These two people clearly shouldn't have any calories (sarcasm).

I find that to be one of the stupidest TV ads of all-time.  But its also symptomatic of our times.  That sort of ad is ubiquitous, and its all due to the fact that we all want to think of ourselves as busy, motivated, fit, and healthy, whether we are or not.

Chris Carmichael is targetting the busy and motivated set with his new book.  "The Time-Crunched Cyclist" utilizes some of the same tactcis as that Michelob Ultra ad by putting emboldened workds like "Fit" and "Powerful" right on the cover.  This book pretends to be for Wall Street day-traders who race their bikes around Central Park in the evening, but it can actually be for anyone wanting to get faster while spending less time training.

But while I have might view Chris Carmichael as a bit less than a savior to US cycling, and indeed something of the Michelob Ultra of cycling coaches, there is something to be said for this book.

The premise is that the traditional "endurance training model" breaks down when applied to cyclists who have no more than six hours per week to train.  This model focuses on endurance riding, (foundation-building, base-building, whatever you want to call it -- and I'll stop here with listing off synonyms for fear of hitting on a CTS trademark and getting sued).  And in the traditional model, only a finite percentage of the total training volume (perhaps 10-15%) has the cyclist training at intensities nearing or above lactate threshold.

But for cyclists who can ride just six hours a week, or less, the standard of 10-15% intensity equates to very little time spent at these higher intensities.  Not enough time, at least not enough to yield any real benefit.

Carmichael speaks as if he's been the custodian of this time-honored "endurance training model," as if he invented it.  And when he says that "he chose to change it," I think he might mean that the actual sports scientists who work for him thought it a good idea to change it.

But for for those unable or unwilling to train more than six or so hours per week, it needed changing.

So all marketing aside, because in actuallity most of us are more of a slacker than Lance Armstrong or this imagined Wall Street proto-jock, a greater focus on intensity for people whose training volume is low enough that off-the-bike recovery is an essential part of it (read as days where you are too busy or too lazy or too tired to ride), this approach can be helpful.

This aproach has its limitation too, as Carmichael admits.  You won't win the Tour de France using this approach, or even finish third.  You might not even be very competitive as a Cat 1 or a Cat 2, unless you're over-loaded with natural talent.  But for Cat 3 or Masters racers, this type of plan can work.

In fact someone training six hours per week within this type of system will probably be faster than someone riding 12+ hours per week who is starved of true recovery.  If this 12+ hour cyclist's "recovery" consists of sitting in a car and getting stressed out by traffic, droppin off/picking up kids, working long hours, possibly on their feet, then they're not really getting too much recovery.

But for those of us who are less "time-crunched" than "motivationally challenged," we're probably better off finding a way to do the 12+ hours per week.  The volume will benefit us, and we can still spend our rest days on the couch with our feet up.

Post a comment