I am not sure about time efficiency, but it allows you to do more work in the time available, so maybe.
Isn’t the theory of periodisation that you do the aerobic base stuff for a while and then revisit your higher intensity workouts later on?
And then you have to think about what combination of pushing up some hard uphills at 600/800W for as long as you can, mixed with more repeats of intervals of less duration at the same / higher watts, is best for your training objective.
There are lots of ways of fine tuning these things depending on the desired outcome, aren’t there?
The relationship between cadence and HR (at the same power) is interesting to me.
Without distracting from the very effective MAF work you are embarking on, have you also tried the “Steve Neal Fatmax” workouts? There is a thread about them on this forum and, even based on my own experience, I can tell you that a block of that sort of training is also very effective in developing aerobic capacity and might make a good follow on block to a well completed MAF block.
100% this is just for a base period. The length of a base period depends on many factors. A base period might be as short as 1 month, but in most cases probably 3+ months is best.
For a broken 40 year old Ironman winner it might be 2 years of base and for an absolute beginner runner it’s not a bad idea either (Hal Higgdon suggested 2 years of base also and he is not low HR guy)
Do more work? This is the maximum TSS theory and everyone should be doing 5X sweet spot per week
At the moment my goal is to improve my aerobic form and listening to Alex I liked the Maf book which I’m reading. Maybe next time I’ll try another method if this one doesn’t bring results.
Just yesterday I found a link about the Fatmax methodology (basically looking at the max fat consumption in absolute terms and not relative terms). It was basically saying to train at 80-90% of FTP (basically in the SweetZone area). At the moment I’ll focus on the MAF method (it’s for 3 months, not for the life), I’ll also look for the Steve Neal Fatmax workouts . Tnx!
My own ‘MAF’ results earlier in this year were very pleasing: an 18% increase in power at 126bpm from 25x 2h workouts across a ~2 month period.
I had tried the ‘Steve Neal’ workouts prior and had similarly pleasing results from that protocol too.
I am about to start another 8 week block of that and am interested to see what the results might be.
I wish I had know this stuff when I was younger!
@Alex Do more work in the context of the limit imposed by the protocol. If the HR cap is 135, then fully respecting it but achieving 134 average should give better results than fully respecting it but achieving 114 average. My instinct tell me that the gains are likely smaller from a 130 > 134 increase in the average than from a 110 > 114 increase, or a 120 > 124 increase, but my instinct could be wrong.
This is the do more work fallacy, need to get rid of this think and focus on doing the right work, whatever that may be. More is most easily defined as higher intensity x time, i.e. higher tss and if nothing else polarized training proved more work produces less results.
Right work, right work, right work. But more importantly be healthy and have fun. For all of us here finding training that works and is theoretically more efficient is fun. Most of that gets back to the basics, variety, work, overload, rest…
Oh, yes that makes sense. More work in time available is the whole sweet spot max ctl theory… I am not anti sweet spot at all. I think it is very useful and I love tss and ctl for goals (meaning it’s fun) and for seeing warning signs. The problem is tss/ctl goals push people to intensity rather than doing the right work when they run low in time. (I am a broken record… but just in case someone reads this and not something else).
I am a strong believer in finding what works for you, so finding the protocol that makes sense based on your goals. If your goal is a 40km TT in 12 weeks from now that sweet spot/threshold is the answer…
more efficiency doesn’t mean “max amount of work”, but I agree that it can be misinterpreted and people can try to follow the “no pain no gain” approach.
efficiency = work / effort (or output/input). Trying to find the max efficiency means finding that spot, not trying to to as much work as possible (that can make you very fit (in the shor term) but very unhealthy).
I think we all agree, but I’ve prefered to outline the goal and words that I used.
