Training area to avoid

DaveyL · December 2007

You're fooling no-one... Except perhaps yourself Mike.

acoggan · December 2007

Mike Willcox wrote:

re athletics see below for world records progression.

http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_75.pdf

mens 200 metres world records

http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_74.pdf

mens 1500 metres world records

http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_84.pdf

mens 800 metres world records

http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_87.pdf

mens hammer throw workd records

http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_86.pdf

mens discus throw world records

http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_34.pdf

mens 400 metres world records

and long jump and high jump etc etc.

re Hour world record bike

http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/hourrec.htm

Thank you for dredging up the hard data to support my statement that world records have continued to advance over time, as opposed to stagnating as you claimed. That's why, for example, that coaches of elite athletes (e.g., Seb Coe's father, those in charge of the German team pursuit squad) don't just aim to break today's record, but project ahead to what the world record will be when they feel they'll be ready to take a shot at it.

Mike Willcox wrote:

Eddie Merckx was the best rider. Boardman was a specialist pursuiter TT but even then the record is over10 years old. and from what I've read most people believe that Eddie's ride was the definitive one (what with Drugs and all)

Of the two, Merckx is the one who once tested positive for a banned substance, whereas Boardman has a reputation for having been "squeaky clean". Moreover, the hour record is not "over 10 y old"...Boardman surpassed Merckx's distance in 2000, and Sosenka topped that just 2 y ago.

Mike Willcox wrote:

Notice the cadence of +100 rpm folks on almost every record. A bit of a red herring that cadence thing.

It is a "red herring" if you believe that pedaling at 100 rpm is the key to enabling you to generate the 400+ W (500+ if you're Big Mig) that it takes to set the hour record. The high cadence is a function of the high power output, not vice-versa.

Mike Willcox wrote:

The 800 metres world record has barely changed from the 80's and then by a fraction of a second 10 years ago.

And the long jump record stood for decades before it was finally broken...that's just the way it is with athletic performances, i.e., ever so often someone comes along and sets the bar so high that it takes a long time for the world to catch up. Eventually they always have, however, which is why you need to take a the long-term view (and apply mathematical methods, e.g., non-linear regression) to really understand the rate of progression.

Mike Willcox wrote:

I stand by my statements.

Actual performances in athletics have barely improved over 25 years if at all.

Relative performances have hardly improved in cycling.

And the data you've put forth (as well as other data) contradict your assertions. Aside from reflecting a lack of perspective on your part, though, this doesn't really say much, because it's a strawman argument in the first place. That is, you're the one who raised the issue of the role of sport science in contributing to such advances, not me, and I have never claimed that science had anything to do with it at all. On the contrary, I'd be the first to tell you that, with the exception of some technological advances (e.g., cycling aerodynamics), the primary factors driving advancements in world records are 1) the number of participants in a sport, and 2) the money to that can be made (with the latter explaining, e.g., why so few world-class cyclists have ever even attempted the hour record).

acoggan · December 2007

Kléber wrote:

There are some interesting questions and ideas being posted by the humble riders on here but most coaches seem to be flaming each other in a odd war, picking up the slightest turn of phrase to be a direct insult or challenge and returning fire.

I know helpful info is emerging too but it feels like it's being crowded out by the ego wars.

Perhaps consider the PM function for your slander, or maybe you're using already for stronger stuff!

Maybe it's just the infancy of sports science, I'm reminded me of the "wars" between mathematicians, chemists etc that took place in previous centuries. There seem to be plenty of theories in sports science but many seem blurred by induction. Karl Popper would have a field day.

Science, being a human endeavor, has always and will always be marked by some degree of contentiosuness - for example, witness the ongoing, rankorous debate in physics re. string theory. With that said, however, all of those posting or referenced here who might be characterized as sports scientists (i.e., myself, Ric Stern, Peter Keen) are in general agreement: no matter what the duration, an exercise intensity eliciting less than ~65% of VO2max is unlikely to be sufficient to elicit further significant physiological adaptations in an athlete already performing more than a modicum of endurance training, and as such is best viewed as "active recovery". The individuals disputing this point are coaches who, at least to my limited knowledge, have no background in exercise science.

John C. · December 2007

This is the longest reply I have ever had and I'm still confused.
When training on my set of rollers for 3/4 hr in the winter months how hard should I be pushing myself. I use a HRM and I just want to maintain my fitness before upping a gear in the spring when I hope to enter some hilly sportive events. I use the rollers 2-3 times a week and ride on the hills at least once.

ut_och_cykla · December 2007

John C - I feel a bit sorry for you (and other posters who have stepped in here over the recent months). I suspect that people who are lurking with the intention of asking a training question would find the tone at least unhelpful and probably unpleasant - not just freindly banter.

