Training area to avoid
Comments
-
If you're really serious about improving your cycling (rather than your running) then increasing the number of training sessions is important and I wouldn't dismiss 40mins worth of cycle training time before work quite so readily. If you have your bike all set up on your turbo so you can jump on it without any hassle of setting it up then you can do some extremely effective training in, say, 45 mins on the turbo before work. The important thing is to make it intensive enough - 30-40mins at 80%MHR would do. If that's not challenging enough, push it up to 85%MHR. You'd even have time to squeeze in 2 x 15min at 90%MHR. This is the kind of stuff that will transform your time-trialling.xover_runner wrote:I know I should drop the running but as I don't have a lot of time due to work I appreciate the time efficiency of running against cycling for general fitness and weight control. I can get up at 5.30am and get a decent 40 min run in before work, can't see its worth getting on the bike for 40 mins. Don't particularly want to either on a dark and wet Dec morning either.
Ruth0 -
Just done my usual training but swopped the 15 min at 60candice (70-75%HRmax)for 20 min at 80%+. That seamed easy enough but the 3 mins of 80-max after nearly killed me. once again many thanks,
more sessions a week & up the effort.0 -
Hi Ruth.BeaconRuth wrote:If you're really serious about improving your cycling (rather than your running) then increasing the number of training sessions is important and I wouldn't dismiss 40mins worth of cycle training time before work quite so readily. If you have your bike all set up on your turbo so you can jump on it without any hassle of setting it up then you can do some extremely effective training in, say, 45 mins on the turbo before work. The important thing is to make it intensive enough - 30-40mins at 80%MHR would do. If that's not challenging enough, push it up to 85%MHR. You'd even have time to squeeze in 2 x 15min at 90%MHR. This is the kind of stuff that will transform your time-trialling.
Ruth
I don't know about John, but I wouldn't be able to do what you are suggesting... I'm now 51 and I find as I get older it is taking me longer and longer to warm up properly. It take me a minimum of 25 - 30 minutes of steady warm up before I feel like I can make a really hard effort. Whenever I've set out to do 45 minutes on the turbo I've either spent nearly the whole time warming up and unwinding at the end or I've done my 25 minute warm-up then alternated 5 very hard minutes with 5 easy as many times as I can stomach before falling off in a sweaty heap and those sessions usually end up lasting 75 - 90 minutes.
My fittest ever summer came after a winter of hard turbo-training. The weather was crap so I hardly went out on my bike for months. I'd never been able to stand doing more than about 45 minutes 2 or 3 times a week on the turbo, but miscellaneous work and relationship problems came to a head and completely stressed me out. I channelled all my negative energy into 4 or 5 gut-wrenchingly hard turbo sessions a week, sometimes lasting upto 2.5 hours ( :shock: !!!) at a time - I'd hardly be able to walk afterwards. Not very scientific, but it seemed to do the trick - I lost over 3 stone in weight that winter and the following year was my best ever on the bike.0 -
Colin I don't know how soon I could go to max but I like to take a while to warm up. which is why I do the :
5 mins gentle up to 70%
5 mins 75% with 10 second sprints
15 min 60 candice in a high gear
I am then in the mood to go to max.
I dare say I could reduce the 15 min session if I wanted to.0 -
Ruth - I did as you suggested this evening and done 40 mins at 80% MHR. Did this on the turbo (I have a Flow) and the power reading (270/280Watts) was what I have been doing 2 * 20s at. So I guess I haven't been doing this hard enough although with HR drift I was normally getting to TT HR for the last 10 mins and I was pretty done in at the end of the 2 * 20s. However today once I got past about 25 mins I got in a bit of a zone and it felt reasonably comfortable. I did change the power from 280 to 270 about halfway through and kept the HR in the range 79-82% for the whole time. Is the right way to go i.e keep HR nearly constant or keep the power constant and let HR drift up?0
-
This is exactly what a lot of people report. At the beginning it feels like it's going to be quite a challenge, but you do actually settle down after 20mins or so and it's not uncomfortable just to keep going. It's sounds like you've got it just right to me.xover_runner wrote:Ruth - I did as you suggested this evening and done 40 mins at 80% MHR. Did this on the turbo (I have a Flow) and the power reading (270/280Watts) was what I have been doing 2 * 20s at. So I guess I haven't been doing this hard enough although with HR drift I was normally getting to TT HR for the last 10 mins and I was pretty done in at the end of the 2 * 20s. However today once I got past about 25 mins I got in a bit of a zone and it felt reasonably comfortable.
