Ausdauer Training Question/Opinion

[Mischiman]

Um bei Deinem Schlaf-Beispiel zu bleiben: wenn man nicht schläft trainiert man das Schlafen ja auch nicht. Man müsste also eigentlich "trainieren", mit möglichst wenig Schlaf sich maximal zu erholen, man müsst also möglichst oft schlafen´, nur kürzere Zeiten und dazwischen ermüden.

Viele Grüße

Mischiman

 

[sekt88]

There must be, at the very least, modifications that can be made to optimize training for ausdauer. I am just not aware of them.

The active regeneration seems intelligent enough to warrant trying it.

I started this thread to initiate a mini-discourse, maybe get a variety of peoples experiences.

Sleeping is important and for the TAC, there is enough time to get at least 8 hours each night which is sufficient.

 

[dubbel]

ich sag's ja nicht gern,
aber ausdauertraining ist der beste weg, die regenerationsfähigkeit zu verbessern.
aktive regeneration im unterschied dazu wär, mit noch weniger intensität und kurzer dauer zu fahren / laufen.
-> halt so gering, dass die KH-speicher nicht schon wieder geleert werden.

 

[carmin]

ich sag's ja nicht gern

wieso, war doch gar nicht so schlimm.

Ich glaube, Mischi assoziierte im Kontext Regeneration das "aktiv" mit "schnell" oder "effizient". Ist das berechtigt?

Um bei Deinem Schlaf-Beispiel zu bleiben: wenn man nicht schläft trainiert man das Schlafen ja auch nicht.

Habe das etwas unglücklich formuliert. Gemeint war der (durchaus diskutable) Gedanke, man entziehe sich regelmäßig Schlaf, damit sich der Körper daran gewöhne und im verbleibenden Restschlaf umso "gieriger" regeneriere. Aber ich fürchte, dass man dabei derart gegen die Natur handelt, dass man hier schnell an die Grenzen stößt und das ganze ins Gegenteil umschlägt. Und das könnte bei übertriebenem "Regenerationstraining" genauso passieren.

 

[sprudel]

konkret wäre ein ruhetag (aktive erholung): 30-45min locker kurbeln + massage + dehnen oder 30min locker laufen oder 45min locker schwimmen alles unterhalb GA1

 

[dubbel]

Ich glaube, Mischi assoziierte im Kontext Regeneration das "aktiv" mit "schnell" oder "effizient". Ist das berechtigt?

wenn man keine sprachbetrachtung betreibt, sondern die übliche terminologie benutzt: nein.

man unterscheidet aktive und passive erholung (s. google),
ausserdem gib es trainingsmethoden, um die regereationsfähigkeit zu verbessern (was ja ganz und gar nicht dasselbe ist).

 

[carmin]

Sprich, Du sagst, "aktiv" beschleunigt die Sache gar nicht?

ausserdem gib es trainingsmethoden, um die regereationsfähigkeit zu verbessern (was ja ganz und gar nicht dasselbe ist).

Okay, aber derjenige hätte doch die beste Regeneration, bei dem sie über Nacht (zwischen zwei TAC-Tagen) abgeschlossen wäre.

 

[Bax]

@sekt88:

How can you say you don't have enough time? When you are in Frankfurt during the week you could ride your bike outside at least four times a week. Why don`t you buy a lamp and do night rides? When you are apart from your family you should have a lot of time after work. Could it be, that you just work too much?

 

[surly]

Cycling is an endurance sport and the longer your race the more important it becomes to increase your endurance. Unfortunately it takes a long time to develop that endurance. As a matter of fact, some cycling experts suggest around 24-30 weeks of "base training" every year to improve your performance/fitness level!

You will need to progressively increase your training load during this period to adequately develop your base fitness (including rest days and rest weeks).

In my opinion 4 x 1 hour and 2 x 2 hours are equally ineffective to prepare for any long distance, multi-day race/tour. You are essentially training your body to become really good (fast, efficient, etc.) at riding no more than 2 hours twice a week. How would this possibly prepare your body to be able to ride for more than 2 hours, 6(?) days straight without being able to recover properly?

I doubt that pro cyclists would log as many km as they do if there were a "quick fix" to building endurance.

 

[sekt88]

Cycling is an endurance sport and the longer your race the more important it becomes to increase your endurance. Unfortunately it takes a long time to develop that endurance. As a matter of fact, some cycling experts suggest around 24-30 weeks of "base training" every year to improve your performance/fitness level!

You will need to progressively increase your training load during this period to adequately develop your base fitness (including rest days and rest weeks).

In my opinion 4 x 1 hour and 2 x 2 hours are equally ineffective to prepare for any long distance, multi-day race/tour. You are essentially training your body to become really good (fast, efficient, etc.) at riding no more than 2 hours twice a week. How would this possibly prepare your body to be able to ride for more than 2 hours, 6(?) days straight without being able to recover properly?

I doubt that pro cyclists would log as many km as they do if there were a "quick fix" to building endurance.

4 x 1 / 2x2 is only for the first 4 weeks, then the training hours per session will be increased.

As for 24 - 30 weeks base training, this is clearly for professionals or the unemployed.

I am not worried about finishing the TAC or any race, I have the base physical and mental endurance, I would like only to optimize my training.

 

[dubbel]

more than ~ 12 hours (regularly) aren't necessary.

 

[surly]

Just to clarify, I was talking about 24 - 30 WEEKS (6 months+) of total base training. Hours per week could be anywhere from 4 - 20+ depending on your personal fitness level and your cycling goals.