Yes some people excel with no pain no gain, but either they have good genetics or it is short term. And even efficient can be viewed many ways. How many years to get to 400w FTP… How few of times of getting sick or injured…
It’s an interesting idea. I think for young people that are not aware of fatigue, I am sure my kids could go 10 days a week at most intensity levels without a problem… Also even @BlackTek can go hard 7 days in a row and sleep like 1 hour a day and be ready to go the next week… Me, 1 hard day and I need to rest for a week…
The underlying idea of what you are suggesting has merit meaning tying our training to our ability to recover. If you are training 6 days a week for x hours per day you likely need lower intensity and if you are training 1 day a week you have more flexibility. If we could figure out how to quantify this better it might be great. But I think improving on a maf test is the ultimate truth, it could be via HIIT or zone 2… but clear aerobic progress over a longer period of time and when it stops working switch it up… if you have some short term goals make sure you get specific.
perhaps also the output of the aerobic training is not 100% written on stone. In general we, as cyclists, expect more power from the same hr.
But in the last month I’ve not seen an increase in power/hr, but I’ve seen an increase to resistence/fatigues. Compared to the past I can ride 4-6 hours without carbs in the bottle, and also fasted. Perhaps I’m starting to see the first outcomes of such training (more fats used as fuel), but not yet more power.
I don’t know, but I think that the strategy works and I want to follow it.
the only statement of @Ivegotabike I’m not so sure is this
“FTP might not go up (or change at all), even though power at HR X bpm does go up.”
It sounds a bit strange because IMO it should go up because you’re able to use more fats and therefore you can use more of the saved glycogen during the “FTP effort” (and not only for such reason). Any idea about it? other people have seen an increase of pwr/hr but not an ftp increase?
No, he is very correct. The problem with FTP is that it is based on a test and unless that test is a 60 minute TT (even that is heavily affected by durability) it’s very suspect to “FTP training.” So FTP test can see progress when your aerobic ratios go flat or even down, and visa versa. Even just getting more durability can improve your FTP test but does not mean increase aerobic performance. This is why a MAF test is so perfect the only thing it will show is aerobic performance… It has it’s own problems meaning HR can be heavily affected by other influences but since it is low intensity you can do it every week and over time the picture should be clear. But the same is true with FTP if you raise your FTP by 20% from 1 year to the next chances are you did improve your aerobic abilities regardless of the testing method (as long as it was the same protocol).
So let’s say your FTP test is 20 minute test… meaning all out for 20 minutes. What happens if you train for 3 months doing all out 20 minute workouts once or twice a week… Your FTP test goes up but your HR/Power may not, you can just sustain higher percent of HR longer or just get more efficient at surviving 20 minutes. So ramp test is even more suspect to specific training.
The key is increased durability does not mean increased aerobic performance. Now increased durability is very valuable. It feels good. It helps you win races or do well against your friends or get home faster when your wife starts complaining…
So just realize their is some independence to all of this but overall major cycling improvements usually mean improved aerobic, and FTP is a reasonable long term marker of improvement. Less good at short term as these tests are suspect to specific training. A guy with a 400w FTP using using more air than a guy going at 200w…
FTP is likely a better indicator of performance, but aerobic improvement is the base. Noticeably increase your aerobic ratio, then do some short term specific training and you will usually kill your next FTP test. I guarantee if you only do pure maffetone for the next 6 months (increase your aerobic) the an FTP test it will go down from where it is now, but 2 months of intensity and it will be at a new high.
here I’m talking about “real FTP”, not done with a ramp test or a 20 minutes test not properly done based on the protocol. I agree that most of cyclists do the 20 minute test without the prior all out efforts used to empty the (anaerobic) tank.
if we’ve rider A and rider B, both with empty tank (because both made all out efforts before), how can rider B show a worser performance on 1 hour all-out compared to rider A if he has a better aerobic performance?
The term FTP does not really have a meaning. It’s very personal and very suspect to a lot of variables and interpretation. The only thing FTP is really good for setting approximate training intensities.
You are using FTP as an aerobic marker and very roughly it is that. When you say beat, again there is so many other factors. We are talking about a bike. There are so many other variables that go into “winning.”