There's no harm in letting your HR drift up above 80%MHR - the only reason to try and keep it in check is if you don't want to overdo it because, say, you intend training again the next day. In that case you probably should start with a slightly lower power. However, if you've got time to recover from a harder workout then keep the power higher and let your HR drift higher.I did change the power from 280 to 270 about halfway through and kept the HR in the range 79-82% for the whole time. Is the right way to go i.e keep HR nearly constant or keep the power constant and let HR drift up?
Ruth0 -
But what I suggested was working at 80%maxHR for 30mins or so. That's not a 'really hard effort.' That's the kind of effort you can maintain for 1 or 2 hours, so you really don't need to warm up for any more than 10mins before starting to work at that kind of intensity. If I was suggesting doing short, very hard intervals, then I'd agree that a much longer warm up would be necessary.ColinJ wrote:I don't know about John, but I wouldn't be able to do what you are suggesting... I'm now 51 and I find as I get older it is taking me longer and longer to warm up properly. It take me a minimum of 25 - 30 minutes of steady warm up before I feel like I can make a really hard effort.
Ruth0 -
xover_runner wrote:(I have a Flow)
I did change the power from 280 to 270 about halfway through and kept the HR in the range 79-82% for the whole time.
From the way you word this, it sounds as though you are using the 'flow to set power that you want to ride to. If this is the case, you should be aware that for this to be in anyway beneficial, your gearing should be set to WAY below the power you have set for it to be effective.
I experienced so much inaccuracy and inconsistency using 'set' or ergo power, I have resorted to displaying power output without using the ergo function, and using gearing to set the power output.
I only mention this so that your training can be more effective.
Oh yeah, always keep power constant, and let HR drift, and as Ruth mentions, adjust constant power to suit.0 -
BeaconRuth wrote:
But what I suggested was working at 80%maxHR for 30mins or so. That's not a 'really hard effort.' That's the kind of effort you can maintain for 1 or 2 hours, so you really don't need to warm up for any more than 10mins before starting to work at that kind of intensity. If I was suggesting doing short, very hard intervals, then I'd agree that a much longer warm up would be necessary.ColinJ wrote:I don't know about John, but I wouldn't be able to do what you are suggesting... I'm now 51 and I find as I get older it is taking me longer and longer to warm up properly. It take me a minimum of 25 - 30 minutes of steady warm up before I feel like I can make a really hard effort.
Ruth
I've experimented with warming up to get sessions as time-efficient as possible and I found that for a simple 1h 85% continuous session I need about 2 mins. I can jump straight in, but my legs complain about it. Cool-down can be similarly quick, 3 mins is about right.
The more intense sessions need longer depending on how painful they are
Neil--
"Because the cycling is pain. The cycling is soul crushing pain."0 -
Pictures usually help greatly. Here are a couple from an athlete.
This one is a 60-min "Hardish Tempo" or "Sweet Spot" or upper Coggan Level 3 workout which I call Moderate Intensity Endurance Training.
Power is the yellow line and heart rate is the red line. The dotted horizontal yellow line is the average power for the effort (224 watts) which was 88% of this rider's 1hr Time Trial power.
You will note it was a steady power effort (the jumpiness of the power line is normal) and that heart rate drifts upwards the whole time through the interval.
This next one is the classic 2 x 20-min time trial interval, this time ridden at 104% of 1-hr TT power (it was a break through level effort). Again note the red HR curve during the effort.
If you pace your intervals or longer endurance efforts by heart rate and attempt to keep HR constant, then your power will constantly fall in order to maintain the HR. When we coach riders without a power meter, then we ensure riders understand this phenomenon and use other means as well as HR to determine intensity.
