Training area to avoid
Comments
-
The significant determinant for endurance ride is your lactate threshold. I'm not saying your VO2 max isn't important but the latter should definitley be your key focus. 2 x 20's, 60-90min rides at 85% of your max alongside your club rides should definitely be the way to go. Leave the VO2 max stuff till when you hit a plateau or your 6-8 weeks away from the flanders Sportiv.xover_runner wrote: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.0 -
The thread that never dies...
0 -
Toks - glad you said that about VO2max, wasn't looking forward to that. I'm climbing on the turbo at 9 tonight so will downgrade(?) and take the soft option of a 2 * 20 I think.
Colin - I couldn't let this thread die, I think we all owe it to ourselves to keep this evergreen, interesting and relevant for all of 2008.
Come on Ric, Mike where are you when your forum needs you?0 -
xover_runner wrote:Toks - glad you said that about VO2max, wasn't looking forward to that. I'm climbing on the turbo at 9 tonight so will downgrade(?) and take the soft option of a 2 * 20 I think.
Colin - I couldn't let this thread die, I think we all owe it to ourselves to keep this evergreen, interesting and relevant for all of 2008.
Come on Ric, Mike where are you when your forum needs you?
I would just like to say that knowing your LT, VO2max, MHR, Power output, etc. etc. overcomplicates what is essentially a simple strategm that you need a combination of speed and endurance. Training at 2 x 20 indoors at whatever is a % of LT or whatever seems to me like mental torture.
Nothing in training needs to be that precise. So 1 x 18 minute and 1 x 15 minute @ 3% less than your zone target is not going to do it for you. Well who am I to judge?0 -
Yeah I know exactly what you mean Mike. Oops hold on, I just remembered I tried that four years ago - great as a newbie but in the second year things plateaued quite quickly. 'Speed and Endurance'? common mate I'm all for keeping things simple but thats just one step up from Ride Ride RideMike Willcox wrote:xover_runner wrote:Toks - glad you said that about VO2max, wasn't looking forward to that. I'm climbing on the turbo at 9 tonight so will downgrade(?) and take the soft option of a 2 * 20 I think.
Colin - I couldn't let this thread die, I think we all owe it to ourselves to keep this evergreen, interesting and relevant for all of 2008.
Come on Ric, Mike where are you when your forum needs you?
I would just like to say that knowing your LT, VO2max, MHR, Power output, etc. etc. overcomplicates what is essentially a simple strategm that you need a combination of speed and endurance. Training at 2 x 20 indoors at whatever is a % of LT or whatever seems to me like mental torture.
Nothing in training needs to be that precise. So 1 x 18 minute and 1 x 15 minute @ 3% less than your zone target is not going to do it for you. Well who am I to judge?0 -
Toks wrote:[]Yeah I know exactly what you mean Mike. Oops hold on, I just remembered I tried that four years ago - great as a newbie but in the second year things plateaued quite quickly. 'Speed and Endurance'? common mate I'm all for keeping things simple but thats just one step up from Ride Ride Ride
Yeah in my second year I also plateaued. I beat Ian Cammish into 2nd place to win our club's 50 mile TT. The only club member to ever win our club open 50 in over 100 years. Plus club records for 25 and 50 miles. That's what keeping it simple does for you. Tch!
P.S. and I was faster than all of the tandems.0 -
Mike Willcox wrote:Toks wrote:[]Yeah I know exactly what you mean Mike. Oops hold on, I just remembered I tried that four years ago - great as a newbie but in the second year things plateaued quite quickly. 'Speed and Endurance'? common mate I'm all for keeping things simple but thats just one step up from Ride Ride Ride
Yeah in my second year I also plateaued. I beat Ian Cammish into 2nd place to win our club's 50 mile TT. The only club member to ever win our club open 50 in over 100 years. Plus club records for 25 and 50 miles. That's what keeping it simple does for you. Tch!
P.S. and I was faster than all of the tandems.
