2x20

Alex_Simmons/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

What about riding to a speed on a turbo if you have a rear speed sensor? Its easy enough to calibrate HR to speed, which is what I have approximated when i use mine

I cant face trying to keep above 80%, but maintaining 23-25 mph on the turbo is an easier mental challenge maybe.

That is an excellent option, providing that:

i. the power-speed relationship of your turbo set up is consistent each time you set up. Need to reduce the variables - tyre pressure, clamp pressure etc

ii. there is minimal drift in the power-speed relationship over time (typically as the unit heats up, some can get harder to ride, while others get easier to ride).

Alex_Simmons/RST

Mike Willcox wrote:

The graph shows that it took between 4 and 5 minutes for the HR to reach a levelling off in line with the effort and then the HR increased more slowly over the next 16/20 minutes (cardiac drift)even though the power was more or less constant throughout.

On that basis, if going on HR alone, it would be easy to overcook it at the beginning of the 20 minute session and then have a drop off of effort towards the end. Unless an allowance for this was factored into the equation. In other words yes, you would have to use PE at the beginning, (come on you knew it was coming) and then if so why not continue on PE throughout the remainder of the session?

No reason not to, except that for many people, their PE varies throughout an isopower interval. If you start an isopower interval, the first few minutes usually feel quite comfortable, so it's easy to think you need to go harder "'cause this is a TT - it's supposed to be hard", and many end up overcooking the first couple of km anyway.

It's a common pacing mistake and we've all done it.

nmcgann

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

No reason not to, except that for many people, their PE varies throughout an isopower interval. If you start an isopower interval, the first few minutes usually feel quite comfortable, so it's easy to think you need to go harder "'cause this is a TT - it's supposed to be hard", and many end up overcooking the first couple of km anyway.

It's a common pacing mistake and we've all done it.

I think you are quite right on the PE changing, I certainly find it goes like that when I am doing intervals on the turbo. The PE will be lower at the start and is usually much higher by the end.

I have a turbo that measures "power" (with unknown accuracy), but I use that reading only at the start of an interval session - after that I'm working on maintaining speed/cadence rather than looking at power (or HR).

Neil

Mike Willcox

We're all agreed then. That makes a change.

Toks

easton wrote:

PREEBY, Its really not necessary for you to "make it easier" for me. I was answering the OP. I don't believe i asked an opinion on how my training can be made easier, so I don't care if you agree with the way I do them or not. Do you do these type of intervals yourself? Do you always look for an easy way out?

Hey lighten up mate and play the forum game. People will and should take issue with you if they disagree with any point you raise no matter who's its directed at. That how we all get to learn. I've got to agree with Preeby he's made some good points re your training approach. And I'm not sure why you're being advised to train with/by HRM when you've got a powermeter. All you need to do is use your 'touchy' HRM as a point of reference. Since i got my sat nav for christmas I've stopped relying on my A-Z, but I will concede to having the occasional flick through

Alex_Simmons/RST

Mike Willcox wrote:

We're all agreed then. That makes a change.

Oh no we're not!

I thought this was the argument room.

Or is that down the corridor past the insults office?

jimmoffatt

I have just finished 2 x 20 minutes on the turbo for the first time. I had a 5 minute easy ride between. I have a heart rate monitor and did the first 20 minutes at 165 heart rate and the second 20 minutes at 174. I am 50 and my maximum HR is 188. 174 is 92.5% and I probably could have averaged higher than 174 (92.5%).

Nothing great to say except I really enjoyed it :shock:

Jim

nmcgann

jimmoffatt wrote:

I have just finished 2 x 20 minutes on the turbo for the first time. I had a 5 minute easy ride between. I have a heart rate monitor and did the first 20 minutes at 165 heart rate and the second 20 minutes at 174. I am 50 and my maximum HR is 188. 174 is 92.5% and I probably could have averaged higher than 174 (92.5%).

Nothing great to say except I really enjoyed it :shock:

Jim

If you are doing the intervals primarily to improve your FTP, then enjoying it probably means you aren't going hard enough. You should be just able to finish the 2 intervals and the last 5 mins of each will be hard.

If they are "sweet spot" intervals where the pace is knocked back a fraction (so you can do more volume or recover quicker) then yes, they can be enjoyable. I would have said satisfying rather than enjoyable, but YMMV .

