I have mainly spent long brisk trips in the past few days, but the only hard day was Friday. That is pleasant. I found as long as I don’t do a hard day with intervals, the recovery is great, I feel good until the next day. This is what my training looked like since my last post:

“E” means a rapid long journey, “UH” means hard day in the upper body, and “LH” means the hard day in the upper body. On “UH” days I completed 50 minutes of arm cycling and training with resistance straps as well as a body -weight “core” training. The rest was just cycling. I was wiped a bit on Saturday after the hard trip on Friday, so it was nice to get easy on Saturday, and I had recovered well until Sunday (yesterday). I will go on this path for a month and decide how to continue afterwards.

This training violates classic basic training protocols like that of Dr. Phil Maffetone or Arthur Lydiard, who had recommended to avoid anaerobic efforts during the basic training. They believe that anaerobic activity will actually affect the physiological improvements of aerobic training. Newer authors are less relentless than that and only recommend reducing the anaerobic activity during the base time. Athletes who follow both Maffetone and Lydiard had enormous success, so I did not want the concern to be easily released. That’s why I examined this with Google’s Gemini Ai in the “Deep Research” mode. I asked this question: “In exercise physiology, the linear periodic approach recommends a long time of basic training, in which only aerobic training is carried out (e.g. the first lactate threshold). Some authors such as Lydiard and Maffetone suggest that an anaerobial training in the basic period will be supported with that Aerobics adjustments. Here. I also generated a verbal podcast summary of this report, which is Here. The latest science seems to support a small amount of anaerobic work in order to maintain its “high -end” during the basic time. Based on this, I am safer to continue my current schedule.