Mike 1: Toks 0
Sorry Toks, 0 -
Genetics 1 Training 0, more like...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Good Job mate! I only wish that approached worked for meMike Willcox wrote:Toks wrote:[]Yeah I know exactly what you mean Mike. Oops hold on, I just remembered I tried that four years ago - great as a newbie but in the second year things plateaued quite quickly. 'Speed and Endurance'? common mate I'm all for keeping things simple but thats just one step up from Ride Ride Ride
Yeah in my second year I also plateaued. I beat Ian Cammish into 2nd place to win our club's 50 mile TT. The only club member to ever win our club open 50 in over 100 years. Plus club records for 25 and 50 miles. That's what keeping it simple does for you. Tch!
P.S. and I was faster than all of the tandems. 0 -
Toks wrote:Good Job mate! I only wish that approached worked for me
Toks
Your approach seems to have the backing of anyone who is anyone in racing at the highest levels. It is called "progress" and is the result of conclusions drawn from peer reviewed studies. I'm a miserable ole git (old School) and in the minority, don't you know?
I have the advanatge (or disadvantage) of racing in an era where IMO there was more soul to the sport. More competition from a much greater number of participants: where it was the best athletes who won races because they raced on equipment which was virtually the same for everyone.i.e. a level playing field.
But in the main those coaches, and sports scientists who are in the forefront of training in a scientific way don't or haven't actually done anything on a bike themselves. I may not be right on the best way to train according to those in the know, but I continue to be motivated to do what I think is right for me. TBH if I had to rely on training by numbers then I would probably give it all up.0 -
DaveyL wrote:Genetics 1 Training 0, more like...
Daily Mail 8th January 08 extract article - Athletes who are born winners
quote
" Dr Alun Evans of Manchester Metropolitan University identified the genes (23 which hold the key to sporting glory) after trawling through reports linking genetics to endurance..
He explained If the optimum genetic combination existed in one person, world records would probably be shattered.
It is around 50% genetic contribution, 40% training and 10% diet. "
unquote
I happened to be totally dedicated to cycle racing at the time. Rode every day without fail, no alcohol and no fatty foods, no chips. In fact a total and utter bore whose sole topic of conversation was cycling.
I reckon that I could make any rider with that sort od dedication and application into a winner with the methods that I employed. Even you.0 -
xover_runner wrote:Toks - glad you said that about VO2max, wasn't looking forward to that. I'm climbing on the turbo at 9 tonight so will downgrade(?) and take the soft option of a 2 * 20 I think.
Colin - I couldn't let this thread die, I think we all owe it to ourselves to keep this evergreen, interesting and relevant for all of 2008.
Come on Ric, Mike where are you when your forum needs you?
Well I've done my bit. It's all down to the other guys now0 -
You don't know how good I am, Mike. I might be quicker than you. Then my training methods would immediately superior to yours. By your "logic"....Le Blaireau (1)0
-
DaveyL wrote:You don't know how good I am, Mike. I might be quicker than you. Then my training methods would immediately superior to yours. By your "logic"....
As usual putting words into my mouth.... by my logic? :?
Blimey I've just admitted that I am not training correctly by modern scientific techniques. Humility or what?
My "logic "is just pointing out all the right genes in the right place mean diddly squat without the right application. It's not all about method but it is about dedication and application. Even someone with no generosity of spirit at all (re your post: genetics 1 training 0) should be able to concede that.0 -
And the other side of that coin would be that, without the right genetics, all the training in the world will not be enough. So how does that square with you being able to turn anyone into a winner?
The point behind my initial genetics comment was that while you are putting down your TT win to training, it is possible that you could well have won the race *despite* your training methods but because you had much superior genetics. But you're not even prepared to consider that possibility, are you?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:And the other side of that coin would be that, without the right genetics, all the training in the world will not be enough. So how does that square with you being able to turn anyone into a winner?