Neil

Mike Willcox

I did a two hour tempo ride yesterday after a rest day the day before. It was very very hard. Enjoyable is not a word I would use, but yes satisfying is better.

In fact I'm still feeling tired so another rest day today. Back to moderate intensity tomorrow.

SteveR_100Milers

For those of us who simply dont "get" turbos, Can a hilly 3-4 hour ride achieve the same effect? I know ist not controlled etc etc thats why I assume a longer time, and assumes at least two lengthy climbs that push you into the 90%+ HR zone? Is is total time at that HR level that is critical or is it the fact that is 40 continous minutes?

I log each week the amount of time spend in each zone of my HHRM, against a pre-set target. so say I have a target of 2 hours in Z4 and Z5 (thats 80-90 and 90-100), then this is usually done by the track session and hard hilly rides in the week.

Alex_Simmons/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

For those of us who simply dont "get" turbos, Can a hilly 3-4 hour ride achieve the same effect? I know ist not controlled etc etc thats why I assume a longer time, and assumes at least two lengthy climbs that push you into the 90%+ HR zone? Is is total time at that HR level that is critical or is it the fact that is 40 continous minutes?

I log each week the amount of time spend in each zone of my HHRM, against a pre-set target. so say I have a target of 2 hours in Z4 and Z5 (thats 80-90 and 90-100), then this is usually done by the track session and hard hilly rides in the week.

There is nothing whatsoever that says these sorts of efforts have to be done on a turbo. It's just efficient for many, esp handy for those who live in zones that make winter cycling next to impossible to safely conduct.

Doing such efforts on the road is fine (that where I would do mine). If you have climbs that are long enough (15-20min or more) then perfect, although there is a difference to putting out threshold/near threshold power on a climb and doing it on the flat at speed, so if flat riding is a target, then you'll need to include efforts on flat terrain.

Ideally you want to do from 30 to 60 minutes with minimal breaks but as long as each effort is sufficiently long then total time in level is what matters most.

HRM may or may not give you a good indication of reality about time in zone, it depends somewhat on how variable the power of a ride is.

SteveR_100Milers

Alex, on the question of power output variation during a climb, I measured the climb rate off my GPS graph (which is time constant on the y axis (or is that x I can never remember....either way along the bottom of the graph)). It remains practically unchanged all the way up the climb, so the inference is that my power output is fairly constant. Interestingly it doesnt change much day to day either when I am making the same PE (easy or pushing hard).
Thankfully it has improved over time though, as I compared recent data to last April over the same route

chrisw12

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Alex, on the question of power output variation during a climb, I measured the climb rate off my GPS graph (which is time constant on the y axis (or is that x I can never remember....either way along the bottom of the graph)). It remains practically unchanged all the way up the climb, so the inference is that my power output is fairly constant. Interestingly it doesnt change much day to day either when I am making the same PE (easy or pushing hard).
Thankfully it has improved over time though, as I compared recent data to last April over the same route

In steps mathsteacherman, buster of all maths confusion...


That's an easy one Steve, remember x is across or x is a cross.

My maths teacher kept churning that one out and I swear I didn't have a clue what he was on about, he kept repeating the same thing, then one day while I was teaching I repeated the same thing and finally got what he was on anout. x is a cross.

SteveR_100Milers

thans Chris, I always thought it was, but using powerpoint and excel to make graphs has muddied reality

dan.cave

HR alone is just an indicator of how fast your heart is beating against the perceived effort you're putting in within set limits..

this graph shows this.
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m280 ... Power3.jpg

the yellow peaks/lines are power, the red lines are HR, when effort is made, there's a delay where the HR catches up..

I have discovered that training with a PowerTap tells me lots of useful things like :

- how much fast i can ride in mph at a set power wattage, and my HR at that particular wattage
- how instant my power is and how long i can hold that set wattage for. i.e. Aerobic Max + LT sessions
- what my peak power output is at set time limits, 5, 10, 30, 60seconds, 1-20mins +

vis: http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m280/dancave72/PT/Power4.jpg

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

What about riding to a speed on a turbo if you have a rear speed sensor? Its easy enough to calibrate HR to speed, which is what I have approximated when i use mine

It's not representative to training out on the road unless the road's pan flat and there's no wind..

this is ok for certain things but you've no way of knowing 'average' power output vs RPE/HR/Speed.

