Newbie Intervals

onabike

Just to clarify re: intervals. Which is best for a newbie - 5 minute intervals or 20 minute intervals? And at what level of exertion?

For 3-5 minutes I take it I go flat out? ( increasing to 5x5min)
For 20 minutes is that flat out also? Or say 10bpm below threshold? ( increasing to 2/3x20min)

Should I start with 5mins, rather than 20mins?

Aiming to Improve on 26.30 minute 10-mile time trial, but might try the odd 25 also.

Ric_Stern/RST

onabike wrote:

Just to clarify re: intervals. Which is best for a newbie - 5 minute intervals or 20 minute intervals? And at what level of exertion?

For 3-5 minutes I take it I go flat out? ( increasing to 5x5min)
For 20 minutes is that flat out also? Or say 10bpm below threshold? ( increasing to 2/3x20min)

Should I start with 5mins, rather than 20mins?

Aiming to Improve on 26.30 minute 10-mile time trial, but might try the odd 25 also.

How long is a piece of string, is the cryptic answer my dad used to give me?

Like with most things the answer depends on many things, e.g. when's your next race?
How much do you need to improve? how much time do you have? What other training do you do? What's your health like?

ric

onabike

Like with most things the answer depends on many things, e.g.
when's your next race? -April/May 10 mile TT.
How much do you need to improve? From 27 mins to 25 mins would make me more than happy.
how much time do you have? From now. two indoor sessions. two on road. plus short commutes to work.
What other training do you do? road and mountain biking, circuit training , the odd swim. But im dropping most of this to focus on road biking.
What's your health like? - Im generally very fit ; however, I tried some 10 mile TTs this year for the first time but was very ordinary, averaging 22 mph. My goal is to improve speed/endurance for next year.

I've already had some really useful feedback in my last post but I find where to start with intervals confusing. Some mention 5x5 mins, some 2x20 mins. I will of course build up the endurance before adding them to my cycling.

Ric_Stern/RST

onabike wrote:

Like with most things the answer depends on many things, e.g.
when's your next race? -April/May 10 mile TT.
How much do you need to improve? From 27 mins to 25 mins would make me more than happy.
how much time do you have? From now. two indoor sessions. two on road. plus short commutes to work.
What other training do you do? road and mountain biking, circuit training , the odd swim. But im dropping most of this to focus on road biking.
What's your health like? - Im generally very fit ; however, I tried some 10 mile TTs this year for the first time but was very ordinary, averaging 22 mph. My goal is to improve speed/endurance for next year.

I've already had some really useful feedback in my last post but I find where to start with intervals confusing. Some mention 5x5 mins, some 2x20 mins. I will of course build up the endurance before adding them to my cycling.

Obviously, not all coaches prescribe the same training, as i understand it, the 5-min intervals i regularly see coaches suggesting to other people are 8 x 5-mins with 1-min rest inbetween and at an effort (power output) that is above 25-m TT effort (note that HR may or may not be higher, lower, or the same as in a 25).

With these 8 x 5, you're working slightly harder than the 2 x 20-mins during the work periods, but the rest periods compensate for this and bring down the total effort to the same as a 2 x 20 (thus, the only real reason to do 8 x 5s is because you could kill yourself from boredom by doing 2 x 20s on a turbo trainer).

The 2 x 20s would be at some effort X below 25m TT effort (power) to 100% of that effort (power).

I would do some of these all winter long (i'll personally be starting with 1 x 20s or 4 x 5s in the next week or two).

There are (obviously) other intervals to do (and endurance type work). However, one other interval session i would do is 5 to 8 x 4-mins at a fair bit higher 25-m TT effort (but i wouldn't describe them as being all out). I tend to leave these intervals to closer to the race season, but apart from the couple of easy weeks i'm currently doing (where i'm just riding around after being on holiday for a week) i will still do some of these all winter long.

How it fits together, how much you need and what else you'd have to do would be beyond the scope of a forum (as it would be coaching). Obviously, that's something at RST that we can help you with (and there's other coaches on this forum as well).

Ric

chrisw12

Ric. fair play, that's a great answer, very helpfull and interesting.