You ask for seemingly simple guidance about how hard you should be working during the winter and you get 9 PAGES of various, sometimes slighly differing answers interspersed with blokes trying to urinate higher and higher up the wall.

I'm not a coach let alone a sports scientist but I would say if you've been cycling/competing most of the year (ie have a 'base' already) you can afford to go pretty much as hard as you can (in short intervalls ) on the rollers once a week, a bit less hard the other time but longer intervalls and use the outdoor for distance and hill 'technique'.

In HRM terms turbo/roller work should be around the level you can just hold for about 20 minutes. Experiment on the rollers if you're not sure. Shorter intervalls could be just above this level by a few beats, teh longer ones at or just below. Can't be more specific without you being sure of max HR etc. The 20 minute guideline is 'safe' and practical.

Hope this is of help. Be careful to make teh training progressive, include some 'rest'/other activity and don't burn out before spring arrives!

bahzob · December 2007

John C: Just to clarify what are you training for?

To finish the FWC/RR?

Or get a gold/top x% finish in them?

mackdaddy · December 2007

I know nothing about everything, but I have a question related to the OT while Mr Coggan is kicking around. It is linked to the nature vs nurture which kind of links to the training zones being individual.

I read somewhere that there are people who are genetically developed to deliver great performances in certain sports. They have the combination of features, chemical make-up, lactate threshold or whatever that will allow them to out-perform anyone else, if they took up the sport properly. I remember reading that probably the best cyclist that has the capability to beat, say, the hour record this generation is probably sat in front of a TV eating a burger and drinking coke like it's going out of fashion.

My question (rambling as it is) is whether there is a sports science to find these individuals (or is it a rubbish theory) to exploit their ability or is it left to chance on the hope that they will find their sport naturally? For example, I have done two sports with a level of seriousness in my life and I am/was mediocre at both (although enjoyed both immensely, especially the cycling!) However, what if I have the capability to be the best skier that the worl d has ever seen but never tried it.

Could send you mad that could. Maybe it already has!

cervelorider · December 2007

mackdaddy wrote:

I know nothing about everything, but I have a question related to the OT while Mr Coggan is kicking around. It is linked to the nature vs nurture which kind of links to the training zones being individual.

I read somewhere that there are people who are genetically developed to deliver great performances in certain sports. They have the combination of features, chemical make-up, lactate threshold or whatever that will allow them to out-perform anyone else, if they took up the sport properly. I remember reading that probably the best cyclist that has the capability to beat, say, the hour record this generation is probably sat in front of a TV eating a burger and drinking coke like it's going out of fashion.

My question (rambling as it is) is whether there is a sports science to find these individuals (or is it a rubbish theory) to exploit their ability or is it left to chance on the hope that they will find their sport naturally? For example, I have done two sports with a level of seriousness in my life and I am/was mediocre at both (although enjoyed both immensely, especially the cycling!) However, what if I have the capability to be the best skier that the worl d has ever seen but never tried it.

Could send you mad that could. Maybe it already has!

I think you can apply this train of thought to almost anybody really - whether it's physical or mental ability. :idea: Rain man etc comes to mind.

Robsbc · December 2007

My current 8hrs of training at the moment looks like this :-

Monday.... 1hr30 total, 3 X 20mins at 95% FTP
Tuesday... 1hr total 2 X 20mins at 95-100% FTP
Wednesday... 1hr15 total, 1hr at 85% FTP
Thursday...1hr High endurance or no riding if feeling tired.
Friday... 45 minutes recovery ride
Saturday ...3hr group ride, plenty of time spent in tempo range.
Sunday...rest day no cycling

Alex_Simmons/RST · December 2007

mackdaddy wrote:

I know nothing about everything, but I have a question related to the OT while Mr Coggan is kicking around. It is linked to the nature vs nurture which kind of links to the training zones being individual.

I read somewhere that there are people who are genetically developed to deliver great performances in certain sports. They have the combination of features, chemical make-up, lactate threshold or whatever that will allow them to out-perform anyone else, if they took up the sport properly. I remember reading that probably the best cyclist that has the capability to beat, say, the hour record this generation is probably sat in front of a TV eating a burger and drinking coke like it's going out of fashion.

