I received a question today regarding what appears to be a contradiction in some of my books–the Training Bibles and Fast After 50. I suspect other readers have had this same question. First of all, I should point out that how I believe an endurance athlete should train is not carved in stone. I frequently rethink something I may have been doing for years. So there are, indeed, contradictions in some of my books. What the reader asked about really isn't one of those, however. Here's the question and my answer…
Question: The Training Bible makes reference to more moderate intensity for the base period (Z2 HR for example) and the emphasis appears to be increasing intensity as the training year progresses, however, the Fast after 50 book suggests aerobic capacity intervals in the base periods (as well as other training). The aerobic capacity sessions I have completed during this base period have been very intensive but this seems at odds to the recommendations listed in the Training Bible. Am I missing something?
Answer: Fast After 50 was written only for athletes older than 50. The Training Bibles were written for athletes of all ages, but especially younger athletes. The aerobic capacity training in FA50 is year round since older athletes seem to lose VO2max quickly when they stop training it and it is much harder to re-establish once lost. That isn’t so much the case for young riders. Also, the intent of FA50 was not that you’d do aerobic capacity workouts with the same dose and density year round. That's discussed on page 153 (English version). There should be considerable variation in how big the dose is for any single such workout based on periodization and how densely (frequently) this workout should be included throughout the season.
