Can an untrained bloke in his 60's join the 300watt Club?

Toks

Ok this is quite possibly the most inspiring training thread ever. It has run for the last two years and the star of the show is a british fella called Tyson (Silly Old twit). Don't even bother trying to read the whole thread - its too fcuking long. So here's the story, essentially this 60+ bloke stumbles across this cyclingforum full of hardcore types and he starts asking questions. He's given advice by a guy called RapDaddyo (63 years young,320WattFT) and in his (SillyOldTwit) first threshold test his highes av power output for an hour is a commuter paced 130watts (IOW's he'd have been dropped fairly quickly on a 17mph club run).

Two years on, lots of banter, topic changes, mickey taking, coaching, sweat and effing tears + 100's and 100's of 2 x 20's and L5s/vo2max carried out on an indoor trainer and he tests to see if he could hang out with the big dawgs in the 300watt club - were talking 2nd cat power output or as an aerodynamic tester comfortably sailing under the hour - if you're not too much of a lardy arse. See page 147 to see if he makes it http://www.cyclingforums.com/t-314849-15-1.html

Alex_Simmons/RST

If you want to get some good training tips, the first 20-30 pages of the thread are worth a read.

DaveyL

So it's approaching the length of the "training area to avoid" thread then...?

bahzob

Thanks. Scary but some good reading and advice.

Toks

If you're ten years younger you can join up fairly quickly apparently
http://addiscombevet.blogspot.com/

Mike Willcox

For me the only meaningful measure of anything on a bike is how far and/or how fast you are in the act of performing. i.e. a race situation

Toks

Mike Willcox wrote:

For me the only meaningful measure of anything on a bike is how far and/or how fast you are in the act of performing. i.e. a race situation

Bloody hell Mike what took ya so long? This post has been gagging for a reply from your good self And Yes indeed I agree 100% Mike. No amount of number crunching will guarantee you'll do the business come race day.

So you must forgive us amateur wanna bees who like the pro's new/old are simply trying to measure fitness improvements not by how quickly they ride a certain training loop or ride up a climb. Thankfully now you can bring the tour to the spare room and witness improvement over months via trainers or bikes that have power meters in warmth and comfort - No need to catch flu or get ill outside in the cold. Go and find out how the BCF track squad are training or indeed anyone who's anyone these days I bet watts will get a mention. http://www.saris.com/athletes/PermaLink ... 41dc7.aspx

IMHO 300watts FT represents a nice fitness marker for anyone under ~80Kg. But we're not deluded, thats all it is.Furthermore psychologically it feels good knowing you've made unquestionable improvements (130watts-300watts) in fitness, not due to a tailwind, a group ride or race being easier than usual etc...But it don't mean you're gonna win a race. If and when it happens I'll let ya know

Mike Willcox

A chain gang of about 10 riders from the Addiscombe caught me 5 minutes into my ride (not properly warmed up) last Saturday in Ifield Crawley going north towards Charlwood. I went with them joked about how slow they were and then led them out for about a quarter of a mile as they wound it up to sprint for the Charlwood village road sign.

I managed to stay with them OK as they dropped a few riders and carried on past them as they regrouped after the sprint and turned off into a different direction. I asked after you but apparently you don't go out with them much. It must be all that turbo 2 x 20 stuff you are doing.

I've done no speed work at all, just building a base but in doing that you get faster anyway. I'll be sticking to my plan of getting a good solid base through February and March. I want to be (relatively very- considering physical handicaps) fast in June and July, and not mentally stuffed by monitoring figures on a computer screen in a misguided attempt to produce a performance 2 or 3 times a week indoors from the middle of winter through to the summer months.

Toks

Mike Willcox wrote:

A chain gang of about 10 riders from the Addiscombe caught me 5 minutes into my ride (not properly warmed up) last Saturday in Ifield Crawley going north towards Charlwood. I went with them joked about how slow they were and then led them out for about a quarter of a mile as they wound it up to sprint for the Charlwood village road sign.

I managed to stay with them OK as they dropped a few riders and carried on past them as they regrouped after the sprint and turned off into a different direction. I asked after you but apparently you don't go out with them much. It must be all that turbo 2 x 20 stuff you are doing.

.

Well saturday tends to be Daddy duty for me. If I go on the ACC Club run thats generally a six hour committment :shock: (its 2 1/2 hours riding time to and from the club run starting point). Personally I think if you ride at a good tempo 3 hours is all you need for an endurance session. That could change if you need Cyclosportiv, 12 hour training etc

I've done no speed work at all, just building a base but in doing that you get faster anyway. I'll be sticking to my plan of getting a good solid base through February and March.