My question (rambling as it is) is whether there is a sports science to find these individuals (or is it a rubbish theory) to exploit their ability or is it left to chance on the hope that they will find their sport naturally? For example, I have done two sports with a level of seriousness in my life and I am/was mediocre at both (although enjoyed both immensely, especially the cycling!) However, what if I have the capability to be the best skier that the worl d has ever seen but never tried it.

Could send you mad that could. Maybe it already has!

It is quite common in many countries to have talent search & identification programmes, mainly aimed at school aged children but also looking at elite level athletes who for one reason or another don't qualify in their chosen sport but may well be quite capable of doing so in say cycling.

In Australia we had PE classes for girls doing standing jump tests to identify potential sprinter types early on and get 'em on a track bike.

You can bet your bottom dollar such programmes exist in places like China (and probably in the former eastern bloc countries).

and don't they have extensive college scholarships programmes and talent scouts for the pro/college sports in the USA - basketball, baseball, football, athletics etc.

To be the elite, you have to have the genetics as well as the passion, drive and commitment.

xover_runner · December 2007

surely this thread isn't running out of steam.......

SteveR_100Milers · December 2007

Andrew (Coggan) and Alex,

Any data on the improvements of power o/p's over say last 15 years? Pick a rider (whom we can corroborate). Take into acccount heat, distance variances etc.
Nothing anecdotal, just data.
Then please explain the changes.

Alex_Simmons/RST · December 2007

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Andrew (Coggan) and Alex,

Any data on the improvements of power o/p's over say last 15 years? Pick a rider (whom we can corroborate). Take into acccount heat, distance variances etc.
Nothing anecdotal, just data.
Then please explain the changes.

I don't really understand the question. Can you rephrase?

There was a survey of PM users not so long back to quantify year on year improvement in individual 1 hour TT power over past 2-5 years here:

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t441427.html

but I don't know if this is what you are getting at?

DaveyL · December 2007

I understood it as the poster asking what levels of power the top elite cyclists output, and how that has varied over the years.

According to Greg LeMond, the top TdF guys went from ~400 W on the climbs of the Tour in the late 80s, to 475-500 W in the 90s. I don't think that was down purely to training, however...

Alex_Simmons/RST · December 2007

OK - well I can't answer that personally. You'd have to ask someone with verified power data from a world class pro at the top of their game for the last 15 years and who would be willing to share it. That I imagine would be a pretty rare combination. I mean the first prototype SRM was made in 1988 (and LeMond was an early adopter). Of course there would have been lab ergometers but not quite the same as on bike analysis.

Not entirely sure why the question anyway? It's not like I've raised the issue of evolving athletic performances.

John C. · December 2007

bahzob wrote:

John C: Just to clarify what are you training for?

To finish the FWC/RR?

Or get a gold/top x% finish in them?

I just want to complete the Fred Witton, I'm doing it with friends and probably 10 hours will be our aim.

I've managed 20 mins at 80-85% reasonably easily and think 1/2 hour could be reached. I was just asking whether this was the area I should be training in or not. I also have been doing
4 mins at 75% then raising to 80- 95 over the next 4 mins then repeating 3 or 4 times.

bahzob · December 2007

Given a goal to complete from your current base then IMO yes you should aim to do 80-85 and 90-95 and more.

But not because of the physical training benefit. From what you say about your current level of fitness should be enought to do the FW in 10 hours comfortably, especially if riding in a group. (with provisos that you do some long (6+ hour) rides during training, eat/drink properly and use right gears).

Reason I think doing the 85-100= efforts are for building mental toughness. When training it helps to experience something horrible you can fall back on so that when the going gets tough in a real event you can think "this is bad but I've suffered worse". This is what will get you up Hardnott.

So I would suggest if you can do 20 mins at 85% "easily" you should be aiming to do 40+ mins at 85% just to prove to yourself you can (you will be able to now, it may just hurt a bit, that's the point.) Also I repeat earlier advice. Find a 10%+ 1km+ hill. Ride up, turn at the top and descend. Repeat 5 times.

John C. · December 2007

bahzob wrote:

Given a goal to complete from your current base then IMO yes you should aim to do 80-85 and 90-95 and more.

But not because of the physical training benefit. From what you say about your current level of fitness should be enought to do the FW in 10 hours comfortably, especially if riding in a group. (with provisos that you do some long (6+ hour) rides during training, eat/drink properly and use right gears).

Reason I think doing the 85-100= efforts are for building mental toughness. When training it helps to experience something horrible you can fall back on so that when the going gets tough in a real event you can think "this is bad but I've suffered worse". This is what will get you up Hardnott.