I've read so much about the 2x20's and when I did manage them last winter I had some good results but done on the turbo they are just so mentaly demanding/boring that I could never keep at them. I was contemplating whether doing 4x10 or 8x5 would be as beneficial and it seems you've answered my question just in the knick of time, winter training starts tomorrow.

Ric_Stern/RST

chrisw12 wrote:

Ric. fair play, that's a great answer, very helpfull and interesting.

I've read so much about the 2x20's and when I did manage them last winter I had some good results but done on the turbo they are just so mentaly demanding/boring that I could never keep at them. I was contemplating whether doing 4x10 or 8x5 would be as beneficial and it seems you've answered my question just in the knick of time, winter training starts tomorrow.

actually, 4 x 10s i'd avoid: they're too long to be short (like the 5-mins) and not long enough to be long (like the 20s). so my very broad recommendation is to do either 5-min intervals or 15 to 30 min intervals. i'd suggest that 15-mins is the shortest* they should be.

*occasionally, for a mental break, when i first start long (15+ mins) intervals, i may do the first one as 12-mins at the start of that block of training to mentally build into it.

Ric

onabike

Ric - thanks for the informative reply. That's really useful and together with the other advice in my last post gives me a good idea where to start.

Maybe i'm a little slow, but i find some of the terminology around intervals confusing: tempo rides, cruise intervals, cruise / lactate clearing, 2x20 mins, x5 mins. The exact effort you do those types of training seems to vary from book to book and site to site.

Thx again

Ric_Stern/RST

onabike wrote:

Ric - thanks for the informative reply. That's really useful and together with the other advice in my last post gives me a good idea where to start.

Maybe i'm a little slow, but i find some of the terminology around intervals confusing: tempo rides, cruise intervals, cruise / lactate clearing, 2x20 mins, x5 mins. The exact effort you do those types of training seems to vary from book to book and site to site.

Thx again

You're not slow. Many of these terms are highly subjective (e.g. cruise intervals? what the hell is that? something to do with cruise missiles? or, when i'm cruising i'm taking things easy, which is an oxymoron where intervals are concerned).

Then you get coaches who pretend to understand science and term certain things completely wrongly (the most common variable for this is lactate threshold and critical power). These physiological points are defined in the literature, but some coaches insist on making their own meaning of them (i guess this would be like learning French, and calling a "table" a "chair" and arguing with a French person about it).

However, you are correct that many coaches will define training differently, and with different training zones (which, of course is up to them). Thus, when talking about such training you need to understand that zone X in one training paradigm may not be Zone X in another coaches training paradigm.

Ric

SteveR_100Milers

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

[
With these 8 x 5, you're working slightly harder than the 2 x 20-mins during the work periods, but the rest periods compensate for this and bring down the total effort to the same as a 2 x 20 (thus, the only real reason to do 8 x 5s is because you could kill yourself from boredom by doing 2 x 20s on a turbo trainer).
Ric

I have read from some late 80's (RAAM cyclists) and Eric Heidens stuff that training either just below, at or jujst above your "threshold" (lets assume the steady state power output for >15mins - for those with a hi fi bent think RMS power) has a huge difference on effect. The general opinion then was to train for as long as possible just under your aeroboic threshold (which was an easy to grasp concept compared to lactate threshold etc etc), which would have the biggest effect on increasing it (is this now VO2 max?)
ultimately, surely if you are a good fast twitcher, then you will respond best to short intervals and become a good sprinter. If you a slower one, then 100mile TT's are for you. OK a generalisation, but for those that watched the Worlds last week, the differences were easy to spot even at the top level in the sport.

To the OP, if you ride with a group of riders, it wont take you long to find out where your strengths lie, and therefore channel your resources (money, time for a start).

Mike Willcox1

Just ride your bike. Give it some welly on the drags and climbs. Recover on the descents and keep the cadence up on the flat. The rest is academic.

Edwin

I do intervals every day.......in between sets of traffic lights. I'm not convinced structured intervals would help me much, and there's also the problem of finding a road where you can go flat out for five or ten minutes. I'm interested in trying it, but I think I'd need a decent turbo with some of sort of system to download performance data. Otherwise how do you know if it's having an effect? I've got faster this year (I time myself riding to work, I've done a few track TT's, and knocked half a minute off my time for the club hill climb, coming in 2nd.......OK there were only about ten or so riders but it was still a result!) but I've mainly used Mike's old school method of just riding as much as possible.
Just wondering how people quantify their performance when going for the structured/scientific training methods.

