Aerobic: volume vs. frequency
65
Member
359 days
Toothless posted 21 weeks ago.
My main question after reading the post is what do you mean by high volume? That is very relative. And in both scenarios are you suggesting the same amount of total hours of training per week?
110
Member
347 days
burnman posted 21 weeks ago.
It is a very complicated way of asking a simple question. Assume that next week you plan to dedicate 6 hours to aerobic bike training (and it's still pre-season). What is the best (or better) use of that 6 hours? Is it six hour-long sets, four 90-minute sets, three 120-minute sets, etc. While I entertain any scientific or empirical evidence, I'm really interested in personal experience. Given a finite number of hours in which to train, do you prefer high volume (i.e. fewer sessions at longer duration), or high frequency (i.e. more sessions at shorter duration), and why? If there is a logical pro/con argument between volume and frequency, I think that many people would consider altering their training schedules for the sake of efficiency.
1125
Member
897 days
UFTriGator posted 21 weeks ago.
Last summer I was training hard maybe 3 days a week with 3 easy days with about 12 workout sessions per week. I would usually average about 25 mph during races.
In the fall my classes got in the way. I took more days off, but my hard days were longer for about the same amount of time per week with about 6 workout sessions per week. I got steadily worse during the fall, averaging about 24 mph during races.
Right now I'm going hard 6 days a week and easy one day with about 18 sessions per week. I'm averaging about 27 mph.
Frequency. Doubling up after skipping a workout is NOT the same.
______________________________________________
-Matt
Not fast enough.
3
Member
164 days
GrumpyCloth posted 21 weeks ago.
yea doubling up after missing a workout is not a good idea IMO. I think it just promotes chance of injury. For the aerobic thing I would think longer duration would be better. I mean isnt the point of working aerobicly to build the slowtwitch muscles and increase your your fat buring abilities among other things? And for that you would think longer duration would be better. Just my two cents.
184
Member
359 days
psychosyd posted 21 weeks ago.
Last year training for IM I set out my key workouts. These were generally my longer rides/hard tempo sessions in swim bike or run. If I hit these sessions each week I considered it a good week. That way I didn't stress about the other workouts I missed. For reference I was aiming at 18-24 hr weeks. Some of my biggest gains came when I had a low hours week, but killed my key workouts, and had lots of recovery. These are generally easy workouts to pick out especially if training for IM as they are the long ride or runs. Also very important are the tempo sessions.
988
Member
325 days
ChunkyB posted 21 weeks ago.
My motto is that if you miss a workout, then just let it go and continue as planned. Obviously you can't abuse that system, but it works for me. That being said, I was sick for most of last week, and my run last night was horrible, so don't miss too much time (call me cap'n obvious).
"The melting point of wax means nothing to me": Thrice
65
Member
359 days
Toothless posted 21 weeks ago.
I agree with the above comments about wanting to have adequate frequency and not stacking missed workouts too much, but for IM training your key workouts should include distance (volume) training, unless you already have a great base.
Last year I did my first HIM which went well, although I did more frequency of shorter distances and less long rides and runs. This fall I did a FUEL test to determine my training zones, LT, VO2 max, and to determine at what point I efficiently burn carbs vs. fats. The test determined that although I have a good LT as a % of VO2 max, I burn fats very inefficiently. This is a problem for longer races like IM (or even 6+ hour rides) where you have to rely on your bodies ability to efficiently burn fat. The solution for me was to do more longer rides and runs at an effort where I burn more fat. I needed to train volume. Splitting up workouts does not create the adaptation that I needed. For example, turning my 4 hr long weekend ride into two 2 hr rides does not offer the same benefit for the fat-burning system I am trying to improve. Your situation might be totally different.
532
Member
644 days
Ironmom posted 21 weeks ago.
I think there's probably as many answers to this question as there are athletes. I read once that Pam Reed (record-holder at Badwater Ultramarathon, who once ran 300 straight miles without sleeping) trains as follows:
"Reed, from Tucson, Ariz., has an unorthodox approach. With no coach, no nutritionist and no training schedule, she simply runs as much as she can – up to five times a day. For a mother of three, that means in the middle of the night, in between errands, or during her son’s soccer practice. "
For me, in training for HIM or IM distances, it works best if I keep my long workouts consistent and don't miss them, and all the rest I can move around or adjust as needed. I try not to do a lot of "junk miles" and make every workout useful in some way - I top out at 13 hours a week when training for HIM distance race and 18 hours was my longest week training for IM, so I don't put in near as many hours as some folks, but like Pam Reed I have to fit it all in around my kids' schedules, so being flexible about most of my daily workouts is key.
Blue Skies, -Robin-
http://ironmom.blogspot.com/
As pre-season training recently came to a close, I looked back through my training log and pondered the highs and lows of the preceding months. One thing that stood out more than anything else - INCONSISTENCY. If the balance required for IM training were an actual tight-rope, I would be scraping dirt out of my teeth. The overall volume is there, but judging by the week-to-week records you would think that I was alternating between two or three different athletes.
So, this brings me to an important, yet somewhat rhetorical, question: How much aerobic is effectively aerobic? How many times have you missed a short session then doubled up on volume during the next session? Or when you can't make time for that long weekly session and justify three shorter twilight workouts (my personal favorite).
We've all heard a million times, "aerobic is aerobic is aerobic," and an hour-long aerobic set is no different than 6 ten-minute aerobic sets. There's no substitute for "going long" in season, but is there any benefit to doing so in pre-season? If you throw recovery into the mix, the most logical answer is a good mix of long and short - but I'm seeking feedback solely for the benefit of two groups: (1) those who only have time to train at high volume and (2) those who only have time to train at high frequency.