Watige420 said:

Silly question perhaps, but how does it set you back?  It doesn't make sense to me (I'm a slow learner, lots of things don't make sense)  Please correct my thinking!  

I keep thinking that while your in base, working aerobically, your building your new capillaries, teaching your body to burn fat for its energy...  But, when you stop working aerobically, as soon as your heart rate reaches its resting rate, you make no gains until you start working aerobically again.  All of your gains come from when your working, not from resting (unlike weight training).

And if thats the way it works, then I would think that you could spend 3 hours spinning pedals...  working in base, and then for the last hour, kick it up to a high anaerobic level for the last hour and get the best of both worlds.  If your base gains come from doing the work, while the works is being done, how can working anaerobically directly after reverse those gains?  If it was possible to reverse them, you would reverse them even after you spent your 8 weeks in base, and started working anaerobically after that!

I know I'm wrong...  But I'd like to know why...  where... and how...

(now I'll resume my position at my desk, in the front row, staring at the chalk board)

(might even sit on my hands, so the ruler can't find my knuckles)

98cr250r said:

Well, the reason for the set back is LACK of periodization. Meaning it takes a minimum of 8 weeks for physical adaptations to permanent. Higher intensity equals higher BLOOD PRESSURE and the means BLOWN blood vessels.

As far a ANAEROBICALLY, the upper edge of your performance curve is never sustainable. The best you can shoot for is having a HUGE reserve of base. This will give you, quicker recovery, deeper reserves, different fuel source and less Lactate Threshold.

Awesome thread guys, and mega props to you watige420 for taking the time to be informative.

I just wanted to chime in and ask if somebody could recommend a complete and easy to follow regime for this 8 week base training and possibly a diet recommendation?

I'm just getting back into the gym, and I'm still young, in relatively fair shape (not a tub of lard). But I find it hard to research and understand all of this biological science behind fitness as there are so many differing opinions. It's very demotivating to bust my ass trying to get into peak condition for racing only to find out later that everything I've done was wrong and I'm really no further ahead than when I started.

Ideally I'd love to have somebody lay out for me a routine to follow so I don't have to think about everything I'm doing and I can just go and do it.

Watige420 said:

Completely understand that the upper edge of performance is never sustainable.

So to get this HUGE reserve of base...  Is there any reason to limit your training during this 8 weeks?  I mean, after the 8 weeks is up, if you would have spent 5 hours per day in base, instead of two hours per day...  Your base would be much better, correct?  There should be no "recovery time" needed, correct?

And then any weight training should be fine, like someone else mentioned, as long as you don't go past your base heart rate ceiling...?

98cr250r said:

You need to increase LOAD and DURATION... WEEKLY. For this reason you need to work backwards, how many hours can you commit to during the last week/8th week (you can go any time PAST 8 weeks). Correct no recovery time and a 2 hour increase per week. If you lift, lift S----L---O---W, you don't want to spike your HR.

hershey said:

Work backwards from your completion, you can cheat somewhat by wearing a weight vest and heading it to 20-40 lbs. I would recommend getting a TACX Ergo-Flo trainer, rollers are nice as well, this is a tool you'll bring to the track to get your warm up on. If you have ltd time in the AM or PM push your workout to that time. DO NOT double up. DO NOT GO LONG CAUSE YOU FEEL GOOD! doing that will turn things into a mess.

During base you should avoid carbs of all types, and INCREASE fat and protein.

How do you increase intensity and duration throughout the weeks, while still staying below 75%?

If I increase intensity and duration, my heart rate rises...

Hmm, I recently got a heart rate monitor and I've been somewhat surprised by the results and I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this Watige420.

To start it off, I'm 140-145lbs and 22 years old. Normally I make it to the gym once a week where I usually go full out on cardio machines for around 1 hour to 1.5 hours. During that time my heart rate averages 180-185bpm and maxes out in the 195-200bpm range (what I was shocked about when I got my HRM). I usually stop because the people I go with have finished, although I feel as if I could just keep going. So it doesn't really tire me out or wear me down, worst I feel is if I go on the treadmill and I get a cramp in my foot from when I broke it, but that's it.

Since I got my HRM (Polar FT60) it has been recommending significantly lower heart rate workouts spending only 30min at the highest level (blow way past this weekly), versus maybe 4 hours at the lower two levels (have the most trouble filling the middle around 140bpm to 170bpm). I try and fill those up the best I can at home doing some balance exercises, weight lifting, squats, sit ups and push ups attempting to workout for longer at lower heart rates.

I'm just wondering if my cardio workout during the week is negatively impacting me and maybe I should try and turn my workout down a bit and maybe head to gym 30 min to a hour before the others do to bump start my workout and train more in lower zones and avoid pushing myself to the max and holding it?