Speed on a turbo can be good, provided the tubo trainer maintains a constant resistance (many don't unfortunately). Perceived exertion is used as well but this also needs tuning as intervals often feel easy to begin with, then get hard towards the end. And as Ruth has said, some intervals or workouts feel crap to start with, then you come good after a short while.0 -
I recently put my RPE to the test on my turbo and used a HRM as a reference indicator. My turbo uses magnetic resistance so remains constant at a given cadence. I witnessed the cardiac drift over a 20 minute even effort at 10 mile TT pace.
If I had used the HRM to determine my effort level than I would have slowed up at the end. On the other hand if I had started too high (by using level power from start to finish) at the beginning I would have slowed down at the end or I may have some energy left over.
Bearing in mind that it's near impossible to be accurate on your Max HR then for me that's another confirmation that RPE is the way to go.0 -
Ah - I was focussing on your final suggestion that 2 * 15 minutes at 90% would be possible and I'd definitely need a good warm-up for that. Yes, 10 minutes warm-up would probably do me for an 80% effort.BeaconRuth wrote:
But what I suggested was working at 80%maxHR for 30mins or so. That's not a 'really hard effort.' That's the kind of effort you can maintain for 1 or 2 hours, so you really don't need to warm up for any more than 10mins before starting to work at that kind of intensity. If I was suggesting doing short, very hard intervals, then I'd agree that a much longer warm up would be necessary.ColinJ wrote:I don't know about John, but I wouldn't be able to do what you are suggesting... I'm now 51 and I find as I get older it is taking me longer and longer to warm up properly. It take me a minimum of 25 - 30 minutes of steady warm up before I feel like I can make a really hard effort.
Ruth
When my ex was at university she did a little project based on heart rates and as a subject for that I wore a Polar HRM for 24 hours. I was pretty surprised by the results... My resting heart rate that morning was 33 bpm. I went on a 5 hour tour of the local Yorkshire/Lancashire hills and the only times I went below 155 bpm for 5 hours was on steep descents where I couldn't put any effort in. Most of the time I was at about 160-165 bpm. I hit 197 bpm going up a 25% climb so I reckon my MHR must have been around 200 bpm. Even on easier climbs I was frequently hitting 185 bpm. I think the figures represent how unfit I was rather than how hard I was trying to go. I was absolutely grovelling on the steep stuff.
I always worked on the assumption that I should make the most of my time on the bike since I had a very sedentary life the rest of the time. I'm beginning to think now that I'd have been better off doing more frequent but easier rides. Some of the fittest riders I know seem to get most of their fitness from their commuting miles.
As I wrote above - for me on the turbo it is either 45 minutes moderate or 60-90 minutes harder effort because of my warm-up problem. That's kind of the wrong way round really isn't it! Can you suggest any techniques to enable me to warm up more quickly? I usually just ramp up slowly until I feel ready to go for it. The level of effort then is what I can just about maintain for 5 minutes and then need several minutes easy effort to recover from, repeated until I run out of steam or time, whichever happens first. I haven't used a HRM recently so I couldn't tell you what that is in terms of percentages.0 -
Er are you sure you really need ~ thiryty mins to get yourself going?. After all this is training not for an actual race. I could understand if you were doing really hard do or die efforts but to get yourself ready for a 80%-85% of your max session ten minutes should be fine - unless there's something you ain't telling us.ColinJ wrote:[Can you suggest any techniques to enable me to warm up more quickly? I usually just ramp up slowly until I feel ready to go for it. The level of effort then is what I can just about maintain for 5 minutes and then need several minutes easy effort to recover from, repeated until I run out of steam or time, whichever happens first. I haven't used a HRM recently so I couldn't tell you what that is in terms of percentages.
I tend to do 2 x 20 on the turbo - thats at/near race pace and my warm up is 5mins occassionally 6-7min. The first two mins is an easy gear then I jump to the gear 2 down from my interval gear then in the 3rd minute I'm one down. And on the fourth minute I'm in my interval gear. i then take a 3 -5 minute rest and a way I go. 0 -
If you feel the need to take longer to warm-up, do what is best for you.
