|
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does M2 insist upon use of an indoor trainer?
- Allows M2 to be a veritable coach
I derive satisfaction from providing a detailed and comprehensive training program that produces
results. A cycling program which does not specifically reference fundamental variables like cadence,
pedaling efficiency, scientific heart rate training zones versus fabricated calculations, is at best a
hollow shell of a program. The vagaries of road conditions, weather, terrain, darkness, time available
for training, etc. make outdoor training much less predictable in terms of executing a precise training
course.
The majority of athletes I coach have computrainers, a sophisticated training tool which allows me to
offer a comprehensive training program to the benefit of the athlete. My other athletes use
windtrainers with fan resistance----not fluid or magnetic versions whose resistance is not progressive.
Most of the indoor workouts I prescribe are about one hour duration and because of their underlying
method, these sessions translate into about 3 hours on the road. Time constraints are a basic reality in
99% of people's lives, and bike training is the most time-consuming of the three disciplines. Hence, I
am a much more effective coach in sending out a program that can be largely executed, and whose
innovative basis makes it work.
With an indoor training device like a computrainer and the know-how of my program, an athlete from
Minnesota can train just as effectively as one in San Diego, in the month of February no less!
I always get a kick out of the generic training programs that have you build base with LSD in the dark
cold winter months---not quite sure how my Calgary, Minneapolis, and Chicago based athletes would
go about accomplishing this.
An athlete from Kansas and Florida and train hills just as effectively as one from Colorado. A
computrainer precisely simulates hills. A 4% grade on a computrainer has the exact feel that it would
outside, such that gear and speed are the same. Better yet, I have arranged specific hill courses to
accomplish specific training objectives.
With a tool like Computrainer, I can implement specific benchmarks that serve as reference points.
My experience is that athletes enjoy seeing tangible, hard evidence of improvement.
Why do you not recommend magnetic or fluid trainers?
The reason most folks buy magnetic trainers is because they are relatively quiet; but then again, not having
a magnetic trainer is even quieter. The problem with this device is simple:
The resistance is not progressive, meaning that the harder you pedal the harder it gets. With
magnetic trainers the harder you pedal the easier it gets, and there is often slippage with high
resistance. When you go faster on the roads, it becomes more difficult as you have greater
wind/road resistance---hardly the case with magnetic trainers.
Fluid trainers are only marginally better. Resistance is somewhat progressive but very disproportionate, so
once again, there is very limited resemblance to road riding. It is easier to simply "hammer" on a fluid
trainer, but the unnatural resistance makes getting in a groove much more difficult and it is subsequently
difficult to sustain elevated HRs as you might otherwise be able to do.
Both fluid and magnetic trainers are equally ineffective in developing pedaling efficiency; once again,
because the resistance is not progressive and/or proportional. You get off the apparatus with a
compromised workout and legs that are kind of thrashed because they never get into a rhythm that one
strives for to optimize efficiency and performance.
How does M2 use Heart Rate Training?
M2 uses lactate threshold (anaerobic threshold synonymous) as the basis of bike training. Athletes will
typically perform one or more tests to accurately define these zones. Using HR is especially important for
bike training where more variables come into play; cadence, road surface, terrain, etc.
A program which does not specifically reference HR training zones that are based on actual tests is to
coaching what McDonalds is to fine dining.
It is generally recognized that basic training zones can be broken into distinct zones relative to lactate
threshold:
Active recovery training - 40-50 below threshold
Aerobic training - 20-35 below threshold
Threshold training - 12 below to 4 above threshold
Aerobic capacity - 5-12 beats above threshold
M2 places heavy emphasis on threshold training, and follows Dave Scott's model of breaking this 16 beat
zone into three distinct sub-categories. The use of 3 subcategories is especially important in the early
stages of threshold training when there is a discernible change in perceived effort from one subcategory to
the next.
M2 prefers to rely more on pace training and general perceived effort for run training whereas these are
both easier to gauge than on the bike.
What does M2 think of age-based calculations such as 220 or 180 minus your age to
determine Heart Rate training zones?
Scientifically bankrupt and in essence a program of dubious relevance. Athletes should review my article
on "Heart Rate Disclaimers" for a detailed explanation
of why such methods have no basis other than a quick and easy way for a coach to define random zones.
Does M2 believe in doing overdistance rides?
Absolutely! Epic rides and long rides certainly have their place in an Ironman training program. However,
it is my opinion that athletes generally do too many of these where their experience is one where they get
progressively slower and training becomes drudgery.
What about brick runs?
Again, there is a place for these in Ironman training, but this is another area that is generally practiced too
frequently and for too long. An example I always marvel at is of a Bay area group that in their preparation
for Wildflower, worked up to 4hr bike rides followed by 2.5hr brick runs with the idea being to make WF
seem relatively short.
Kind of scary to think of how these misguided souls would apply that same principle to Ironman training.
|