I cant face trying to keep above 80%, but maintaining 23-25 mph on the turbo is an easier mental challenge maybe.

wouldn't you like to know how much power/number of watts you generate at a set speed/visa versa?

or how much of an effect riding into a headwind has at a set speed, and trying to produce another 2mph over 10mls in the same headwind?

SteveR_100Milers

Not really....some days my legs feel good others not...a power meter aint going to tell me that is it? Im no slave to my HRM, and whilst I can see the advantages of measuring with power, it is just one more way of quantifying effort. Ultimately, the human machine has a huge number of variables that a power meter is only going to measure at the output. The input side is built upon mostly our own experience, abd what works for each of us individually.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Dan
I like your enthusiasm but power meters are not for everyone
Not everyone likes the thought of an OSU* on their bike.

Steve
Power meters remove much of the guesswork out of training and there are many very useful (and sometimes subtle, esoteric maybe) ways of using them far beyond your description, which are typically not understood by those without experience in using them to their potential.

Keep riding the track buddy - it's so much fun. When are you going to start track racing?






* Onboard Slave Unit

Ste_S

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Dan
I like your enthusiasm but power meters are not for everyone
Not everyone likes the thought of an OSU* on their bike.-

Steve
Power meters remove much of the guesswork out of training and there are many very useful (and sometimes subtle, esoteric maybe) ways of using them far beyond your description, which are typically not understood by those without experience in using them to their potential.

Keep riding the track buddy - it's so much fun. When are you going to start track racing?






* Onboard Slave Unit

It's the cost (at least for me) more than anything.

$2295 for the entry level SRM system
https://www.srm.de/store_usa/product_info.php?info=p1_SRM-Training-System---Amateur-Road.html

vs

£67.05 for a Polar CS100
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.aspx?Cat=cycle&ProdID=5360020398&n=Polar%20CS100%20Wireless%20Heart%20Rate%20Cycle%20Computer

Alex_Simmons/RST

Cost is a reasonable issue for many.

Although for those that I see with expensive bikes and bling wheels, then it's really a matter of priorities. Good training will make them go faster, not bling kit.

And you can set up with a Powertap new for well under $1000 and pick up almost new units on ebay or slowtwitch forum for $500. Saw an ad today for one on ST for $500.

Quoting SRM price is hardly an excuse. Bit like saying I can't afford a car 'cause the Porsche is $100,000.

SteveR_100Milers

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Dan
I like your enthusiasm but power meters are not for everyone
Not everyone likes the thought of an OSU* on their bike.

Steve
Power meters remove much of the guesswork out of training and there are many very useful (and sometimes subtle, esoteric maybe) ways of using them far beyond your description, which are typically not understood by those without experience in using them to their potential.

Keep riding the track buddy - it's so much fun. When are you going to start track racing?






* Onboard Slave Unit

Every session is a race as far as I'm concerned...
You'tre right though, the track is fantastic, providing you own your own bike with comfy saddle which I dont yet.... :roll:

Interestingly, I've just read the BR piece on using your time: what do you think?

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... ount-14249

The 30 minute turbo session is almost pretty much what I default to, some form of intervals between flat out for as long as I can (usually 15-20 secs) then 2 mins recovery, then a 15 minute hill climb biggest gear etc etc. It's better than doing nothing is my way of looking at it when its chucking down outside. My outdoor rides follow a similar random pattern - I'll sprint or push a hill if its there, and not because it was 2 mins since the last hill.

Ste_S

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Cost is a reasonable issue for many.

Although for those that I see with expensive bikes and bling wheels, then it's really a matter of priorities. Good training will make them go faster, not bling kit.

And you can set up with a Powertap new for well under $1000 and pick up almost new units on ebay or slowtwitch forum for $500. Saw an ad today for one on ST for $500.

Quoting SRM price is hardly an excuse. Bit like saying I can't afford a car 'cause the Porsche is $100,000.

Agree completley with the bolded part.

As a starting out 4th cat on a modest road bike - which to be honest most people on this forum are of a similar level - a power meter isn't really an option, even at $500. I would imagine you'd have to use a coach to get any meaningful use out of it, also adding to the cost.

Mike Willcox

dan.cave wrote:

HR alone is just an indicator of how fast your heart is beating against the perceived effort you're putting in within set limits..

this graph shows this.
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m280 ... Power3.jpg

the yellow peaks/lines are power, the red lines are HR, when effort is made, there's a delay where the HR catches up..

and the cadence is.......244 rpm?

xover_runner

nterestingly, I've just read the BR piece on using your time: what do you think?