Yeah you keep mentioning speed work, what does that mean to you? Doing tempo rides regularly can make you faster, doing 2 x 20's regularly can make you faster, doing 5 x 5 intervals can make you faster! and all these things can contribute to you having a good base

I literally do 2 x 20's, 2 x 30's and now 3 x 30's :shock: all year round obviously the longer intervals are no way near TT intensity. Mate, I'm interested in workouts that are effective and don't leave me fried physically or mentally. I haven't got the time or the inclination for continual 4-5 hour happy go lucky rides especially at this time of the year. Each to their own of course

Check out Dr Andy Coggan's reply (especially the last quote) to a guy called Bulldog who trained 'scientifically' last year but switched to the old school base idea when he became a full time Road Racer. http://cyclingforums.com/t451429.html

Mike Willcox

Toks wrote:

Check out Dr Andy Coggan's reply (especially the last quote) to a guy called Bulldog who trained 'scientifically' last year but switched to the old school base idea when he became a full time Road Racer. http://cyclingforums.com/t451429.html

That's the same Dr Andy Coggan who recently came on this forum. I don't think I'll bother thank you.

We will agree to differ on training methods which is fine. I cam across this site the other day which someone referred to in another thread. If it's anything like accurate then it's truly illuminating.

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

I put my stats in for my 20.30 10 mile TT on a road bike in drop handlebars.

Height 72"
Weight 175 lbs
bike weight 23 lbs
Temp 68 degrees F
No wind no slope, which is of course unrealistic.

My speed was 29.2 mph and the power required (no wind no slope) is 525 watts.

Re do the figues with a TT bike and speed @ 525 watts = 31.6 mph which is a 10 mile TT in 18.987 minutes. I've been saying this all along and many on here have been laughing their arsxs off at the very suggestion.

That's from building a base admittedly with high tempo work and then focusing on speed + tempo work and then focusing on speed only. Maybe I;'m wrong in my approach (according to Coggan) but you can't argue with the results.

Check out http://www.easterncounties.org.uk/

I won that event (25mile championship) in 1979 and you can see from the roll of honours that it's a prestigious event. The day was unbelievable, gale force winds with the trees bent over double. Maybe some other forummers were in the race that day. I won it because of my strength of mind and body over riders who on paper were much faster. You see strength training has it's uses too.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Mike Willcox wrote:

www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

That calculator is notorious for making wildly inaccurate assumptions. You would be much better to use analyticcycling.com but you would have to know what your CdA* is to have any sensible indicator of power.

Mike Willcox wrote:

I won that event (25mile championship) in 1979 and you can see from the roll of honours that it's a prestigious event. The day was unbelievable, gale force winds with the trees bent over double. Maybe some other forummers were in the race that day. I won it because of my strength of mind and body over riders who on paper were much faster. You see strength training has it's uses too.

In no way am I diminishing your achievement of which you are rightly proud but you won it because you were faster than others on the day.

That would have been due to a combination of factors, including your excellent motivation and tremendous TT power but who knows what impact the conditions had on all the riders. If they were so wild, many may have had less favourable conditions at the time of their ride. Some also may have had more favourable conditions. TTs are like that.

BTW - wind direction has quite variable impacts on one's CdA and in fact it can reduce CdA quite a bit.

You may be, as we sometimes say "aerodynamically gifted" but clearly also produce excellent TT power.

*CdA - a measure of aerodynamic drag. Being Coefficient of Drag x Effective Frontal Area. Often hard to separate the two, they are readily assesed with the aid of a power meter or in a low speed wind tunnel set up for the purpose.

Value typically range from 0.2 (very slick) to 0.3 (big guy upright / on the tops). It only takes a small change to have a sizeable impact on the power required to ride 28-30mph.

ut_och_cykla

I think Kreuzotter is ok for making comparisons Mike. Others have disagreed but it seems to tie in well with my real world at least. Of course it can't take in to account unknowns or allow for teh road's little ups and downs etc . But I use it quite often - if only to illustrate to people that shedding a kilo - at all costs- is perhaps a little ineffective, compared to increasing output, fine tuning position on bike , technique etc.
I use weights in teh winter too
oh well each to their own...

bahzob

The ref to the Kreuzotter site was picked up from here. As you can see it was in answer to a specific question from a newcomer to TT who had got a power estimate already from a computrainer.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12558645&start=15]

For this case its probably an OK enough reference and as accurate a way as the other means to give a reply.

Getting a bit bored of every thread becoming a discussion about whether power measures help or not.

For some people they clearly do work. Topic of this thread is case in point.