....minus points for anyone who says powermeter first.....

Toks

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

Just ride your bike. Give it some welly on the drags and climbs. Recover on the descents and keep the cadence up on the flat. The rest is academic.

If only it was that simple Mike?

1. just riding your bike might mean poodling around at 15mph for hours; long term thats not much good to a competitive rider. 2. Giving it welly up drags and climbs if you don't live in a hilly area might mean a 30second-2min all out efforts. A few of these incorporated into a long ride and I'm sure they'll be some training benefit but it may not be optimal. Especially since the endurance cyclists key weapons are - threshold and vo2max power.3. You can spin like a hotpoint washing machine for as much as you want, 120rpms in 39/21 might well be a complete waste of time for someone training for a few flat 10mile TT's You see my point.

Ok It sounds like I'm trying to be a smarty pants - but the 'just ride your bike mantra' for me at least just ain't cuttin it. And you can tell me that when you were a hot shot TT man back in the days that thats all you did - sorry I don't believe ya

chrisw12

Edwin wrote:

I do intervals every day.......in between sets of traffic lights. I'm not convinced structured intervals would help me much, and there's also the problem of finding a road where you can go flat out for five or ten minutes. I'm interested in trying it, but I think I'd need a decent turbo with some of sort of system to download performance data. Otherwise how do you know if it's having an effect? I've got faster this year (I time myself riding to work, I've done a few track TT's, and knocked half a minute off my time for the club hill climb, coming in 2nd.......OK there were only about ten or so riders but it was still a result!) but I've mainly used Mike's old school method of just riding as much as possible.
Just wondering how people quantify their performance when going for the structured/scientific training methods.

....minus points for anyone who says powermeter first.....

Easy, use a powermeter...

Why do we have to measure if the training is working? If you are giving 100% then shouldn't we just trust that is is going to work? What more can you do, why keep on measuring?

but how do I quantify my performance, easy, I set targets to beat other people, in races. I honestly can't understand how people can motivate themselves/measure themselves if they don't race, but then each to their own.

Mike Willcox1

Toks wrote:

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

Just ride your bike. Give it some welly on the drags and climbs. Recover on the descents and keep the cadence up on the flat. The rest is academic.

If only it was that simple Mike?

1. just riding your bike might mean poodling around at 15mph for hours; long term thats not much good to a competitive rider. 2. Giving it welly up drags and climbs if you don't live in a hilly area might mean a 30second-2min all out efforts. A few of these incorporated into a long ride and I'm sure they'll be some training benefit but it may not be optimal. Especially since the endurance cyclists key weapons are - threshold and vo2max power.3. You can spin like a hotpoint washing machine for as much as you want, 120rpms in 39/21 might well be a complete waste of time for someone training for a few flat 10mile TT's You see my point.

Ok It sounds like I'm trying to be a smarty pants - but the 'just ride your bike mantra' for me at least just ain't cuttin it. And you can tell me that when you were a hot shot TT man back in the days that thats all you did - sorry I don't believe ya

For a newbie it's a good place to start especially during the winter months. You aim for the top of the drag/climb and get there as fast as you can. You recover on the descent and adopt a high cadence thereafter (not spinning in a too low a gear). A 70 inch gear (42/16) is an ideal gear to turn over in training (100 rpm = 21 mph) on the flatish bits and to then to try and maintain it on the drags.

OK I accept that if the terrain is predominantly flat then this approach may not be appropriate. On the other hand I've yet to ride anywhere in the UK where there are no hills or drags.

As you know my best performances were based on a diet of long and short intervals. The short intervals were on rollers @ 120 rpm. My race cadence of 100 rpm in a gear of 100 inches = 30 mph.

You don't need big gears to go fast.

