Originally Posted by
Iride01
What's your point?
I went riding yesterday for 90 minutes in the middle of the afternoon with 95°F actual temps and high humidity. As long as I was over 15-16 mph I was cool and comfortable. The slower I was for climbs or stopped at a crossing the hotter I was.
I'm not sure there is any overall benefit to training in the heat other than if you are use to it, you get additional days to ride or train. For certain if you are going to do anything in the heat, you need to work up to it. High temps do tax the body more and are less forgiving of things we get by with during cooler temps.
My point is, that high humidity and temperatures does not mean we have to stay indoors and avoid training, like the plague, as so often repeated. Yes, there is a danger, but we can adapt to those conditions. Furthermore, there are studies that show there is a positive effect to high-heat training.
I don't understand your point where you seem to say there is no overall benefit, yet you do need to get use to it. Seems to me, just the fact that you're getting use to it, means something is happening inside.
A little more on high-heat training.
https://www.outsideonline.com/health...ning-benefits/
P.S. I know a lot of us are not racers, but training in the heat can still benefit us, by adapting to these conditions. I can't tell you how many miserable people I've seen in "heat", which I thought was very tolerable and wouldn't even consider hot enough for high-heat training.
Training Effect
Numerous
studies have shown that training in heated conditions, two to three times per week for 20 to 90 minutes, can produce a multitude of beneficial training effects. These include:
- Lower core temperature at the onset of sweating
- Increased plasma volume (Plasma is the liquid component in your blood. If the volume is increased, you can send blood to cool your skin without compromising the supply carrying oxygen to your muscles.)
- Decreased heart rate
- Increased oxygen consumption
- Improved exercise economy
The result? You can run faster and/or more efficiently in
all temperatures.
Originally Posted by
boozergut
There's no one size fits all for this. I'm an overweight senior. I went out last night (mid 90's and high humidity) with two 1 liter water bottles filled with water+electrolytes. Half way through my ride I refilled them. Drank that up. Then I stopped at a coffee shop, drank an ice water plus a 20 ounce Sprite. I finished a 19 mile ride. Yet I still had a wicked head ache when I got home. I think I'll wait till Sunday when the heat is supposed to break before I venture out again.
Sounds like you over did it for your personal tolerance, but that does NOT mean you can't improve upon that...However, I completely agree, that there is no one size fits all for this or much of anything else. The same can be said if someone came on here and said, interval workouts benefits us in so many ways, such as...
- Calories are burned long after exercise. ...
- They're not boring. ...
- Increased endurance. ...
- Better cardiovascular health. ...
- Members are less likely to give up. ...
- It helps sedentary people gain muscle. ...
- Speeds up metabolism. ...
- More time-efficient.
Although, that's not to say everyone should do the exact same workout, nor is it saying that everyone will experience the exact same results, regardless if it's high-heat training, Intervals or whatever.
However, virtually everyone will see a benefit, not all the same and not every one can do it in the exact same way. This actually leads to another issue in sport's medicine where there's been a lot of debates about so-called
Responders vs.
Non-responders. One area where this debate gets a lot of attention is High-altitude training. It seems not all athletes respond the same way and some were suggesting that some of these athletes were non-responders. However, this has pretty much been disproven.
https://www.scienceofrunning.com/201...v=47e5dceea252
The Myth of the Non-Responder
“I just don’t respond to that type of training.”
Or if you are a science nerd among us, you might say, “I have the non-responder genes for aerobic (or anaerobic) exercise”
It’s a convenient excuse, and perhaps with a hint of truth. In fact,
researchers have suggested that up to 20% of individuals are non-responders to aerobic exercise, so is it a valid concern?
Instead of an excuse, the idea of a non-responder is a convenient stop sign to evaluation. If we label someone as a non-responder, then we are definitively stated that our intervention does not work for that person. Whether that intervention is an altitude training stint or a particular type of speed or endurance training, if we label our individuals who show no improvement, then we can gloss over the hard questions. We don’t need to ask why they don’t respond. We already have the answer. We move on, shrugging our shoulders and saying “Hmm, guess it doesn’t work for you, try something else.”
It’s not exactly an inspiring message. And it’s likely not true. There is no such thing as non-Responders. Only misapplied stimulus.