As far as diet goes, I consider myself to be pretty healthy. I try to eat a lot of fruits and veggies early and mid day and have a full dinner with a good portion of meat.

Are we training for a triathlon? That is what this training is geared for, I think MX is more in tune to a 20 minute sprint. I'm no Doc, nor am I trying to sell a training program. Just seems to me the 2 sports should be trained for at opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm pretty sure Aldon Baker's athletes aren't going for long walks.
Just saying..........................

I always just went out and trained on my road bike or did spin class.  Last night I was pondering this thread at the beginning of spin class and realized that I had blown it on the first sprint.
So much for my base training.  However,  I have been doing tree work for the last 6 months and my heart rate gets up constantly.  Could that have helped build a base?
The reason I ask is because I feel I am at a much higher level cardio wise than I was last year at this time.   I can spin all day and my recoveries are extremely quick.

I just never gave thought to Blown capillaries and such.  I just spin and the more I do it the better I am on the bicycle and motocrosser.

Honestly for me it gets to the point where I can breathe all day on the mx bike but the muscles go out.  Thats why you have to weight train I suppose.

hershey, on 21 January 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

By increasing the intensity SLOWLY. AND letting your HR be your guide, the point (or 1 of the points) is to increase power out put at LOW HR. Reason being if you can put out 300 watts at 130 bpm, and your competitor puts out 300 watts at 180 bpm. Who do you think is going to last longer?

To the thread originator:

Personally I think what you've got going for yourself sounds reasonable.  Here's my experience . . .

I'm almost 47 . . . in terms of body weight I'm very similar to you and have similar goals.  I've been serious about fitness since about Thanksgiving. I'm now getting 4-5 cardio sessions a week and have been pushing to keep my BPM between 145 and 155 as of about the last 3 weeks (up from 130s/140s).  Sessions have increased in length to between 45 and 50 minutes with a goal of 1hr (half a harescramble race duration).

I've never attempted to keep my heart rate at some calculated low heart rate for any period of time other than staying in that "fat burning" zone for purposes none other than getting used to the training and this was only about 2 weeks.  I do understand that to maximize fat loss your BPM goal would be lower than for optimum cardiovascular fitness - this is well documented.  But you CAN lose weight while striving simultaneously for optimal cardiovascular fitness . . . dieting.  Not starvation; rather, making smart choices about what you eat, how much, and frequency.  Eating much smaller meals 5-6 times a day seems to keep me more satisfied.  I've eliminated breads and sweets and make every attempt to eat a good balance of complex carbohydrates, protein, and a little fat . . . do some googling and learn what you can but what makes healthy meals is well established and hasn't changed much at all over the years.  I've seen people succeed with the low-carb or no-carb dieting but it never seems to work in the long run (that's my observation and not necessarily scientific).

I also use resistance training and based on what almost any athelete does is a part of the plan.  My son and I started out lifting somewhat heavy to improve base strength and have begun to shift to a focus on muscular endurance (25 or more reps, 4 sets per exercise) and core and balance exercises (google will reveal many examples).  We avoided much cardio during heavy lift days based on suggestions from reading and others.

My cardiovascular fitness has improved DRASTICALLY and I'm skinnying up just fine . . . it's awesome.  I've also increased how much I can lift (bench, overhead press, squat, etc) even though we've dropped lifting heavy to once a week (no cardio that day).

Key word for cardio fitness - VOLUME!  You gotta log the hours.

Keep up the good work!!

Edited by Yamajeb, 04 February 2012 - 06:22 AM.

mikerides33, on 24 January 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

I had that problem during a few harescrambles last year.  I would go down a few times in slick conditions and having to pick up my mud-clogged bike wore on my ability to continue because my muscles were tired.

I'm no expert, by any stretch, but from what I've learned: if you focus on high reps (25+) circuit training you can improve muscular endurance.  Do some googling, there's some good stuff out there.  My son and I are shifting from muscular strength (heavier lifting) to muscular endurance and I'm looking forward to the improvement.

Yamajeb, on 04 February 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Convention wisdom on what makes a meal healthy is what keeps most people fat and far from achieving their goals.  Why are you cutting out breads and sweets but eating "complex" carbs?  Your body can't tell the difference between a 7 grain bran high fiber piece of toast and a bowl of jelly beans.  Its the same.  Why low fat?  What is so bad about it?

You feel satisfied eating a bazillion meals a day only because you are a sugar burner, plain and simple.  Take the sugars out of your diet and you will be content with maybe 1 or 2 meals a day.  There is nothing healthy about eating 5-6 meals a day as it only serves to keep your blood sugar high and insulin pumping and your body putting on fat.  This is pretty simple to understand when you stop reading health magazines or listening to Dr. Oz  and take the time to learn how the body works and how it processes amino acids, fatty acids and carbohydrates.