SteveR_100Milers

The "scientific" problem with that is that there are too many variables to qualify your performance, and therefore leaves too much to chance. Other riders will have on or off days, or teh course conditions will change affecting some more than others. Ultimately, providing your position is constant, then increasing your power will make you faster. Ergo, the only way you can be sure that you are improving against your own benchmark is to increase your power output.
I think the whole powermeter issue is a red herring - no one really disputes spending money on bike comps, or HRM...so why not a power meter? The real question is what do you do with the data? Personally I never "ride to" my HRM, therefore a powermeter would be interesting (as a post ride measurement) but not much use as I'm riding...maybe.

BeaconRuth

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

The "scientific" problem with that is that there are too many variables to qualify your performance, and therefore leaves too much to chance. Other riders will have on or off days, or teh course conditions will change affecting some more than others. Ultimately, providing your position is constant, then increasing your power will make you faster.

No it won't. Even if you increase your power, your race is still subject to the variables of weather, course and other rider's performances. You still might not go faster.

Imagine two time-trialling scenarios:

Rider A: You have no powermeter. You come second behind your rival. However, you know your rival has been going well recently, it was a foul day weather-wise and you got within a few seconds of the time you did on that course under good conditions a few weeks ago.

Rider B: You have a powermeter. You come second behind your rival. Your powermeter tells you you achieved a PB power output.

I am Rider A all the time and I'm perfectly happy having no idea what power I put out. The qualitative evidence of progress and good performances is sufficient for me. And the same is true in training. Some people love numbers and they'd much rather be Rider B. Neither is right or wrong, and I'd argue that Rider B isn't in a much better position than Rider A.

I think the whole powermeter issue is a red herring - no one really disputes spending money on bike comps, or HRM...so why not a power meter? The real question is what do you do with the data?

No, the real question is the cost. If a powermeter cost the same as a cheap HRM or bike computer would I buy one? Probably.

Personally I never "ride to" my HRM, therefore a powermeter would be interesting (as a post ride measurement) but not much use as I'm riding...maybe.

I think the efficacy of powermeters rests more on the post-ride analysis (and post-MANY-rides analysis) rather than as a real-time tool while riding or racing.

Ruth

Alex_Simmons/RST

BeaconRuth wrote:

Imagine two time-trialling scenarios:

Rider A: You have no powermeter. You come second behind your rival. However, you know your rival has been going well recently, it was a foul day weather-wise and you got within a few seconds of the time you did on that course under good conditions a few weeks ago.

Rider B: You have a powermeter. You come second behind your rival. Your powermeter tells you you achieved a PB power output.

I am Rider A all the time and I'm perfectly happy having no idea what power I put out. The qualitative evidence of progress and good performances is sufficient for me. And the same is true in training. Some people love numbers and they'd much rather be Rider B. Neither is right or wrong, and I'd argue that Rider B isn't in a much better position than Rider A.

No, the real question is the cost. If a powermeter cost the same as a cheap HRM or bike computer would I buy one? Probably.

I think the efficacy of powermeters rests more on the post-ride analysis (and post-MANY-rides analysis) rather than as a real-time tool while riding or racing.

Ruth

OK, I'll bite

Rider B (or their coach) will know how to improve though and what to focus on - as an example, did they still lose valuable time (and the race) because of poor pacing, or some other reason? Only a PM will help answer that question - and by using it to assist pacing (especially the first few minutes) of a TT it can greatly improve rider's times. Rider A will remain blissfully ignorant and perhaps will not focus attention on the right things.

Rider B can also use the powermeter to conduct field testing of different riding positions to optimise their aerodynamics (it's not hard to do) and determine whether their power output has been compromised by riding in the new position.

Good powermeters (and coaching) are still an awful lot cheaper than what many spend on bling kit, wheels, frames etc. It's a question of priorities. That is not to say they are affordable for everyone however and yes it would be great if they cost less.

PMs are great for use during a race in many situations - I already mentioned TT pacing, especially the first few minutes but also in devising optimal pacing strategies for variable terrain and windy courses. They are also especially helpful for riders who are in a breakaway situation. Here's a recent example:

http://www.scottthor.com/index.php?name ... le&sid=213

Use of a PM can also aid in optimising strategies for team time trialling. Not to mention track pursuits.

All said, PMs are not for everyone.