The point behind my initial genetics comment was that while you are putting down your TT win to training, it is possible that you could well have won the race *despite* your training methods but because you had much superior genetics. But you're not even prepared to consider that possibility, are you?
No.
Because I didn't do very well in races when I got it wrong in training. Don't think that the guys who win races can just swan about, turn up and turn it on just like that.
It's pretty insulting to say to someone like Ruth that she only won National titles because of her genetics. She woukd be the first to tell you that it was a culmination of years and months of dedication.0 -
I never said that - it is of course a combination of both. As you pointed out earlier - 50% genetics, 40% training (let's just say those numbers are right for arguments sake). You pointed out that without training you wouldn't win anything. I simply levelled things up by pointing out that without good genetics, you also wouldn't win anything.
I remember reading a comment by someone on (perhaps) the veloriders forum, the gist of which was "If you win a race, the first people you should thank are your parents, not your coach". Perhaps a bit flippant but the point is there nonetheless.
Anyway I am sure Ruth can speak for herself - no need to put words into two people's mouths in one post.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:I never said that - it is of course a combination of both. As you pointed out earlier - 50% genetics, 40% training (let's just say those numbers are right for arguments sake). You pointed out that without training you wouldn't win anything. I simply levelled things up by pointing out that without good genetics, you also wouldn't win anything.
I remember reading a comment by someone on (perhaps) the veloriders forum, the gist of which was "If you win a race, the first people you should thank are your parents, not your coach". Perhaps a bit flippant but the point is there nonetheless.
Anyway I am sure Ruth can speak for herself - no need to put words into two people's mouths in one post.
You've made a good point there. But it only really becomes a truism if everyone has trained to their full potential and has prepared to thier best to perform on that particular day. For all other situations the best trained and prepared rider will perform relatively better than the other riders irrespective of genes.
It's a bit of a cop out for those riders who aren't as dedicated as the rider who wins to then say they won because of their genes. I regularly used to get beaten by the same riders but on the odd occasion I would beat them. That has nothing to do with genes. I never beat Eddie Adkins and I came 2nd in a race when within 2 seconds of beating Derek Cottington in a 25. I certainly didn't even think that it was down to genes. These guys trained bloody hard.
In your club there must be riders who can beat you on one day and on another you will beat them. If they beat you then it can motivate you to put that bit extra into your training.
You can take the long term view for the greater good, which is what I did, or you can go for the short term; such as training to win early season races and lose sight of when it really matters in a championship for example. Dedication and application. At the end of the day most methods are the same as another if you stretch yourself in training and prepare yourself properly.0 -
Taken from another thread.
"The mistake I made in my first years of racing was to think that those who were giving me a good kicking were somehow more talented than me and somehow through natural ability could sustain speeds 3 or 4 mph faster than me. In the main they weren't more talented - they'd just trained a darn site harder than me."
Ruth
Whose putting words into her mouth?0 -
"It's pretty insulting to say to someone like Ruth that she only won National titles because of her genetics."
I didn't say that.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:"It's pretty insulting to say to someone like Ruth that she only won National titles because of her genetics."
I didn't say that.
But you did say it to me......and that's alright I suppose.
Genetics 1 Training 0 ,
Maybe now you could at least concede that it is more like Genetics 5 Training 4 8)0 -
It was a very terse way of making the point that it is not just training that governs performance, and the style was copied from the directly preceding post. Apologies if you have taken it literally; I thought it was clear enough.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
DaveyL wrote:It was a very terse way of making the point that it is not just training that governs performance, and the style was copied from the directly preceding post. Apologies if you have taken it literally; I thought it was clear enough.
Nice one that's OK.
You know you're the reason I'm back posting here. I was away for a few months and was only just browsing here one day and read that you had missed the debate re Mike Willcox against the rest of the world re power/HR etc.
Just say the word and I'll disappear again. 0 -
I'm honoured.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Maybe one day there'll be a test to establish who has which genes - and hence tell an individual how their genetic make up is helping or hindering their athletic performance.
