Benchmark to determine if established aerobic base?

[Myopic Squirrel]

Have been low SS (18 - 22 SR for 40') erging every other day since early Feb to establish an aerobic base. Before adding intervals to my workouts, can anyone suggest a benchmark to determine if an aerobic base has been established? Thank you in advance!

[jamesg]

Have a look at the Interactives.
http://indoorsportservices.co.uk/training/

According to your level, they introduce AT work quite soon, such as 2*7 AT for Level 3 (at least a year's endurance). This is for racing, and as the schedule goes on, the work decreases.

The aerobic base (= Lactate clearance rate) grows and keeps growing if we load it, so you won't see a benchmark as such. However if you go too fast and have to stop (de facto interval), then no doubt you have found something. I'd stick to 40' pieces, under HR control; maybe you can split it into 4x10', doing one or more of the 10' pieces say at 10% higher power and rating than the best 40' to date. See what happens and if the leapfrog succeeds, keep jumping.

[G-dub]

This is an interesting question that I wish (hope) that there would be a straight answer for. Maffetone, who promotes long training blocks in lower heart rate zones in a pretty tight band suggests that you will eventually plateu at his MAF tests and it is at that point when intervals are added, or when race season starts. Many others say that you should be training all systems at once, and Seillor adds that 80% should be below AT and 20% above AT. But he also says that 2x 20 minute intervals (which to me seem to land right in the AT zone for lots of it) are some of the best workouts! I would say for sure that if you are sharpening for a test or race, you would want to introduce them into your program and if you simply are ready for them to break things up - I can't imagie that they would derail anything, unless you did too much of it and got hurt or over trained. Why not start adding them in at a day or two a week and see what happens?

[Musti]

Yes, Maffetone recommends long (many months of) aerobic base training before anything else and he also excludes weight lifting until aerobic base is established. I don't remembering him saying anything about reaching a plateau, but it's been a while I read it. I remember reading elsewhere that it takes many years to plateau on aerobic base, but it's much faster to plateau on VO2 max.

In any case, most endurance athletes (rowing, running, swimming, cycling, etc.) dedicate a huge portion of their training to aerobic, quite a little (at least in rowers as far as I remember) to lactate threshold, and more, but still little compared to aerobic on VO2 max. But that applies to olympic level athletes who train ca. 1000 hrs annually (depending on the sport with cyclist much higher and runners much lower). Given the volume, their only option may be a long aerobic since they cannot possibly train for very long in LT and max levels. I kind of ignore all other levels except the 3 levels since from what I understand there is no solid physiological basis for more than 3 levels (first and second ventilatory turnpoints: below 1st, above 1st below 2nd, and above 2nd equating to Z1, Z2, and Z3, which are typically called aerobic, LT, VO2max).

OP, personally I would do base training for no less than one month (4-5 times a week) before introducing higher levels, but I wouldn't go above 8 weeks as it gets too tedious. Another reason is not necessarily because of diminishing returns, which is kind of true but not for a month or two (it takes years to have a substantial diminishing returns on base training), but because your opportunity cost increases by not including higher intensities once the base is somewhat there. My two cents.

[Musti]

I should probably also add that VO2 max doesn't improve for a certain portion of the population (can't quite remember but around 10% I believe) regardless of how much training is done at top intensities, which has to do with genetics.

[Myopic Squirrel]

Gentlemen, thank you for your responses and suggestions. I am using the Maffetone method for my first month to build the aerobic base. After I complete the month, will start adding intervals (probably adapting some of Pete's Plan). When I do my next 2K test row, I know there will be an improvement simply because I've started from a base of no fitness. The unanswered Q is whether the Maffetone training improved my fitness more effectively v. another type of training.

[G-dub]

have you read this?

www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

It suggests that when you add in those intervals that you keep up with a large proportion (80%) of your Maffetone like work and that your intervals are focused above LT. I noticed when I got into some of the intervals workouts that I tended to do too many days of it or had too many days of medium / hard (LT) effort and not enough of the lower heart rate work. Sinceyou are on the Maffetone program, your MAF tests will tell you if there was improvement. But that would take more than 4 weeks I think - maybe not.

[Myopic Squirrel]

G-dub,

Thank you, and no I hadn't. VERY interesting, and apparently the original reference to 'the black hole'. Following their 80/20 prescription, since I only erg 4 days a week, my 5th workout will be at the LT level. Looking forward to adding this in another 3 weeks.

[Musti]

Excellent advice (and article). The 80% is a bit of a guesswork, especially because there are different ways to measure it, one being HR, the other being time, and this is also mentioned in the article. For instance, even when you are doing short VO2max a considerable portion of your HR will be in aerobic zone until you get there. When I do say Pete's plan 8x500, it takes me a while to get my HR to the zone and since it's quite a short interval, probably half the time I'm not in the zone. The workout lasts about 40 mins. So you can calculate all 40 mins including rests, 14 or so minutes for the sprints, or perhaps 4-5 minutes for sprints where your HR is above 92%. The way you do it skews the data a lot, but I think they're using the last method with a HR monitor. So even when you're doing VO2max work, you are doing more aerobic (and certainly some LT) contributing to the 80%. Either way a large portion of your training should contain SS training.