For the others where they dont OK, we know.

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

The ref to the Kreuzotter site was picked up from here. As you can see it was in answer to a specific question from a newcomer to TT who had got a power estimate already from a computrainer.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12558645&start=15]

For this case its probably an OK enough reference and as accurate a way as the other means to give a reply.

Getting a bit bored of every thread becoming a discussion about whether power measures help or not.

For some people they clearly do work. Topic of this thread is case in point.

For the others where they dont OK, we know.

Well you might get bored with it but it ain't me bringing it up And the thread title was about training with power for older riders. What's wrong with that?

As for claiming 525W for a 25mile TT at 175 lbs, well that's a threshold power to weight ratio that would likely beat Lance Amstrong, Migual Indurain, Jan Ulrich, Chris Boardman & Fabian Cancellara at their best.

Mike, you were/are a powerful rider but better than these guys? Unlikely.

Hence the calculator is giving crap output based on crap assumptions.

EDIT: - My bad - a 10mile TT. Well that's still world class power for a 10. Slightly less unrealistic and at the level of those guys listed. E.g. Millar did 501W for the 2.x mile ToC prologue the other day. Cancellara did about 620W.

ut_och_cykla

I took Mikes comments to mean that the change in equipment has led to time improvements rather than a boast he could out- TT todays best. He made it clear that he did not factor in wind or slope.

At distances where equipment is less of an issue I believe that records made several decades ago are still standing ( or relatively unchanged) - teh argument being that despite so many coaches, HRM & power meters people in general are not getting thier bodies that much faster. perhaps there are more people managing to find their full (but nevertheless somewhat 'normal') potentials
But the vast majority of the population is probably less fit nowadays and I'm sure many are put off by the 'science' or parascience that circulates in the popular media - to the point that you can't even go for a walk unless you have a step counter, unflattering gym clothes or - worse still - ski poles!
Sad really.

Alex_Simmons/RST

To be clear - I'm not having a go at Mike - I'm having a go at the calculator.

But you're right, a lot of lazy sods would do well to get off their backsides and do something!

Still, this is a road cycling training forum, so it's no surprise these topics arise.

bahzob

Mike Willcox wrote:

For me the only meaningful measure of anything on a bike is how far and/or how fast you are in the act of performing. i.e. a race situation

Yes a 25TT in 20.30 in 1979 was impressive but so is someone 60+ managing to train for and achieve a goal of going from 130W FTP to 300WFTP in 2008.

Both are something I would think are worth celebrating. Trying to argue one or other is somehow better is, I think, pretty futile.

Mike Willcox

bahzob wrote:

Getting a bit bored of every thread becoming a discussion about whether power measures help or not.

For some people they clearly do work. Topic of this thread is case in point.

For the others where they dont OK, we know.

Oh how I don't care whether you get bored or not.

You stop going on about how great measuring power output is and I'll stop going on about how you don't need them.

Deal or no deal?

Mike Willcox

bahzob wrote:

Mike Willcox wrote:

For me the only meaningful measure of anything on a bike is how far and/or how fast you are in the act of performing. i.e. a race situation

Yes a 25TT in 20.30 in 1979 was impressive but so is someone 60+ managing to train for and achieve a goal of going from 130W FTP to 300WFTP in 2008.

Both are something I would think are worth celebrating. Trying to argue one or other is somehow better is, I think, pretty futile.

Something not quite right about your figures. 25 miles in 20.30 Hmmmm.

Who is saying one is better than the other? Not me.

Bronzie

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Millar did 501W for the 2.x mile ToC prologue the other day. Cancellara did about 620W.

:shock:

Can I ask if these figures have come from theoretical calcs or do you have "inside knowledge"?

Mike Willcox

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

[

As for claiming 525W for a 25mile TT at 175 lbs, well that's a threshold power to weight ratio that would likely beat Lance Amstrong, Migual Indurain, Jan Ulrich, Chris Boardman & Fabian Cancellara at their best.

Mike, you were/are a powerful rider but better than these guys? Unlikely.

Hence the calculator is giving crap output based on crap assumptions.

EDIT: - My bad - a 10mile TT. Well that's still world class power for a 10. Slightly less unrealistic and at the level of those guys listed. E.g. Millar did 501W for the 2.x mile ToC prologue the other day. Cancellara did about 620W.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm quoting from a calculator. I haven't a clue what is or isn't a realistic power output as I don't give a monkeys about it. It might be 1525 watts or 25 watts for all I know.

The point of it is the comparison for road bike to TT bike and all other things being equal it seems that for me I would have been able to produce an under 19 minute 10 mile TT on an alll singing dancing aero TT bike.