So I would suggest if you can do 20 mins at 85% "easily" you should be aiming to do 40+ mins at 85% just to prove to yourself you can (you will be able to now, it may just hurt a bit, that's the point.) Also I repeat earlier advice. Find a 10%+ 1km+ hill. Ride up, turn at the top and descend. Repeat 5 times.

Many thanks, that seams to be the answer I was wanting at the start of this topic

Kléber · December 2007

So if we're to train at >75% of MHR, what about the duration? How long at this intensity? Clearly few can do it for hours, but what about the inverse, what's a reasonable time to start deriving benefits? 30 mins, 1hour etc?

Ric_Stern/RST · December 2007

Kléber wrote:

So if we're to train at >75% of MHR, what about the duration? How long at this intensity? Clearly few can do it for hours, but what about the inverse, what's a reasonable time to start deriving benefits? 30 mins, 1hour etc?

Intensity is inversely related to duration. That is, the more intensely you train the less time you need to do it/or can do it. Conversely, the less intensely you train the longer you need to do it. It's a continuum.

So, before we can say how long you should train, we'd need to know what you're training for, what time you have available, and what intensity you were willing to train at (e.g. if you wanted to train at ~90% of HRmax you may only be able to manage an hour, whereas if you wanted to train at ~80% HRmax you may be able to manage more than several hours).

At ~ 75% HRmax, most trained cyclists could continue for very long periods of time (only being limited by fuel shortage, and discomfort).

Ric

Nelson Longflap · December 2007

Hurrah! for bumping this thread - one of the most entertaining in ages!

Has anybody seen Greg LeMond's thoughts on training in January's ProCycling?

John C. · December 2007

From what has been said here, taking it to the road, If I'm to do a 300k ride , a difference of 10-15 heart rate could be the difference between succeeding or not. At 75% (150) I can ride all day at 80-85% (165) I'm going to blow out in a few hours, for that reason am I sensible to ride these long rides with a HRM and keep just under 75%

Toks · December 2007

John C. wrote:

From what has been said here, taking it to the road, If I'm to do a 300k ride , a difference of 10-15 heart rate could be the difference between succeeding or not. At 75% (150) I can ride all day at 80-85% (165) I'm going to blow out in a few hours, for that reason am I sensible to ride these long rides with a HRM and keep just under 75%

Use your heart rate as a reference point rather than a strict zone you should ahere to. Being a slave to your HRM may mean you ride too conservatively in the end. On long hilly rides (or endurance rides in general) the fatigue, dehydration, excitement, illness, heat etc will all affect your heart rate so its perhaps better to ride on "feel"...Also, really pushing it on a few 4-6 hour rides will give you a good idea of what you're capable of assuming you remain consistently carbed up and hydrated.

SteveR_100Milers · December 2007

Toks wrote:

John C. wrote:

From what has been said here, taking it to the road, If I'm to do a 300k ride , a difference of 10-15 heart rate could be the difference between succeeding or not. At 75% (150) I can ride all day at 80-85% (165) I'm going to blow out in a few hours, for that reason am I sensible to ride these long rides with a HRM and keep just under 75%

Use your heart rate as a reference point rather than a strict zone you should ahere to. Being a slave to your HRM may mean you ride too conservatively in the end. On long hilly rides (or endurance rides in general) the fatigue, dehydration, excitement, illness, heat etc will all affect your heart rate so its perhaps better to ride on "feel"...Also, really pushing it on a few 4-6 hour rides will give you a good idea of what you're capable of assuming you remain consistently carbed up and hydrated.

Wow, didn't even see your lips move Mike.....

BeaconRuth · December 2007

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Toks wrote:

Use your heart rate as a reference point rather than a strict zone you should ahere to. Being a slave to your HRM may mean you ride too conservatively in the end. On long hilly rides (or endurance rides in general) the fatigue, dehydration, excitement, illness, heat etc will all affect your heart rate so its perhaps better to ride on "feel"...Also, really pushing it on a few 4-6 hour rides will give you a good idea of what you're capable of assuming you remain consistently carbed up and hydrated.

Wow, didn't even see your lips move Mike.....

