Winter is a time when cyclists often shift their focus from competing to building a solid foundation for the upcoming season. Establishing a strong base fitness is crucial for long-term cycling performance, and there are various methods to achieve this. There are three popular approaches to winter base training: strictly low-intensity training, a threshold-based approach, and reverse periodisation (which isn’t really building base in winter, but it’s worth a mention!).
Covered in this blog:
- Traditional low intensity
- What is it?
- Pros
- Cons
- Scientific perspective
- Threshold approach
- What is it?
- Pros
- Cons
- Scientific perspective
- Reverse periodisation
- What is it?
- Pros
- Cons
- Scientific perspective
- Which approach is best for you?
- Summary
- References
Traditional low intensity
What is it?
Traditional low-intensity training focuses on riding at a steady, easy pace in zones 1 and 2, which roughly correspond to 55-75% of your functional threshold power (FTP) or 60-75% of maximum heart rate. The goal is to accumulate large volumes of training time to enhance aerobic capacity and endurance.
Pros
- Aerobic base development: Low-intensity training effectively builds the aerobic engine by increasing mitochondrial density and improving the efficiency of energy utilisation. Research has shown that athletes who dedicate a large portion of their training time to low-intensity exercise see significant improvements in aerobic capacity and fat metabolism
- Overtraining: Riding at low intensities places less stress on the body, allowing for high training volumes with a reduced risk of injury or burnout. This approach is particularly suitable for athletes who can dedicate ample time to training.
Cons
- Time-consuming: One of the main drawbacks is that this method requires a lot of training hours. Cyclists with limited time may struggle to accumulate the necessary volume to achieve substantial improvements.
- Slow adaptation for experienced cyclists: While low-intensity training is excellent for beginners, experienced cyclists might find the rate of improvement too slow, as their bodies are already accustomed to low-intensity efforts.
Scientific perspective
Studies support the effectiveness of high-volume, low-intensity training for improving endurance. A meta-analysis by Seiler and Tønnessen (2009) found that elite endurance athletes across various sports achieved their best results when approximately 80% of their training time was performed at low intensities, following the “80/20 rule”.
Threshold approach
What is it?
The threshold-based approach emphasises training at or near the lactate threshold (around 90-105% of FTP). The goal is to increase the lactate threshold level, which can improve sustained power output and delay fatigue. It’s an efficient way to train for those who have limited time.
Pros
- Efficient use of time: Threshold workouts are time-efficient, allowing cyclists to achieve meaningful fitness gains with shorter sessions. This approach is particularly suitable for individuals with busy schedules.
- Increases threshold power: Training near the lactate threshold has been shown to improve an athlete’s ability to sustain higher intensities for longer periods. Studies indicate that threshold training can effectively boost both FTP and VO2 max, leading to improved performance in time trials and sustained climbs.
Cons
- Higher stress and risk of overtraining: Consistently training at or near the threshold can lead to increased fatigue and a higher risk of overtraining. Cyclists must carefully manage recovery to avoid burnout.
- Limited aerobic base development: While threshold training improves specific aspects of performance, it may not provide the same level of aerobic base development as traditional low-intensity training.
Scientific perspective
A study by Esteve-Lanao et al. (2007) compared different intensity distributions in training programs. They found that athletes who included a higher proportion of threshold training saw improvements in performance over a 6-week period compared to those who followed a traditional approach . This suggests that threshold-base can be an effective strategy for time-crunched athletes looking to make rapid gains.
Reverse periodisation
What is it?
Reverse periodisation involves beginning the training cycle with high-intensity interval training (HIIT) or strength-focused sessions and gradually transitioning to more traditional endurance-based training as the season approaches. The aim is to develop high-intensity performance early in the training cycle, while still working on endurance in later phases.
Pros
- Improved high-intensity performance early on: By starting with high-intensity efforts, cyclists can boost their anaerobic power and sprint capacity during the winter months. This may benefit athletes who participate in events requiring short, sharp bursts of effort.
- Motivation and variety: Reverse periodisation can help keep training interesting during the winter months, as it includes more varied sessions compared to monotonous long rides. It can be particularly appealing for cyclists who struggle to stay motivated in the off-season.
Cons
- Less time for endurance development: The traditional approach emphasises building an aerobic base early, while reverse periodisation initially focuses on high-intensity training. Athletes may not accumulate enough low-intensity volume to fully develop their aerobic base if they do not adjust their training plans later in the cycle.
- Increased risk of injury or burnout: High-intensity training in the early stages of the cycle may pose a greater risk of injury or overtraining, particularly for cyclists who are not used to intense efforts.
Scientific perspective
Research by Rønnestad et al. (2014) showed that reverse periodisation could be effective for improving both aerobic and anaerobic performance in well-trained cyclists over a 12-week training period. However, they noted that the traditional approach might still be better suited for pure endurance development.
Which approach is best for you?
- Traditional low intensity: Ideal for athletes who have plenty of time to train and prefer a lower risk of injury. This method is also great for beginners or those recovering from injury.
- Threshold approach: Best suited for time-crunched cyclists who want to maximise training efficiency and improve specific performance markers, such as FTP.
- Reverse periodisation: Works well for cyclists who need to maintain high-intensity efforts for short races or those who get bored with traditional training methods. It’s also helpful for athletes who want to sharpen their high-intensity abilities earlier in the season.
Summary
Ultimately, the best winter base training strategy will depend on your individual circumstances, including time availability, goals, and personal preferences. Incorporating aspects of each approach into a periodised training plan may offer a well-rounded solution. For example, combining traditional low-intensity rides with occasional threshold workouts or including a block of high-intensity intervals can optimise your training for the winter.
Each method has a place in cycling training, and understanding the science behind them can help you make an informed decision to set yourself up for success in the upcoming season. If you have any doubts, consult a coach.
References
- Seiler, S., & Tønnessen, E. (2009). Intervals, thresholds, and long slow distance: The role of intensity and duration in endurance training. Sports Science Review, 37(3), 39-50.
- Esteve-Lanao, J., et al. (2007). The impact of training intensity distribution on performance in endurance athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(3), 943-949.
- Rønnestad, B. R., et al. (2014). Effects of high-intensity interval training on performance in highly trained cyclists. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 9(2), 295-302.