In the meantime I think the interesting question here is whether people like Mike and myself can have raced at a high amateur standard and achieved race wins while using terrible training methods, thus winning despite poor training methods. And I can't help thinking the answer is no. You've got to be doing an awful lot right in training to perform at that level, whatever your genetic make-up. You're unlikely to have perfected your training and there are certainly ways of continuing to improve it (because there always are), but you're not getting it all wrong.
I know Mike likes to get out his big wooden spoon and have a good old stir but there's a lot to be said for keeping your ideas about training simple, breaking elements of training down into very broad categories like 'endurance' and 'speed' and not getting too hung up about data, heart rates and power outputs. You only have to understand the broad principles of training - and train very hard - to make a lot of progress. I think part of the trouble these days is that there is so much information out there about training, people find it really hard to sift out which bits are important and relevant to them and which bits aren't. And then you have arguments like this between Mike, Toks and DaveyL, when in fact, probably all of them are speaking good sense in their own ways.................
Ruth0 -
No-one in their right mind would suggest anyone who races at such a high standard would use terrible training methods. At the top level, a couple of % makes a big difference, and so the question is, did I get 97% out of my training, or was it the full 100%. Some people believe a scientific approach to training (and that is a very broad definition) is the only way you can really be sure. Some people don't. I guess that is the basis for most of the "discussion" on here...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
BeaconRuth wrote:In the meantime I think the interesting question here is whether people like Mike and myself can have raced at a high amateur standard and achieved race wins while using terrible training methods, thus winning despite poor training methods. And I can't help thinking the answer is no. You've got to be doing an awful lot right in training to perform at that level, whatever your genetic make-up. You're unlikely to have perfected your training and there are certainly ways of continuing to improve it (because there always are), but you're not getting it all wrong.
I
Look at Ullrich, he was always regarded as being one of the most naturaly talented riders. However his winter training seemed to consist of eating pies and cakes, and he had to do massive blocks of early season training to get fit enough for the TdF.0 -
BeaconRuth wrote:And then you have arguments like this between Mike, Toks and DaveyL, when in fact, probably all of them are speaking good sense in their own ways.................
Ruth
Very true. Case in point. This thread started off with a simple question from an (apparently non racing) cyclist of what training was appropriate to be able to finish (not "win") a hard sportive.
In this context talk of Olympics/TDF/National TT is that relevant.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
bahzob wrote:BeaconRuth wrote:And then you have arguments like this between Mike, Toks and DaveyL, when in fact, probably all of them are speaking good sense in their own ways.................
Ruth
Very true. Case in point. This thread started off with a simple question from an (apparently non racing) cyclist of what training was appropriate to be able to finish (not "win") a hard sportive.
In this context talk of Olympics/TDF/National TT is that relevant.
In the first place of course it's relevant. Please explain how or why you think it isn't.
It is after all, all about training for an event is it not?
Secondly it is inevitable that as a thread evolves, particularly one with many pages, that points raised are subsequently challenged and therefore meander off on to other matters; or do you think that to do that is against some sort of unofficial forum rule?
It's not like it's that radio programme; you know the one where they must speak for a minute on a subject without deviation, repitition or hesitation. You can post whatever you like on here as far as I'm concerned. Relevancy? That depends on you. If it's not relevant so what? It just gets ignored and by tomorrow no one will have remembered it. Come next week this whole thread will be forgotton. Life goes on.0 -
BeaconRuth wrote:I know Mike likes to get out his big wooden spoon and have a good old stir
And then you have arguments like this between Mike, Toks and DaveyL, when in fact, probably all of them are speaking good sense in their own ways.................
Ruth
.........and that spoon is getting bigger by the day but at least it gets the issues out in the open. Wouldn't it be boring if we all agreed with each other.
The only sense coming from Toks and DaveyL is of the "non" variety (stir) 0