DaveyL · January 2008

Toks wrote:

John C. wrote:

From what has been said here, taking it to the road, If I'm to do a 300k ride , a difference of 10-15 heart rate could be the difference between succeeding or not. At 75% (150) I can ride all day at 80-85% (165) I'm going to blow out in a few hours, for that reason am I sensible to ride these long rides with a HRM and keep just under 75%

Use your heart rate as a reference point rather than a strict zone you should ahere to. Being a slave to your HRM may mean you ride too conservatively in the end. On long hilly rides (or endurance rides in general) the fatigue, dehydration, excitement, illness, heat etc will all affect your heart rate so its perhaps better to ride on "feel"...Also, really pushing it on a few 4-6 hour rides will give you a good idea of what you're capable of assuming you remain consistently carbed up and hydrated.

Last year the main event I did was a rather hilly bike leg (112 miles)of an ironman tri as part of a relay team. I won't argue with anyone who says there is no need *physiologically* to do 100 mile rides in training, but I did a few 100 milers in preparation for it, and found them invaluable from a mental point of view (learning to recognise and deal with the mental "lows" you sometimes get during such a long ride) as well as allowing you to test out hydration and nutrition strategies - this is really key. Getting to know how much you can manage to eat/drink, and need to eat/drink is so important. And as Toks says, giving it a bit of welly on some longer rides (knowing that it's only a training ride and it doesn't matter if you blow up before the end of the ride) allows you to find out just how hard you can push come the day of the event. As a wise man once said, you can never know what is enough, until you know what is too much. Or something.

chrisw12 · January 2008

DaveyL wrote:

Toks wrote:

John C. wrote:

From what has been said here, taking it to the road, If I'm to do a 300k ride , a difference of 10-15 heart rate could be the difference between succeeding or not. At 75% (150) I can ride all day at 80-85% (165) I'm going to blow out in a few hours, for that reason am I sensible to ride these long rides with a HRM and keep just under 75%

Use your heart rate as a reference point rather than a strict zone you should ahere to. Being a slave to your HRM may mean you ride too conservatively in the end. On long hilly rides (or endurance rides in general) the fatigue, dehydration, excitement, illness, heat etc will all affect your heart rate so its perhaps better to ride on "feel"...Also, really pushing it on a few 4-6 hour rides will give you a good idea of what you're capable of assuming you remain consistently carbed up and hydrated.

Last year the main event I did was a rather hilly bike leg (112 miles)of an ironman tri as part of a relay team. I won't argue with anyone who says there is no need *physiologically* to do 100 mile rides in training, but I did a few 100 milers in preparation for it, and found them invaluable from a mental point of view (learning to recognise and deal with the mental "lows" you sometimes get during such a long ride) as well as allowing you to test out hydration and nutrition strategies - this is really key. Getting to know how much you can manage to eat/drink, and need to eat/drink is so important. And as Toks says, giving it a bit of welly on some longer rides (knowing that it's only a training ride and it doesn't matter if you blow up before the end of the ride) allows you to find out just how hard you can push come the day of the event. As a wise man once said, you can never know what is enough, until you know what is too much. Or something.

I would, but then you are very right imo, doing the (almost)distance before hand is invaluable, if not from a physical ponint of view then at least from a mental and strategic point of view.[/b]

DaveyL · January 2008

"I would, but then you are very right imo, doing the (almost)distance before hand is invaluable, if not from a physical ponint of view then at least from a mental and strategic point of view."

Yes, but that's because you're an argumentative sod...

Hodger · January 2008

chrisw12 wrote:

I would, but then you are very right imo, doing the (almost)distance before hand is invaluable, if not from a physical ponint of view then at least from a mental and strategic point of view.[/b]

I did the Flanders sportif last year and in the run up to it did a fair few 4-5hr rides, the longest being a 96 mile ride. The event itself was 160miles and took me 10hrs. My preparation involved short rides at high intensity and long rides as well. I didn't feel under-prepared going into the ride and went well all day and enjoyed myself.
A link to my 10 week prep is here:
http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/ind ... =9987&st=0

xover_runner · January 2008

I've signed up for the Flanders sportif this April. I too have limited time to train. I intend to do the Saturday club ride (3.5 to 4.5 hours) and 2 turbo sessions a week, probably 1hr 45 min total. So total training will be about just under 6 hours per week probably with a weekly 5/6 mile run thrown in.

In terms of the original post "which training area to avoid" I was going to make one turbo session a 2 * 20 or maybe 1 * 40 at 80% MHR and one a more spiteful interval session to develop increase VO2 max. The Saturday club ride is normally a reasonable clip and normally averages above the magic 75% MHR.

Does this sound OK to get round Flanders (the 140k version). I did the Archer GP sportive this year in August on a diet of long Saturday rides, weekly 10 TTs and a few higher paced 20/25 milers and got round OK but not in a spectacular time.

Training area to avoid

Comments

Categories