[G-dub]

Good point about it not being pristine metrics. I read somewhere that the speed work gains will last around 7-8 days (I have no idea where I read it, and it may be totally wrong, but for some reason it stuck with me!). In these days of base building, assuming there is no rush to get to a test or race, it has me thinking that one really good hard speed day a week that has full commitment might be all that's needed to stay in touch? Later, when in the last month or so prior to the race, more can be troweled in to get race ready? I think one of the things to is to make the base work entertaining, so doing aerobic zone fartlek workouts and etc come into play.

[Musti]

Good point about it not being pristine metrics. I read somewhere that the speed work gains will last around 7-8 days (I have no idea where I read it, and it may be totally wrong, but for some reason it stuck with me!). In these days of base building, assuming there is no rush to get to a test or race, it has me thinking that one really good hard speed day a week that has full commitment might be all that's needed to stay in touch? Later, when in the last month or so prior to the race, more can be troweled in to get race ready? I think one of the things to is to make the base work entertaining, so doing aerobic zone fartlek workouts and etc come into play.

Hi G-dub,

I actually have no idea how long speed work gains last. As a general rule the harder the workout the more rest is needed. I know that for strength training you shouldn't train same muscle groups on consecutive days. Some argue 48 hrs is enough, others say at least 3-4 days and then you have someone like Mike Mentzer saying up to two weeks, etc., but his workouts are supposed to be very tough. It also depends on the muscle group (abs and calves supposedly recover faster than quads, etc.) Not that I know much about strength training but similarly it makes sense that speed works require many days of recovery, especially if you're doing it for longer durations with many repeats. If you do 2-3 sprints for 1 minute each, it's probably fine to do it daily with occasional day offs. If you do 8x500 I definitely wouldn't do it more than twice a week. In fact, I like how Pete's plan is setup in terms of frequency with once a week VO2max and LT (but I replace what he calls "hard distance" with regular (steady) distance). I've seen athlete's programs that contain twice and I think even thrice VO2max per week, but I'm no athlete.

Yes, I'm sure once a week, if committed fully, is good enough not only to stay in touch, but also to improve. If race is really important one should probably follow a periodization, but I think it's overhyped and not necessary for non-professionals. Periodization is designed for professional athletes who prepare for a few events per year, or in extreme cases once every four years (i.e. olympics). I think once a week VO2max and LT for most of the year (except a break and back to base building phases) with quite a lot of aerobic work is good enough for mere mortals like me. No need to overcomplicate things with periodization. Also, a couple weeks prior to race is when one slowly drops the heavy work, so introducing twice a week VO2max a month before would not be useful when one should be tapering instead.

Fartlek workouts are a good way to make aerobic stuff more enjoyable but for some reason I can't get myself to do it; when I try I feel like I'm cheating the aerobic stuff

[G-dub]

Aye, finding the right balance for doing our best (actually doing it), feeling like (or knowing that) we are doing our best, and being realistic in terms of what our true potential is regardless of how much effort or desire we put into it can be elusive. I certainly know that I won't be anything more than a recreational rower, runner, mtn bike rider and etc. (I was born with a body that is more suited to carrying things ), but its easy to get seduced by those that are more than that in terms of what they are doing training wise, time wise and commitment wise. I tweaked my back on Friday morning and was only able to manage a couple of easy bike rides on the trainer and a little walk/jog around the block a few times. But I hate to say it...I felt better this Monday morning than I have in a long time - even with the back pain! The weekend warrior routine can wear you down after awhile - both mentally and physically. I want to figure out how to get where I want to go and also feel energized and not run down. I think that is where the Maffetone ideas may have some merit - even though it is hard to rationalize it since it sounds soft.

[Musti]

Yes, I completely agree. It's about the balance, whatever that is for every individual. I was doing 9-10 hrs per week (rowing and a little lifting) at one point in November/December and now had to dial it down to 6-7 as I can't afford to spend that much time (and energy) during my daily routine on top of other responsibilities. It's generally either the time or health that holds us back, perhaps in a good way too, but watching the athletes row or bike or run or whatever is inspiring. And when I get inspired I am motivated to do more, which is sometimes problematic of course both time-wise and health-wise And I know how good it feels to take a (often forced) break sometimes. When I was on holidays I couldn't do much (no gym, bad weather) but it felt pretty amazing and my body and mind were refreshed (despite what I wrote I guess periodization makes sense after all!). It's definitely better to take a break once in a while without being forced to do it (read injury)