One thing that I find helps, is raising the cadence every minute by 5-10 rpm in one gear. Keep raising the cadence till you reach 120rpm(or as high as you can ) then spin easy.
Not only will this progressively warm your legs up, but the power you will be putting out at 120ish rpm will make starting your session a lot easier.
Once you've done this a few times, you can try for 130rpm atc, with an improved pedalling technique to boot.0 -
Hi.
My first post on this site, but i tend to read this and the timetrialling forum training sections to look for information that might help me with my training.
I have used a heart rate monitor to help me with my training and found it pretty useful at recording how much training i've done with some idea of the intensity of that training.
I was just wondering if there is any substantial evidence to suggest that particular "zones" either power or heart rate as discussed in this thread are more benefial for training than others.
I have some knowledge upon which to base my training schedule but am keen to learn / discuss more, any good articles i could be directed towards would be fantastic.
Thanks for reading,
Andrew0 -
If you are the Andrew Bye I think you are then please do not improve any more. You're scarily good enough as it is.-- Dirk Hofman Motorhomes --0
-
Depends on what you are training for.AndrewBye wrote:I was just wondering if there is any substantial evidence to suggest that particular "zones" either power or heart rate as discussed in this thread are more benefial for training than others.
It's been referenced before but training levels and primary physiological adaptations are nicely summarised here:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp
As always it's a blend of intensity and duration, along with knowing what type of training to do when, which is specific to your target event(s) or goals and where you are at/have been.0 -
AndrewBye wrote:Hi.
My first post on this site, but i tend to read this and the timetrialling forum training sections to look for information that might help me with my training.
I have used a heart rate monitor to help me with my training and found it pretty useful at recording how much training i've done with some idea of the intensity of that training.
I was just wondering if there is any substantial evidence to suggest that particular "zones" either power or heart rate as discussed in this thread are more benefial for training than others.
I have some knowledge upon which to base my training schedule but am keen to learn / discuss more, any good articles i could be directed towards would be fantastic.
Thanks for reading,
Andrew
Hi Andy
To be at your best for a particular branch of the sport means targeting specific areas for training and ensuring that you're up for it when you need to perform at your best.
Many articles that I've read discuss in depth the chemical changes in the muscles, heart, and the lungs through training and how knowing these outcomes should influence the length and intensity of your training to produce the desired power output for the amount of time you need it for.
There is the scientific approach demandiing a disciplined training schedule and the recording of data and subsequent analysis and there is the pragmatic approach which is about striking a balance between your lifestyle, job and ambitions/goals for your cycling.
No articles take into account your personal values and prioities in life and nor could they. Your personal life has a big impact on your ability to train and perform. So to get that sorted would be my number one priority.
At the end of the day you need endurance, speed and the technical expertise to transmit power in the most efficient way to the pedals. All training should be progressive and cover those areas but not necessarily at the same time in the same training session.0 -
Thanks for your replies,
I train mostly for road racing up to around 3 hours prefering hillier courses. Probably am the Andrew Bye you are thinking of Phil but I hopefullyI will be able to improve and thought it would be good to train "smarter" as well as just "harder" so decided I wanted to do some "research" into the subject.
I have read those power zones, (and have been training with the use of a similar wisdom in the form of heart rate zones). To be more specific in what i was asking im interested in finding a bit more about the actual scientific research upon which levels were based, a bit geeky but im interested in getting a better appreciation of the benefits of prescribing a particular training zones over another.
I have had a quick search on "medline" and "pubmed" yesterday and will probably continue this search when I have time later today, but wondered if anyone had any links to key papers that might shed light upon the subject.0 -
You're hanging around the wrong place for that sort of chat really.
Suggest joining the wattage forum where there is much such info to be mined in the vaults of the search engine:
http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/
Of couse nobody over there would ever consider the pragmatic elements involved with mixing life and training. :roll:
And consider some good exercise physiology textbooks.
Sure - search away on PubMed, nothing wrong with that. There would be a gazillion items on the physiological impacts of training methods.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:You're hanging around the wrong place for that sort of chat really.