Mike Willcox

ut_och_cykla wrote:

I took Mikes comments to mean that the change in equipment has led to time improvements rather than a boast he could out- TT todays best. He made it clear that he did not factor in wind or slope.

At distances where equipment is less of an issue I believe that records made several decades ago are still standing ( or relatively unchanged) - teh argument being that despite so many coaches, HRM & power meters people in general are not getting thier bodies that much faster. perhaps there are more people managing to find their full (but nevertheless somewhat 'normal') potentials
But the vast majority of the population is probably less fit nowadays and I'm sure many are put off by the 'science' or parascience that circulates in the popular media - to the point that you can't even go for a walk unless you have a step counter, unflattering gym clothes or - worse still - ski poles!
Sad really.

Careful.

The last time anyone posted anything in support of me was then accused of being me.




Your appraisal is spot on by the way. Thanks

Toks

Bronzie wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Millar did 501W for the 2.x mile ToC prologue the other day. Cancellara did about 620W.

:shock:

Can I ask if these figures have come from theoretical calcs or do you have "inside knowledge"?

http://www.saris.com/athletes/PermaLink ... 41dc7.aspx

Bronzie

Thanks Toks..............but Lim only gives Dave M's power - presumably he doesn't have access to Fabs power output, although no doubt he can have a shrewd idea. He won't have any wind tunnel data for him though - that chin must be the least aero in the peloton.

What surprised me about these figures is that Fab's output is 24% higher than Dave M (or is this a typo by Alex??) and yet he was only 9 secs faster than Dave. Something doesn't seem quite right here as their weights are similar [76kg Dave M / 80kg Fab] (besides the TT was pretty flat so this shouldn't make too much difference??).

Sorry if this is getting pedantic, but this is what happens when you start bandying power outputs around!

acoggan

Mike Willcox wrote:

(bragging about his personal performance snipped)

That's from building a base admittedly with high tempo work and then focusing on speed + tempo work and then focusing on speed only. Maybe I;'m wrong in my approach (according to Coggan)

Actually, your approach sounds comparable to how I would approach training for shorter TTs.

Mike Willcox wrote:

but you can't argue with the results.

Actually (again), you can...or as it has been said many times before, don't copy the training program of a champion, because you don't know if they are a champion because of, or in spite of, their training program.

We now return to your regular programming...

Mike Willcox

Can you smell something?

sniffffffffff

Nasty wasn't it?

Alex_Simmons/RST

Mike Willcox wrote:

I'm not claiming anything. I'm quoting from a calculator.

That was exactly my point.

Mike Willcox wrote:

The point of it is the comparison for road bike to TT bike and all other things being equal it seems that for me I would have been able to produce an under 19 minute 10 mile TT on an alll singing dancing aero TT bike.

As you have discovered, the calculator is giving a wrong output for one scenario, Hence using same wrong out put to assess potential time for another scenario (with very large assumptions) makes no sense whatsoever.

All you could really say is that you would likely go significantly faster. How much would be mere speculation, unless you had real data (environmental conditions, course profile, rider CdA, power output in TT vs road position etc etc).

Mike Willcox

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

All you could really say is that you would likely go significantly faster. How much would be mere speculation, unless you had real data (environmental conditions, course profile, rider CdA, power output in TT vs road position etc etc).

It's fun though isn't it?

Just see how upset you "power guys" get when someone is prepared to challenge your view of things. Why we've even had the mad professor himself throwing insults and smears. "Just because he's a champion" blah de blah de blah - "bragging about" blah de blah de blah - and get this , he adds "that's what I would do" pathetic.

Face it guys your super fast times are no better than they were 25/30 years ago. Training by power means diddly squat at the end of the day.

Toks

Mike Willcox wrote:

Training by power means diddly squat at the end of the day.

You Cannot be Serious :shock...Hater! :roll: ...Getting back to the title of the thread the idea was to let people know what a focussed period of consistent training could achieve to someone who lets be honest would be way past their best. I don't suppose there are too many guys in their sixties that post on here so the effort by Tyson was pretty impressive.

He didn't receive a specific training plan and I'm guessing its not an approach that would be widely recommended. Nevertheless it does show how valuable the internet can be n helping those who want to improve wether that be through interval training on a gym bike or mainly endurance riding on the road.

Mike Willcox

Out of context.

But we shouldn't let a little thing like that get in the way of anything should we?

We've had

Smears
Insults
Boredom
Rubbish calculators
Bragging
Rubbished sources of information or spreading mis-information
And now taking out of context

What next?

ut_och_cykla

And no I don't think toks was off topic -