Tips on riding slowly?
Comments
-
Your question is a good one. The Performance Manager doesn't take into consideration the composition of your training (it isn't meant to), hence knowledge of when to do the right kind of training still needs to be applied.Mike Willcox wrote:I'm impressed.
But how do you use this performance manager to differentiate between how much speed work and how much steady state riding is required in your build up to a peak. Bearing in mind that the "score" could be the same on a ride of 3 hours steady as 45 minutes interval training, you may e.g. have done insufficient speed work.
At the end of the day there has to a common sense approach based on sound principles of training.
But I've written about that too
See here:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2007/02/tough-love.html0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Your question is a good one. The Performance Manager doesn't take into consideration the composition of your training (it isn't meant to), hence knowledge of when to do the right kind of training still needs to be applied.Mike Willcox wrote:I'm impressed.
But how do you use this performance manager to differentiate between how much speed work and how much steady state riding is required in your build up to a peak. Bearing in mind that the "score" could be the same on a ride of 3 hours steady as 45 minutes interval training, you may e.g. have done insufficient speed work.
At the end of the day there has to a common sense approach based on sound principles of training.
But I've written about that too
See here:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2007/02/tough-love.html
You're not as daft as you look. 8)0 -
Well just to show that use of a tool like the PMC is not all about competitive racing, here is a case study about my friend Tanya, who in mid-2006 had surgery to remove a bowel cancer. She then made a comeback to cycling with the intent to ride a sportif type event.
Part I
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2006/11/ ... mance.html
Part II
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2007/02/ ... -back.html
PS - there is an art to this science...0 -
ut_och_cykla wrote:lactate gets' burnt'? Yes- my understanding is that lactate is always being generated in muscles, it only becomes a problem when it builds up beyond a certain, somewhat individual level. Lactate generated in one part of a muscle is used as an energy source by other parts of the muscle.
Lsctate is always being generated, unless you have a metabolic disease like McArdles Syndrome (where if memory serves me correctly, it's only produced in very small amounts). Lactate is *not* a problem -- it increases as intensity increases as a fuel to be oxidised, without which, we'd fatigue at a *faster* rate. Previously, people have thought that lactate is a source of fatigue (at a cellular level) but this was because lactate increases with intensity and confusing it with the the source of fatigue (which it isn't).
Ruth is correct, "anaerobic threshold" is a misnomer when being used to describe the intensity of riding a time trial. We're fully aerobic at that point (and indeed are aerobic up to VO2max, which is significantly higher intensity than e.g. a 25-mile TT).
RicProfessional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
Alex, great stuff, I'll have a read of all your links when I get home.
In the mean time, The biketechreview site and now your last comment have been on my thoughts for a few days.
'Is cycling a maths problem' or is bike training even a science.
I do maths all day and every day (I'm a teacher) and I love the subject, but you guys applying the maths and your formulas to everything, don't you think you're taking the fun out of the sport/training?
Sorry to go way off topic. :oops:0 -
chrisw12 wrote:'Is cycling a maths problem' or is bike training even a science.
I do maths all day and every day (I'm a teacher) and I love the subject, but you guys applying the maths and your formulas to everything, don't you think you're taking the fun out of the sport/training?
Sorry to go way off topic. :oops:
Surely, if you love maths, why wouldn't reducing cycling to a maths problem (or a modelling of performance problem, mixing physiology, with physics and maths) be fun?
(of course i'm not saying that everyone finds "maths" problems fun...)
ricProfessional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
chrisw12 wrote:Alex, great stuff, I'll have a read of all your links when I get home.
In the mean time, The biketechreview site and now your last comment have been on my thoughts for a few days.
'Is cycling a maths problem' or is bike training even a science.
I do maths all day and every day (I'm a teacher) and I love the subject, but you guys applying the maths and your formulas to everything, don't you think you're taking the fun out of the sport/training?
Sorry to go way off topic. :oops:
I don't think so - you've still got to get out there and do the riding. That's the fun part for me. As well as updating the annual mileage log in an Excel spreadsheet, of course...Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Tangential threads happen all the timechrisw12 wrote:Alex, great stuff, I'll have a read of all your links when I get home.
In the mean time, The biketechreview site and now your last comment have been on my thoughts for a few days.
'Is cycling a maths problem' or is bike training even a science.
I do maths all day and every day (I'm a teacher) and I love the subject, but you guys applying the maths and your formulas to everything, don't you think you're taking the fun out of the sport/training?