Suggest joining the wattage forum where there is much such info to be mined in the vaults of the search engine:
http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/
Of couse nobody over there would ever consider the pragmatic elements involved with mixing life and training. :roll:
And consider some good exercise physiology textbooks.
Sure - search away on PubMed, nothing wrong with that. There would be a gazillion items on the physiological impacts of training methods.
Cheap shot from a (very) cheap person. Can't resist a little dig can you? By the way found any touched up pictures of Tom Boonen with a 6 pack lately by any chance?
Just in case there are others out there who can't or won't see the bigger picture there is a danger of mental fatigue and overtraining caused by adherence to too strict a regime of training at a high level all year round.
Suggest you spend your time around the wattage forum yourself. XXXX OFF!0 -
Erm, Mike, I don't think Alex was having a dig at anyone here and certainly not at you.
Ruth0 -
I think with good reason that he was referring to this paragraph in my earlier post.
Quote:
There is the scientific approach demandiing a disciplined training schedule and the recording of data and subsequent analysis and there is the pragmatic approach which is about striking a balance between your lifestyle, job and ambitions/goals for your cycling.
Cheers Mike0 -
AndrewBye wrote:Probably am the Andrew Bye you are thinking of Phil but I hopefullyI will be able to improve and thought it would be good to train "smarter" as well as just "harder" so decided I wanted to do some "research" into the subject.
Tell you what, mate. Ride in front of me at Hillingdon for the next few weeks and give us a nice lead-out each time and I'll tell you everything I know at the end of it. Deal?-- Dirk Hofman Motorhomes --0 -
Oh OK. I thought it was a mild dig at the Wattage forum. Maybe I was wrong.Mike Willcox wrote:I think with good reason that he was referring to this paragraph in my earlier post.
Quote:
There is the scientific approach demandiing a disciplined training schedule and the recording of data and subsequent analysis and there is the pragmatic approach which is about striking a balance between your lifestyle, job and ambitions/goals for your cycling.
Cheers Mike
Ruth0 -
Ditto Ruth. Read the Alex post as having a dig at the wattage group (of which I am a member so can appreciate....).Martin S. Newbury RC0
-
I also read it as Alex saying that the Wattage forum maybe take things just a bit too seriously and that implies that he was actually agreeing with you!BeaconRuth wrote:
Oh OK. I thought it was a mild dig at the Wattage forum. Maybe I was wrong.Mike Willcox wrote:I think with good reason that he was referring to this paragraph in my earlier post.
Quote:
There is the scientific approach demandiing a disciplined training schedule and the recording of data and subsequent analysis and there is the pragmatic approach which is about striking a balance between your lifestyle, job and ambitions/goals for your cycling.
Cheers Mike
Ruth
There is a simple answer to this...
Alex - were you having a dig at Mike or were you saying that the Wattage lot were a bit unrealistic in their approach ? 0 -
OH NO! Mike now whats the problem? :oops: How have you decided that Alex's is having a dig at you based on that one line. Come on mate you're starting to get a complex over nothing i've been reading Alex's post for nearly two years and even with provocation I've never seen him resort to cheap shorts. Its Christmas Chill Out MikeMike Willcox wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:You're hanging around the wrong place for that sort of chat really.
Suggest joining the wattage forum where there is much such info to be mined in the vaults of the search engine:
http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/
Of couse nobody over there would ever consider the pragmatic elements involved with mixing life and training. :roll:
And consider some good exercise physiology textbooks.
Sure - search away on PubMed, nothing wrong with that. There would be a gazillion items on the physiological impacts of training methods.
Cheap shot from a (very) cheap person. Can't resist a little dig can you? By the way found any touched up pictures of Tom Boonen with a 6 pack lately by any chance?
Just in case there are others out there who can't or won't see the bigger picture there is a danger of mental fatigue and overtraining caused by adherence to too strict a regime of training at a high level all year round.
Suggest you spend your time around the wattage forum yourself. XXXX OFF! 0 -
GLOVES OFF - I 'm going home
Alex is teh nice guy at RST , it's teh other one we need to watch out for... 0 -
wow, you guys take all the fun out of it :roll: Am i the only one who gets on my bike because i enjoy it and go as easy or hard as i feel like on the day?0