Edited by 2strokenut, 05 February 2012 - 02:13 PM.

Interesting reading all the comments, much info... I thought that by increasing small amount of “slow break down food” intake throughout the day, you even out sugar spikes and increase metabolic rate?

2strokenut, on 05 February 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Havingfun, on 07 February 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

People think by eating food they are burning more calories because of the idea of TEF, Thermal Effect of Food.  Foods require a certain number of calories for the body to break them down, say to break down 500 calories of protein it takes 10 calories of energy.  But the effect is so small you might as well just eat ten calories less.

Your insulin spikes very easily if you check it after you eat a meal.  If you eat a small whole grain sandwich (2 slices of bread) every 3 hours and check your BGL with a test strip you will most likely see a 2 hour blood sugar spike in the 180 g/dl range (around 80 being normal).  Whole grains like wheat spike your blood sugar more than a candy bar and pure sucrose.  So if an overweight person eats a small sandwich every 3 hours is actually keeping their insulin high pretty much all day long until he/she goes into a fasted state at bedtime, and then spikes it again eating whole grain pancakes or toast in the morning.  People like this could be keeping there blood sugar high and blood sugar elevated theoretically for months at a time.

Havingfun, on 07 February 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

  Yes . . . and it gives me a more satisfied feeling because of the damping of the sugar spikes

Edited by Yamajeb, 07 February 2012 - 01:49 PM.

2strokenut, on 05 February 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

If carbs are carbs then a diabetic who is going into shock should be able to recover no matter what kind of carbohydrates they take in, be it broccoli or orange juice, right?  Well . . . no, that's wrong - which is why a diabetic in this instance will be looking for orange juice or a candy bar, not broccoli or spinach.

There is absolutely a difference in the way that your body processes different carbohydrates.  The glycemic index is a "ranking" of sorts that gives us a sense of what is "processed" more quickly, i.e. what will cause blood sugar to shoot up more sharply.  But not only is there a difference between something with simple sugars and complex carbohydrates, there's a difference between the form or amount of processing a given food has.  Orange juice will be absorbed more quickly than an orange.  Pureed broccoli will be absorbed more quickly than whole broccoli.

There are a number of things that are exaggerated in your statement, but I'm not going to point them out; rather, I'll suggest to readers that have an interest in understanding this topic to do some looking into it on their own.  There are reasons to limit carbohydrates consumption but a healthy lifestyle includes the consumption of right kinds of foods which includes carbohydrates.

Conventional wisdom works rather well almost all of the time, that's why it's called "wisdom".  

Edited by Yamajeb, 07 February 2012 - 04:56 PM.

Yamajeb, on 07 February 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Yamajeb, please explain to me a different process the body uses to absorb a polysaccaride.  The only difference with a "complex" carb is that the body pushes it along until it is broken down into a disaccharide (sucrose) and into a monosaccharide (glucose) in order to be absorbed into the blood stream in the small intestine. No digestion of any carbohydrates occurs in the stomach so it all happens in the small intenstine. Eating a whole wheat bagel or broccoli (pureed or whole) makes no difference as it will still be glucose before it does anything to your body, its just hanging out in your stomach waiting to be sugar.   You see, all you are doing is delaying is the time until it becomes glucose and absorbed into the bloodstream.  This is why the GI is somewhat misleading.  All sugars will be end up being just that, sugar, unless its fructose which has to be handled by the liver which converts it into glucose.  Obviously if someone needs sugar as fast as possible they are not going to eat a bowl of oats or something similar.  Other carbs are absorbed even faster because of their makeup, such as wheat which has more digestible amalopectin A as opposed to amalopectin B, but thats a whole different story.


I don't know why you lump broccoli into all this but it makes you look dumb.  Why the heck would pureed broccoli be absorbed fasted than whole broccoli?  Do people eat broccoli like a snake?  Are you pureeing the broccoli into glucose or something I'm confused. Its still starch (disaccharide), and must be broken down into a mono first.  180 grams of Broccoli contains many many many times the nutrients of a 180 grams of whole grains whatever but only about 20 grams of carbs.  Thats about a foot long stalk, obviously we dont need to eat that much to get the benefits but to get the same amount of nutrients from whole grains you would need to eat well over 200 grams to even approach some of the nutrients in 180 grams of broccoli, but you would take in a serious sugar load as that would equate to over 100 grams of carbohydrates.  In reality, most carbs like wheat and others are not nutrient dense at all.

So, the trade off with the starch of veggies is that they are much more nutrient dense than any grain and don't incur a serious carbohydrate load.  You clearly have no clue what you are talking about and I would invite anyone reading to research for themselves what I wrote and they can decide if its BS or not.

Veggies are good carbs, wheat is not.

very interesting to read.. you guys keep debating it....