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... ount-14249

Remember! The 75% rule...

Research from the European University of Madrid supports the theory that the greatest gains in performance occur when more than three-quarters of your training is done below 75 per cent maximum heart rate (MHR). The study suggests, though, that this base be supplemented with around 10 per cent of your weekly work in excess of 90 per cent MHR. The key factor seems to be making the training effort hard (>90%) or easy (<75-80%HRmax), and not training regularly in the no man's land between these zones.

Hang on, haven't we just put to bed an epic thread that all was about avoiding the dreaded sub 75% zone (too easy to cause any physiological adaptations at all) and this says spend 75% of your time in it!!??

Here we go again.

SteveR_100Milers

sorry...

John C.

First time I've heard of this so I'll give it a try on the rollers this week. I'll try at 80% and report back .

Tom Butcher

I've now tried 3 2*20s but got the turbo out for todays. Now I've no idea how accurate the watts measurement is (it's a Tacx Grand Excel but quite an old one) but after 10 minute warmup first 20 minutes settled at 260-265 watts - felt pretty easyish - a workout to the extent I could watch football on the TV and my watts were as likely to creep up as creep down when I wasn't looking at the figure. HR was low 140s building to low 150s by the end.
10 minute recovery then decided to do the second set at 275-280 watts. Just about managed this bar one minute near the end where I let it slip to 260 just to get some recovery - at the time I felt I needed it but immediately after I felt fine so whether I pitched it too high or whether I just need to get a grip and focus I'm not sure. Heart rate for this one immediately built to low 150s and was just creeping into low 160s near the end.

By comparison did a chain gang on Tuesday - early on HR 150s building to a peak of 174 on a hill after 17 minutes or so where it split - I ended up a pair chasing the front group later joined by another rider who surprisingly got shelled on the hill with us (surprising seeing as he won a couple of races last year and is well under 4 hours for 100 miles). Then had half an hour of peaks about 160 and troughs from low 140s to mid 150s which I presume represents the efforts and recoveries doing turns.

Anyone make anything of that ? It looks to me like I'm working harder on the chain gang - but then again my legs were sore yesterdayand I couldn't do that chain gang effort every day - whereas todays 2*20 I think I might be able to.

xover_runner

Tom - interesting. I have a Tack Flow and was doing my 2 x 20s at between 260 and 280 watts on the Flow. Last week I got a PowerTap and was disapointed to find that 280 Watts on the Flow is about 230 Watts real!. However if you are riding with 4 hour 100 mile men you are a lot fitter then me so maybe your Tacx is more accurate.

ut_och_cykla

I think if you keep the same set up (tyre pressure etc) you should be able to use the W measurement from session to session - its real figures might be out but for comparisons week on week its good enough.

As I understand intervals should be done at a pace you can hold for the time/number of repeats. As such you're first one was perhapsa bit too easy and the second a tiny bit too hard? ( or you need to focus better

2 x20 is beneficial because you work very close to a physiological limit for a longer period without yo-yoing up and down.

The chain gang is by nature different! Harder efforts taking turns etc and periods when your pulse/effort falls (hills/behind a rider etc) and probably several 'micro- rests'.

I would guess that a certain amount of time on a chain gang is spent 'recovering' or paying back an oxygen debt (or whatever its called nowdays) - in other words you feel pooped but are not working at your hardest sustainable pace but actually your CV system is busy clearing up a mess instead of cycling. Both are valid - the key to 2 x 20 is dialing in the right level adn staying there. The chain gang trains other skills.

Thats my pennyworth anyway.

Tom Butcher

I think I'm going to do the next session at 270-280 range and see how it goes. 260 really did seem too easy and for the 275 set I was drifting up around low 280s most of the time so I'll try and be more disciplined and keep it constant. I'm assuming the only disadvantages of doing them slightly too hard might be that I can't complete them and that they leave me too fatigued to repeat them often - and I can't see either being the case so long as I'm not going into them knackered. Be interesting to track any improvements anyway.

Mike Willcox

It's worth mentioning that this type of training is not an end in itself. Given the choice (if the weather is OK) of a 3 hour endurance ride or interval training on a turbo at this time of the year then I know what I would do (am doing).

IMO doing the endurance rides are much more beneficial (building a solid aerobic base 2000 miles) so that when it's time for the intervals later I'll be developing much more power than if I was focusing on doing the intervals now.