Original episode & show notes | Raw transcript
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the key concepts discussed in the Empirical Cycling Podcast episode on training myths. The podcast delves into the nuanced relationship between training volume, intensity, and athletic performance, debunking common misconceptions and offering evidence-based insights. This document is intended for an educated and intelligent audience seeking a detailed understanding of these principles.
This myth suggests that high training volume is the primary culprit behind overtraining, while high-intensity training, due to its shorter duration, is less likely to lead to a state of overtraining.
The hosts dismantle this myth by asserting that overtraining can result from an excess of either volume or intensity, or a combination of both.
Overtraining on Intensity: The podcast highlights that relentless high-intensity workouts can lead to significant physical and mental fatigue. The mental fortitude required for daily high-intensity sessions is substantial and can be a limiting factor. The hosts reference Andy Coggan’s experiment of daily VO2 max workouts, noting that while he reported no adverse effects, this is an anomaly and not a recommended training strategy for the average athlete.
Overtraining on Volume: Overtraining on volume often occurs when athletes ride at an intensity that is too high for their endurance sessions. The podcast emphasizes the importance of keeping long rides genuinely easy. When athletes ride in their “gray zone” or at a tempo pace for what should be an endurance ride, they accumulate excessive fatigue, making high volume unsustainable.
The Importance of Nutrition: The podcast also touches upon the role of nutrition in overtraining, particularly in the context of high volume. The myth that you only need to replace the carbohydrates burned during a ride is debunked. The body’s energy expenditure is a holistic process, and under-fueling, even on low-intensity rides, can lead to a significant caloric deficit and contribute to overtraining.
This myth is rooted in historical biases and a misunderstanding of female physiology. It posits that women are physiologically incapable of handling the same training volume as their male counterparts.
The podcast vehemently refutes this myth, arguing that women have the same physiological capacity for high-volume training as men.
Physiological Equality: The hosts state that there is no physiological reason why women cannot handle high training volumes. They cite examples of elite female athletes like Annemiek van Vleuten and Courtney Dauwalter, who excel in ultra-endurance events, often outperforming men.
Historical and Systemic Factors: The disparity in training volume between professional male and female cyclists is attributed to historical and systemic factors, not physiological limitations. Until recently, the lack of a minimum salary in the women’s pro peloton forced many athletes to work second jobs, limiting their training time.
Race Distance and Specificity: The shorter race distances in women’s cycling have also influenced training practices. However, the podcast argues that even for shorter events, high volume is crucial for developing a strong aerobic base and reaching peak physiological capability.
This is a common belief among time-crunched athletes who hope to achieve the same fitness gains in less time by increasing the intensity of their workouts.
The podcast explains that while there is a small grain of truth to this myth, it is largely false. High intensity is not a direct substitute for high volume.
The Limits of Intensity: While high-intensity intervals are effective for improving certain aspects of fitness, like VO2 max, they cannot replicate the full spectrum of adaptations stimulated by long-duration, low-intensity training. The podcast emphasizes that you cannot simply shorten a threshold workout and increase the intensity to achieve the same benefit.
“Noob Gains”: The initial fitness gains experienced by new or detrained athletes can create the illusion that high intensity and high volume are interchangeable. During this phase, almost any training stimulus will lead to improvement. However, as an athlete becomes more trained, specificity becomes crucial.
Scientific Literature: The podcast cautions against misinterpreting scientific studies on training. Many studies use moderately trained subjects who are prone to “noob gains,” and the training protocols often don’t reflect real-world coaching practices.
The term “junk miles” is often used to describe low-intensity riding that is perceived as being too easy to provide any real training benefit.
The podcast redefines what constitutes “junk miles,” arguing that truly easy riding is never a waste of time.
The Real “Junk Miles”: The hosts contend that “junk miles” are actually rides that are done at a moderately hard intensity—too hard to be considered recovery, but not hard enough to stimulate significant adaptation. This “gray zone” riding generates fatigue without providing a clear training stimulus.
Benefits of Easy Riding: Low-intensity riding is crucial for developing aerobic fitness. It stimulates adaptations such as increased mitochondrial density, improved fat metabolism, and enhanced cardiovascular function. These rides are also essential for recovery and building a strong foundation for higher-intensity work.
Central Adaptations: The podcast highlights that even seemingly non-specific activities like hiking can have a positive impact on cycling fitness due to central cardiovascular adaptations.
This myth is often fueled by anecdotal evidence of genetically gifted athletes who achieve high levels of success on relatively low training volume.
While it’s true that some athletes can be fast on low volume, this is the exception, not the rule. For most athletes, a significant training volume is necessary to reach their full potential.
The Genetic Lottery: The podcast acknowledges that genetics play a significant role in athletic potential. Some individuals have a naturally high VO2 max and respond exceptionally well to training, allowing them to excel on lower volume.
Training History: An athlete’s training history is a crucial factor. An athlete who has a deep history of high-volume training can often maintain a high level of fitness on a reduced training load.
Tactics and Experience: In cycling, race craft and tactical acumen can be as important as raw power. A savvy racer with a lower FTP can often outperform a stronger but less experienced rider.
The podcast also featured a Q&A session, addressing several key topics:
Point of Diminishing Returns for Volume: There is no single metric to define this. It’s a matter of monitoring an athlete’s response to training and ensuring that the training stimulus is leading to positive adaptations.
Finding the Sweet Spot for Volume: This is highly individualized and depends on an athlete’s goals, recovery capacity, and life stress. The “sweet spot” is often found through a process of gradual progression and careful monitoring.
How Low is Too Low, and How Long is Too Long?: Even very low-intensity riding can provide some benefit. “Too long” is a ride from which you cannot adequately recover to complete your subsequent key training sessions.
Considering Other Activities in Total Weekly Volume: Cross-training can be beneficial, but it’s important to consider the fatigue it generates and how it might impact on-bike performance.
Training Volume for Track Endurance: The principles of training volume are the same for track endurance as they are for road racing. A strong aerobic base is fundamental to success in both disciplines.
The “14-Hour Minimum” for Mitochondrial Adaptations: This was a misinterpretation of a previous podcast. The host clarified that this was an off-the-cuff remark about the volume required for continued FTP gains, not a hard and fast rule about mitochondrial adaptations.
Progressive Overload with Limited Time: If you’ve reached your maximum available training time, the only way to apply progressive overload is to gradually increase the intensity of your workouts.
Maintaining Fitness vs. Building Fitness: For high-volume athletes, a significantly lower volume is often sufficient to maintain fitness. For time-crunched athletes, the volume required to maintain and build fitness is often very similar.
Training at or Below LT1: The podcast endorses the philosophy of keeping endurance rides well below LT1. Auto-regulation by feel is often more effective than strictly adhering to power or heart rate zones derived from lactate testing.
The podcast provides a valuable and nuanced discussion of training volume and intensity, debunking common myths and offering practical advice for athletes and coaches. The key takeaway is that there are no shortcuts to success in cycling. A combination of intelligent training, which includes both high-volume, low-intensity riding and specific high-intensity work, is essential for reaching one’s full potential. Furthermore, the importance of individualization, consistency, and a holistic approach to training and recovery cannot be overstated.