Sorry to go way off topic. :oops:
Cycling isn't a maths problem, it's an activity (and mostly fun at that), but I sure see no reason why we shouldn't apply scientific method and knowledge to better understand the nature of cycling and how all the various factors relate to our performance as cyclists.
For some people, as Ric's said, this process is actually fun (and for many it's their job). It is also really bloody useful. But not everything can be broken down to numbers and there is a limit beyond which doing so is probably not worth the effort.
At times I think we are probably (as a collective) better off working on understanding the human physiology more, than trying to build an even better "black box" to predict how an individual will respond to a training stimuli. Nevertheless, it's not stopping plenty of enterprising people who love this stuff from trying.
The concepts used in the PMC are not new, similar ideas have been used in endurance sports training for many years. It's only recently however that greater precision in quantifying training stress/load for cyclists through using power meter data has emerged.
It's a new paradigm, for sure, but it doesn't require a rocket scientist to understand and apply it.
BTW - I have no commercial interest in the software. If something better comes along, I'll be sure to check it out and apply as makes sense.0 -
Ric_Stern/RST wrote:chrisw12 wrote:'Is cycling a maths problem' or is bike training even a science.
I do maths all day and every day (I'm a teacher) and I love the subject, but you guys applying the maths and your formulas to everything, don't you think you're taking the fun out of the sport/training?
Sorry to go way off topic. :oops:
Surely, if you love maths, why wouldn't reducing cycling to a maths problem (or a modelling of performance problem, mixing physiology, with physics and maths) be fun?
(of course i'm not saying that everyone finds "maths" problems fun...)
ric
I don't know, perhaps for me it's like the plumber who never fixes the dripping tap in his house. When I'm doing it all day, perhaps I need a break from it (maths that is) and so I try to reduce cycling/training into it's simplest forms.
Trying to reduce cycling/training to a maths problem to my thinking is (perhaps) too difficult, too many variables when dealing with the human body.0 -
I'm still stuck on calibrating HR and RPE. It changes completely between the velodrome on a Friday night on the last lap of a scratch race to when I'm sat on the turbo on a Sunday morning....the conclusion I have come to is that my money would be better spent on 20ml of adrenaline shots rather than another device to measure intensity.0
-
SteveR_100Milers wrote:I'm still stuck on calibrating HR and RPE. It changes completely between the velodrome on a Friday night on the last lap of a scratch race to when I'm sat on the turbo on a Sunday morning....the conclusion I have come to is that my money would be better spent on 20ml of adrenaline shots rather than another device to measure intensity.
You calibrate RPE by what passes over the eyes.
Easy pace - you can see straight.
Moderate pace - things get a bit blurry (watery eyes)
Fast pace (TT) - nothing at all is in focus apart from that spot on the road 5 yards ahead.
Anaerobic - red mist (or eyes closed)0 -
He he. I reckon I've seen PE11 before now (complete blackness apart from a small tunnel of light in the distance...). On Friday night my HRM made some bizarre recordings - it hit 240 BPM on several occasions which coincided with massive efforts that hurt. However, this has to be interference of some sort, although it has never done this before, including in the velodrome0
-
That was either interference caused by us passing over you on blue line or one of the old duffers in your group with a pacemakerSteveR_100Milers wrote:He he. I reckon I've seen PE11 before now (complete blackness apart from a small tunnel of light in the distance...). On Friday night my HRM made some bizarre recordings - it hit 240 BPM on several occasions which coincided with massive efforts that hurt. However, this has to be interference of some sort, although it has never done this before, including in the velodrome
Personally I find these track sessions much better as I find it easy to push into higher hr's than when riding out in the dark alone
I once read 3/4 of training should be done at about 3/4 effort which basically is base training,and the rest at about 90% so I guess one or two sessions on track would provide that.0 -
Except my HRM is a digital encoded transmitter, so unless someone else was wearing a Timex Body Link.......? according to the print our I hit 240 BPM about 4 separate occasions, and 170 or so 3 times. Prior to this only ever seen 161 on the bike and 165 running. I'm not changing my HR max setting as this means all the zones will increase.....
0 -
Does the print out show a sudden peak or does it climb there over a (short) period of time?
Sudden peaks are almost certainly interference - same place on the track? - from anything generating an electrical/radio/magnetic signal. I have one jogging round which goes past several 'electrical boxes' in the pavement and which send my HRmonitor wild if I run too close . Hope they're not live! 0 -
no they are random spikes, not position related. Never happened before in the velodrome. Must have been poor contact maybe with the transmitter0