SteveR_100Milers

Ruth, I think we are in violnt agreement here: perhaps I should have added, "providing every other variable is constant THEN higher power = faster speed" sorry assumed that this would be taken. I agree with the rider A vs B scenario (which is why I use race results as a quantative measure not HRM.

No, the real question is the cost. If a powermeter cost the same as a cheap HRM or bike computer would I buy one? Probably.

so would you use a power meter in a different way than you would / do an HRM or even PE? I too would buy one (cost wasnt my point) but it would not necessarily change the way I train, i.e. post event data analysis translated into must ride easier / harder / longer tomorrow night. (Whether that's "right" or not is a separate issue)

I think the efficacy of powermeters rests more on the post-ride analysis (and post-MANY-rides analysis) rather than as a real-time tool while riding or racing.

Yep agree with that.

chrisw12

Alex, I agree witht the advantages that on race power meters provide and for this reason I think they shoud be banned in timetrials.

cervelorider

chrisw12 wrote:

Alex, I agree witht the advantages that on race power meters provide and for this reason I think they shoud be banned in timetrials.

Would you mind stating this in english please?

chrisw12

Sorry I wa interupted as I was about to post and hit the submit button, before re-reading/ completing the paragraph..

What I was trying to say, given all the advantages that a power meter gives regarding pacing during a race, is there an argument that they should be banned as they give an unfair advantage.

I wanted to pose this as a question rather than a statement of my beliefs.

Is that clearer?

Ric_Stern/RST

chrisw12 wrote:

Sorry I wa interupted as I was about to post and hit the submit button, before re-reading/ completing the paragraph..

What I was trying to say, given all the advantages that a power meter gives regarding pacing during a race, is there an argument that they should be banned as they give an unfair advantage.

I wanted to pose this as a question rather than a statement of my beliefs.

Is that clearer?

Should we ban aero equipment as well? What about the people who can't afford discs?

I ride a couple of TTs a year. Consequently, i see no point to purchase any TT kit, yet, i'm hugely disadvantaged because i'm (generally) the only person on a standard road bike. So can we ban aero kit please?

I now await someone to come on here and tell me they race with an "Ordinary" bicycle and can we ban gears, dropped handlebars, and diamond shaped frames...

Ric

DaveyL

Sod it, just ban time trials!

cervelorider

chrisw12 wrote:

Sorry I wa interupted as I was about to post and hit the submit button, before re-reading/ completing the paragraph..

What I was trying to say, given all the advantages that a power meter gives regarding pacing during a race, is there an argument that they should be banned as they give an unfair advantage.

I wanted to pose this as a question rather than a statement of my beliefs.

Is that clearer?

Thanks Chris, much clearer (or should that be 'more clear'?)
My initial thoughts are that it is a great tool for newbie testers, as it would shorten the learning curve about going out too hard, and then struggling to sustain any kind of constant power for the 2nd part of the event. But it is not only newbies that do this; I know several fairly experienced riders that still do a TT in this fashion, because they cant understand the logic of starting out slower than what feels right in a race, which is a lot to do with self-control, and not forgetting the 'red mist'.
I did a TT 2 weeks ago without a PM(by mistake of course), after forgetting to charge the batteries - 1 minute into a 25, and the display went off for good :shock:
I finished with a half decent time because I have become used to pacing that distance, and knew what intensity to ride at.
In answer to your question I dont think they should be banned to anyone riding a TT, because they are merely a momentary guide, as opposed to a delayed momentary guide(HRM) throughout the event(simple response).
Another scenario that's rarely discussed on the merits of using a PM, is to pace a longer training session - eg 3-4hrs.
For example, if you go out for 3-4hrs using HRM or PE, you will invariably go out harder than you finish. You get to your chosen HR too quickly and then by sustaining that HR(or there abouts), your power will incrementally drop throughout the entire ride. The same applies to PE in general, since it's hard to guage one specified intensity over such a long period, unless you have a PM to constantly measure your output throughout the entire ride.

That is all a PM is really, a pacing tool, whether it's for 3 minutes or 3hrs(generally speaking )

chrisw12

Ric your obviously not up to date with the politics of Welsh timetrialing so I'll give you a little story.

The Welsh winner of the Welsh 12hr was accused off 'pacing' off another rider. I've heared the main part of his defence was that he was riding by power (srm) and was in now way using the other rider to pace off.

I don't want to get into the what nots of the race, but I just find it funny that someone's defence for a pacing charge is to state that he paced of an instrument rather than another rider. In reality, how is it any diferent?

I know though, where do you draw the line, aero equipment and all that, but if you are going to argue how good a power meter is then surely you could argue that they could provide too much of an advantage.

Mike Willcox1

I have always thought that you should race with the best equipment that you can afford. The problem these days is that in TT's the best available equipment gives the user a proportionately much greater advantage than it used to when I raced at my peak 25 years ago.

Not only that but in my opinion it is much less safe to ride aero bars than it is to ride coventional handlebars. Also by far and away the biggest contradiction in safety is that many riders will wear a helmet at all times on the bike except when they ride TT's, when they wear a head fairing that offers little protection. What a joke!

So you go faster but is this progress? I'm not sure whether a PM should be allowed in TT's or not but Is it fair that all else being equal someone who can afford £6000 to buy an all singing dancing carbon everything 14 lbs aero TT bike can in the same event be up against riders with bikes that when ridden by that very same rider will be 2 minutes slower over 25 miles?

No one can pretend it is fair, but that is the fault of the people in charge of the sport. Why if we are all for getting the fastest machine that science can provide and that money can buy are recumbents and fairing on bikes not allowed? Where is the logic in that? So there are some limitations in place.

No the ONLY way to make the sport fairer and safer for all is to make the bikes the same as you would use for road racing. The whole point of racing is to see who is the fastest athlete not who has got the most dosh to spend on equipment.

Ric_Stern/RST

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

Not only that but in my opinion it is much less safe to ride aero bars than it is to ride coventional handlebars.

i don't know of any data to support that. has there been more crashes on aero kit?

Also by far and away the biggest contradiction in safety is that many riders will wear a helmet at all times on the bike except when they ride TT's, when they wear a head fairing that offers little protection. What a joke!

not sure if you're aware but you can get aero helmets that are safety helmets

No the ONLY way to make the sport fairer and safer for all is to make the bikes the same as you would use for road racing. The whole point of racing is to see who is the fastest athlete not who has got the most dosh to spend on equipment.

I raced on Open Pro wheels this year. They're considerably slower than if i'd used a deep dish carbon wheel, even in road races. Not all road bikes are the same...

ric

BeaconRuth

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

so would you use a power meter in a different way than you would / do an HRM or even PE?

Are you asking about what I'd do while racing or while training? I don't use a HRM while racing so using a powermeter while racing would be novel to start with.

It's a bit hard to explain how differently I'd use a powermeter in training compared to how I use a HRM in training, given that how I use a HRM in training varies drastically for different kinds of training. For instance, I don't do intervals by aiming for a certain HR although I might do tempo rides by aiming for a HR zone.

But, I suppose all that's a bit of a red herring really - a powermeter is completely different tool from a HRM (ie. it's not just a rich man's HRM), so I'd definitely use it very differently.

I too would buy one (cost wasnt my point) but it would not necessarily change the way I train, i.e. post event data analysis translated into must ride easier / harder / longer tomorrow night. (Whether that's "right" or not is a separate issue)

Would there be any point in having a sophisticated training tool that you didn't use to improve your training?

Ruth

SteveR_100Milers

[quote="BeaconRuth
Would there be any point in having a sophisticated training tool that you didn't use to improve your training?

Ruth[/quote]

Of course, I'm a bloke and its a gadget. Seriously though, I can't see that it's THAT different from an HRM, only a more accurate and consistent measure of effort. It's technically no more sophisticated that an HRM, just more expensive. In that respect I have such a training device that I don't really use to its potential as a training device.

cervelorider

Loving this - there is not a single reference to the OP on page 2 of this thread - just a PM debate :roll:
Oh how I wish for better emoticons.......

BeaconRuth

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Seriously though, I can't see that it's THAT different from an HRM, only a more accurate and consistent measure of effort. It's technically no more sophisticated that an HRM, just more expensive.

You're a wicked tease, Steve. I'm off before the RST heavies roll up their sleeves over that post.

Ruth