill at the Olympic
Training Center in Lake Placid where I believe they have several sets of
calibrated rollerskis, but again, the return on investment just is not there
to make it worth investing USST's limited resources to get consistent
rollerski time trial results. It would be cheaper to send the team to New
Zealand where they can ski on snow than to pay someone to keep a fleet of
rollerskis calibrated.

-Nathan
www.nsavage.com

"Ken Roberts" wrote in message
...
Nathan Schultz wrote
All rollerski results should be taken with a grain of salt.

Yes, all measurements of all kinds of skiing-related performance should be
taken with a grain of salt. But that doesn't mean that rollerski
time-trials
are useless -- and it seems that Pete Vordenberg and US Ski Team find some
value in them.

I keep getting more enthusiastic about Pete and his approach. One big
thing
I like is that his drive to _win_ pushes him to keep _learning_. Seems
like
he's less interested in proving that he was right six months, and more
interested in moving on to help his athletes to find something that works
even better. I would think that's exactly what a national team coach is
supposed to be focusing on.

rollerski results . . . Wind, wheels and the temperature
and condition of the asphalt have such a huge effect on
time that it is very hard to compare times.

One might hope that somebody over the years has developed some clues for
how
to adjust for those factors. One might hope that for key training
time-trials, they would be done on the same course each time, and each
athlete would use the same wheels in similar wear-condition as previous.

Wouldn't wind and temperature and asphalt-condition impact all the
athletes
in the same direction? So you would then expect that everybody's times
would
be slower, not 2 slower and 2 faster.

A different explanation for these results: Compressed Interval Blocks are
still not well-understand, and we're still _learning_ what protocol works
best for different kinds of athletes, even at the elite level. And that
Pete
was right to get that learning process started for his athletes. And right
to publish his early results so the rest of us could see that it's not so
simple -- not yet "scientific" or predictable.

I thought Nathan and most other people in this discussion were already
saying that. Compressed Interval Blocks are still experimental -- but
worth
experimenting with.

Ken
_________________________________________
"Nathan Schultz" wrote in message
...
Rollerskiing is stupid. All rollerski results should be taken with
a
grain of salt. Wind, wheels and the temperature and condition of the
asphalt have such a huge effect on time that it is very hard to compare
times.

However, it's a great opportunity to read something great into it if
you
beat your previous times, but write it off as an anomaly if your times
are
slower than last year....

-Nathan
Set a new PR on our uphill classic rollerski time trial course last
week. Going to be a great season.
www.nsavage.com


"Ken Roberts" wrote in message
...
someone wrote:
I have some scientific data from the US Ski Team.

Here's some skiing performance measurement results from the US
national
team:
http://www.teamtoday.org/news.php?id=130

From a quick reading of the plans and stories on the website, it looks
these
measurement results are coming after doing two or three Compressed
Interval
Blocks during the previous six months.

Out of the 4 racers who did the same rollerski time trial before, 2 of
them
were _slower_ than last year.

What are we to make of this?

Ken

P.S.
When I add up Kris Freeman's four times, I get 27:32, not 27:24.

"Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ...
Ken,

I'm definitely not saying that rollerski time trials are useless. Just
that they are a great way to buff up your confidence because if you beat
your last time then it is due to fitness gains, and if for some reason your
time is slower, then it's due to hard pavement, wind, wheel issues...

In the TeamToday post on their web site (www.teamtoday.org), Pete made a
very explicit warning about overanalyzing times from rollerski time
trials...

I agree that rollerskis are very different, even the same brand. Most
of our group skis on Marwe 610s, and the speed difference is pretty
incredible. (The drag from the rubber seals over the bearings seems to
make a big difference, with old seals being faster.) Also, when the
temp drops, the skis get slow. If you leave them in your trunk, you'll
have a power workout about 0 C.

One that that I've found interesting this fall, is on my 50 km skis,
I'm within a few minutes week to week. When I'm tired, I'm 3-4 min
slow, and when I feel good, I'm about 2 min faster than average.

Another thing I've noticed is that rollerski speed doesn't completely
translate to snow speed. I ski faster on snow (compared to the guys I
ski with) than I do on rollerskis. Some other guys are hell on wheels.
The relative difference isn't huge, but it's there (and it doesn't
seem to be related to rollerski speed.) I don't know, maybe
rollerskiing has more emphasis on upperbody.

Put that on your iron and smoke it...

Jay (just jokin' around) Wenner

--- "Sly D. Skeez" wrote:


make a big difference, with old seals being faster.) Also, when the
temp drops, the skis get slow. If you leave them in your trunk,
you'll
have a power workout about 0 C.

Twenty years ago our club used to have weekly rollerski races all
summer. We all used Roleto Touring so that we'd be close in speed.
But we discovered that the warmer the air temp the faster the race
times. So then we'd drive to the race with the car heater on and the
skis under the heater air draft. The original hot box!

"Tonight, tonight, the time's just right, for racing in the street..."
Bruce Springstein, top New Jersey xc skier.

Rob Bradlee


=====
Rob Bradlee
Java, C++, Perl, XML, OOAD, Linux, and Unix Training

Ken Roberts wrote:

A different explanation for these results: Compressed Interval Blocks
are still not well-understand, and we're still _learning_ what
protocol works best for different kinds of athletes, even at the
elite level. And that Pete was right to get that learning process
started for his athletes. And right to publish his early results so
the rest of us could see that it's not so simple -- not yet
"scientific" or predictable.

I thought Nathan and most other people in this discussion were already
saying that. Compressed Interval Blocks are still experimental -- but
worth experimenting with.

Compressed Interval Blocks can also be used to get in better shape, eg.
after an injury. I have used it for several years (4?) when I start skiing
for the first time. I do not train hard during the summer and autumn, and
Compressed Interval Blocks is therefore necessary to get in better shape. I
normally use at least 8 days to this exercise:

Day 1: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 2: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 3: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 4: Distance 12 km
Day 5: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 6: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 7: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 8: Distance 12 km

After that, 2 intervals and 1 or more distances each week, also with longer
intervals and distances. I have never been a faster skier than now (I
think), at an age of 54.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes

Terje Henriksen wrote:
Ken Roberts wrote:

A different explanation for these results: Compressed Interval Blocks
are still not well-understand, and we're still _learning_ what
protocol works best for different kinds of athletes, even at the
elite level. And that Pete was right to get that learning process
started for his athletes. And right to publish his early results so
the rest of us could see that it's not so simple -- not yet
"scientific" or predictable.

I thought Nathan and most other people in this discussion were
already saying that. Compressed Interval Blocks are still
experimental -- but worth experimenting with.

Compressed Interval Blocks can also be used to get in better shape,
eg. after an injury. I have used it for several years (4?) when I
start skiing for the first time. I do not train hard during the
summer and autumn, and Compressed Interval Blocks is therefore
necessary to get in better shape. I normally use at least 8 days to
this exercise:

Day 1: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 2: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 3: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 4: Distance 12 km
Day 5: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 6: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 7: 4-6 1-1,5 km intervals
Day 8: Distance 12 km

After that, 2 intervals and 1 or more distances each week, also with
longer intervals and distances. I have never been a faster skier than
now (I think), at an age of 54.

NB! The distance training shall be at max speed.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes