Training plan for a fortnight in Mallorca

Klassiker

I just read the following training plan suggestion in a German cycling mag. The plan is designed by a professional coach for ambitious cyclists training approximately 10 hours a week regularly when at home.

Sat: Arrival. 1.5 hrs, 50-60% Max.HR, 60-100rpm
Sun: 2-3hrs GA-1 (GA-1 = 60-70% Max.HR, 100rpm)
Mon: 3-4hrs GA-1
Tues: Rest day
Wed: 2hrs GA-1
Thurs: 3hrs GA-1 incl. 3x10min. 80-90% Max.HR, 45-50rpm on a 5% gradient.
Fri: 4-5hrs GA-1
Sat: Rest day
Sun: 3hrs GA-1
Mon: 4hrs GA-1
Tues: As Thursday
Wed: Rest day
Thurs: 4hrs GA-1
Fri: 5hrs GA-1 incl. 3x10min. as Thursday and Tuesday.
Sat: Return flight

All the mags at this time of year contain plans for a training camp with a similar structure to this one. There are variations for more- or less-well-trained riders, but all are based on a large volume of GA-1.

The purpose of the GA-1 training is "to improve the fat metabolism, so that the body learns to obtain as much energy as possible from the practically limitless fat reserves" (and thereby conserve glycogen). This heavy emphasis on low-intensity training is widely promoted over here by coaches and the national cycling body.

This seems completely at odds with the training advice usually offered on this forum. I know most of the regular contributors consider training at such a low intensity to be a waste of time in terms of the effect on performance. The Germans see it differently, and seem to have sound reasons too.

Any comments on the reasons for the discrepancy in theories, the value of this plan or the science behind it very much appreciated.

ut_och_cykla

30 hours of steady bike riding will do you a lot of good if you've only been doing half that. And stepping up teh amount and the intensity drastically will most likely result in problems -joints or a cold. So in order not to just ride an hour or so a day in such lovely settings you need to increase the quantity but keep the intensity down.

BeaconRuth

One of the first problems with a generic plan like this is that we don't know what 10 hours a week the rider has been doing prior to going on a training camp. You could train for 10 hours a week, get virtually no training benefit and feel as fresh as a daisy. Or you could train very very intensively for 10 hours a week, and be thoroughly overtrained.

But the general principle of this plan seems fine to me, subject to what the rider's goals are and the timing of this camp in relation to any required peak in performance. The issue I have is the training level is SO low. On the first day, ride at 50-60% maxHR and most other days don't go any harder than 70% maxHR? At those levels you don't work up a sweat and hardly breathe hard. I'm not sure how anybody expects to improve as a cyclist training (almost exclusively) at those intensities.

But don't get me wrong, I don't think the plan should have hard short intervals or even hard long ones or anything............... I just think you generally need to ride a bit harder than 60-70%maxHR. If the plan was based on 70-75%maxHR I would say it was excellent base training. (I don't think people always realise that very subtle differences in training lead to some quite different outcomes.)

Ruth

eh

B*gger training plans when in Mallorca unless you are some kind of elite rider, just go and ride and enjoy. Only thing I'd say is alternate flat days with mountain days and take a day off when you feel knackered.

Quite frankly if you do a stack of riding but with the aim to enjoy the scenery, riding, company etc. you are going to come back faster, a better bike handler and also enthusiastic to race/ride more. If you are going to spend the 2 weeks glued to a HR and/or power meter then you may as well stayed at home on the turbo IMHO.

Klassiker

Thanks all for the replies so far.

EH - I won't be following this plan, or any other plan. I'm going out there to ride with my mates and enjoy the scenery. On the other hand, I do want to understand the principles behind the training I do, and apply them more or less.

Ruth - Exactly the reason for my question. It does seem like a large volume of VERY easy riding. The question is, what does it do for the body, and why do the German coaches put so much store in it? I assure you, this is not some eccentric who put this plan together, and I took great care to reproduce it accurately in my first post. He actually emphasises in the accompanying text that 75% MHR is the absolute maximum. I have lots of first and second-hand experience of performance tests conducted with different coaches, and the recommendations are always based upon large proportions of the weekly volume spent at GA-1 as described.

UT_OCH_CYCLA - Can't agree more. As Ruth points out, it is a generic plan and doesn't account for how the individual has been training up to that point, or how they will react to the training load. Of course you need to be aware of overdoing it. This is not among the reasons given for the low intensity, though.

BeaconRuth

Klassiker - it's so hard to comment without really knowing who the plan is written for. What is an 'ambitious cyclist' anyway? What level of fitness are we assuming they have at the outset? If the coach specifies that these 3-4hr rides can be done up to 75%maxHR then you're definitely into useful training territory............. but 60%maxHR and 75%maxHR are worlds apart in terms of their training benefit and the attrition of training at those levels day after day after day. With that much volume in a 2-week period keeping down around 70% probably isn't a bad idea.......... it's only the recommendation to keep as low as 60-65% that I'd question. But then even as I write that I'm thinking "yeah, but everyone's different and %maxHR can only be a guide."

What is pretty clear is that that programme is definitely what I'd call 'base work' and wouldn't be the slightest bit appropriate for someone who was preparing to be competitive imminently. Large proportions of training at lowish intensities during certain training phases are vitally important for most cycling elite performances, whatever magazines and some coaches would like to tell you. There are no shortcuts. Smaller amounts of more intensive training might be a good idea for time-strapped amateurs, but if time was no object and the ambition was high, the ideal training would involve very large volumes at certain times of year for most cycling disciplines. And the intensity of that riding wouldn't be especially high.

I've never met a really good amateur cyclist who doesn't do an awful lot of miles - they may play it down, but they all put the time in. I was sat beside one of the local fast men at a dinner recently and with no hype or glimmer of pride, over the course of the dinner he revealed that his idea of a normal week is to do around 300 miles at an average speed of 20mph. No wonder he wins open events - that's just normal riding to him! Anyone who thinks they're going to compete with him by doing 2 turbo sessions a week (of whatever intensity) and a ride with their mates at weekends is in cloud cuckoo land.

Ruth

chrisw12

BeaconRuth wrote:

I've never met a really good amateur cyclist who doesn't do an awful lot of miles - they may play it down, but they all put the time in. I was sat beside one of the local fast men at a dinner recently and with no hype or glimmer of pride, over the course of the dinner he revealed that his idea of a normal week is to do around 300 miles at an average speed of 20mph. No wonder he wins open events - that's just normal riding to him! Anyone who thinks they're going to compete with him by doing 2 turbo sessions a week (of whatever intensity) and a ride with their mates at weekends is in cloud cuckoo land.

Ruth

Ruth I like the way you hide this controversial paragraph at the end of a long post.

and I agree, the more good cyclists I ask, when it gets down to it, the reason why they're good is the amount of time they put into it. It's funny as well that they always seem to play it down like as in your example a 300 mile week is nothing to them, just normal

Oh and the two turbo sessions and mates ride at the weekend is what my triathlon friends do. This makes them good triathletes, reasonable short distance tt'ers but terrible at cycling in anything past an hour. (I hope they don't read this :oops: ).

Sorry, off topic but liked your paragraph too much.

BeaconRuth

chrisw12 wrote:

Ruth I like the way you hide this controversial paragraph at the end of a long post.

I get carried away when I'm posting long after the time when I should be in bed...........

and I agree, the more good cyclists I ask, when it gets down to it, the reason why they're good is the amount of time they put into it. It's funny as well that they always seem to play it down like as in your example a 300 mile week is nothing to them, just normal

It's not just about time, but that's a big part of it. It is important to spend time on the bike wisely too, but that's coming back to Klassiker's opening question.

I find the whole business of top riders underplaying the time they spend and the question of what is 'normal' for them very interesting, because this, actually, is at the heart of what makes them good. And for aspiring riders, getting their head round these things is often the first step in improving. For instance I took a big leap forward the year I realised I could ride over to join clubruns (25 miles away) ride the clubrun and then ride back, making a 100 mile ride every Sunday. I've got a lot smarter than just riding 100 miles every Sunday since then, but that was the kind of incremental increase in expectation I've laid on myself over the years - and the fast man who does 300 miles a week at 20mph has surely built that up over several years................... and then you see in the comic the "get fast quick" articles about getting good by doing a few intervals on a turbo and it always makes me think people are looking under the wrong stone!

Good grief, I haven't had a good waffle like this for ages. :oops:

Ruth

ut_och_cykla

Waffle away Ruth.... its all very sound....

chrisw12

To keep the antedotes coming

I was talking to my friend about the Welsh legend Steve Edwards (Welsh 12hr record holder and 2nd in the 24hr). My friend had been his training partner and helper in the long events

When ever I discused training with him he always under play the amount of training him and Steve would do, in fact he always has a go at me that I train too much.

One of the examples he gave of Steve's training regime was a 100(?) mile ride out to the Castle coombe road races, then ride the 1/2 cat event then scrounge a lift home. Alternatively a 60 mile trip to Pembrey, do the circuit races, then ride home in the dark.



The thing that sruck me was not the distances but the fact he'd want to ride a road race in a very un-fresh state. How many people will take a full day off in preperation for a nothing race like this, just because of the fear of getting a kicking.

I suppose you don't become a cycling legend by doing the odd turbo session.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Coming in late on this....

For an athlete with 10hrs/week to train, ride and do the occasional (maybe even weekly) race, what's the point of all that very low intensity stuff other than a chance to chill out and smell the roses? Who gives a toss about supposedly working on your "fat metabolism" anyway when all you have is 10hrs/week to ride?

Lift your sustainable aerobic power at threshold and guess what - the power at which you use a high proportion of fatty acids (vs glycogen) as an energy source increases as well.

And what happens when the smack goes down? All that tooling around won't do squat.

The good athletes that do the long miles aren't tooling around during those miles either.

Oh and 40-50rpm sets on a 5% gradient :roll:

ut_och_cykla

Alex - some people actually like riding thier bike just cos they can. Sometimes they compete & do well but there's probably loads who compete, do crap adn love it anyway. Pootle now and again if you want surely!!

Klassiker

Ruth: The first day's riding at 50-60% MHR is intended as "acclimatisation" rather than training as such.

Ambitious Cyclist?" My interpretation of who this article was being pitched at would be your typical club rider who already trains regulary to some kind of programme, competes occasionally in club time-trials or sportives, and wants to improve. It was clear from the text that this plan wasn't aimed at someone with a race lined up in the near future. Also, the season in Germany gets going about a month later than it does in the UK, because the winters are usually much colder.

There was another plan in the article aimed at the "Performance-Oriented Rider". This person would normally train 12-15 hours a week and would be preparing for imminent racing. The plan is very similar to the one I outlined in detail, except that each session is 1-2 hours longer, and there is 1 day late in the second week including 3x10 min. at 90%MHR in a 5-hour GA-1 session. Alex will no doubt have a hissy fit when he reads that.

Klassiker

Alex! Glad you could make it! Obviously, you were one of the people I was hoping would be able to provide some answers to my original post. Instead, you just ask some rhetorical (?) questions.

And what do you mean by

Oh and 40-50rpm sets on a 5% gradient

???

This training philosophy I'm referring to must be one you've come across before. The people writing this stuff are not mavericks, they are part of the German training establishment. Maybe you've even written or know of articles refuting their ideas. If so, I'd appreciate references. Telling me it's just bollxxx doesn't help much, 'cos I suspect that already. I want to know why.

So, is there a minimum number of hours a week training / race-distance which make "working on your fat metabolism" in this way a sensible approach?

Incidentally, the high-volume GA-1 training is supposed to push the threshold to the right on a graph with power plotted on the horizontal axis and HR / lactate vertically, i.e. the relationship between HR and power can stay the same, but threshold occurs at a higher % of MHR and consequently at a higher power. I know you didn't need me to explain that , but some people might not understand the subtle difference between that and just "lifting your sustainable aerobic power at threshold".

Alex_Simmons/RST

ut_och_cykla wrote:

Alex - some people actually like riding thier bike just cos they can. Sometimes they compete & do well but there's probably loads who compete, do crap adn love it anyway. Pootle now and again if you want surely!!

That's true but in the context of the OP, I didn't think that applied. I did say there's not much point to tooling around unless you want to chill out and smell the roses....

Alex_Simmons/RST

Klassiker wrote:

Alex! Glad you could make it! Obviously, you were one of the people I was hoping would be able to provide some answers to my original post. Instead, you just ask some rhetorical (?) questions.

And what do you mean by

Oh and 40-50rpm sets on a 5% gradient

???

This training philosophy I'm referring to must be one you've come across before. The people writing this stuff are not mavericks, they are part of the German training establishment. Maybe you've even written or know of articles refuting their ideas. If so, I'd appreciate references. Telling me it's just bollxxx doesn't help much, 'cos I suspect that already. I want to know why.

So, is there a minimum number of hours a week training / race-distance which make "working on your fat metabolism" in this way a sensible approach?

Incidentally, the high-volume GA-1 training is supposed to push the threshold to the right on a graph with power plotted on the horizontal axis and HR / lactate vertically, i.e. the relationship between HR and power can stay the same, but threshold occurs at a higher % of MHR and consequently at a higher power. I know you didn't need me to explain that , but some people might not understand the subtle difference between that and just "lifting your sustainable aerobic power at threshold".

Low cadence work is good for training you to do low cadence riding. It has nothing at all to do with building what some refer to as "strength endurance" - whatever that is. So unless you plan to ride at such cadences in your events, there is little point in doing them. For a discussion on this, see here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/

Well there's a plethora of information about the efficacy of training levels, both power and HR based. This is well documented in exercise physiology textbooks based on mulitudes of scientific experiments and data going back over a century. The simple fact is that riding at such low levels would be ineffective for a 10hr a week weekend warrior. The GA-1 as referred to is simply Active Recovery which is too low in itself to induce any significant physiological adaptations.

Now perhaps there's a translation error somewhere. If GA-1 was a percentage of average HR for a longish TT effort, then it would be slightly more plausible, or perhaps the percentage quoted is wrong?

I would turn it around and say what evidence do this "German establishment" have to suggest that all that time noodling around is inducing any significant physiological adaptations?

Forget about focussing on "fat metabolism". Focus on increasing your functional threshold power or power at lactate threshold, (it doesn't matter which you choose they are different but related) since these are the primary physiological determinants of success in aerobic endurance athletes (at ANY level of athlete).

Dr Coggan has written plenty on the topic and a range of such items can be found here:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/pow ... eshold.asp
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp

and others here:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/

As for lifting your power at lactate threshold - I'm referring to power output at a concentration of lactate in the blood at a point 1mmol/L above baseline or around 2.5 (or 2.x) mmol/L (in a controlled test since LT is also dependent on duration of exercise). HR has nothing to do with it and looking for a "Threshold HR" based on BL is suprious.

Klassiker

I would turn it around and say what evidence do this "German establishment" have to suggest that all that time noodling around is inducing any significant physiological adaptations?

I'm searching, but I can't (at the moment) which is why I'm asking the question on this forum. I had hoped that someone involved in the field would know the background and be able to point me in the right direction. Dr. Coggan's work for example may be perfectly valid in showing that A produces B, but if he doesn't specifically address the C which I'm interested in here, then I'm still going to be left with some open questions.

There's no mistake in the translation by the way. The training intensity really is that low.

Thanks for taking the time to reply in such detail. If I do learn more I'll let you know.

Jeff Jones

This discussion interests me because I've just come back from a week of similar paced riding in France. Despite the fact that it was all below 80% of max HR, I think it helped me. I guess I'll find out in my next race on Sunday.

Background: I normally do 15-16hrs/week and at the moment, have been training properly since January and seem to be able to race (and train) at 300W for an hour on the TT bike.

The plan, as it turned out:

Day 0: Race at Castle Combe, ride there and back, about 4hrs all up
Day 1: Fly to Nice. <2hrs @ 65%
Day 2: 6.5hrs @ 65%
Day 3: 5hrs @ 62%
Day 4: 2hrs @ 65%
Day 5: 6.5hrs @ 62%
Day 6: 4.5hrs @ 62%
Day 7: Fly back, no ride.

All up, over 30 hrs/870km/12000m of climbing/silly amounts of pasta/chocolate/beer in seven days, so nearly double what I normally do. I've not done this much riding in a week for nearly 10 years but felt quite good at the end of it.

None of the rides were planned to be at a specific intensity, but they all fell into the 60-65% range because it was a sustainable pace for that long I guess.

Interestingly, by the end of the week my average speed was up nearly 2km/h compared to the first few rides, with all rides having a similar amount of climbing per km. That was also reflected in climbing times: These came down by a couple of minutes for a similar average heart rate for an 18 minute climb, which was always the last one of the day. I don't have a power meter on my road bike so couldn't compare exact wattages, but times are a fairly good estimate.

I don't really know what training adaptations were going on because from what I've read, not a lot happens at these intensities, especially if you're already well trained. But my gut feeling and some data tells me I've improved. I'll report back after Sunday.

Alex_Simmons/RST

That's interesting Jeff.

At the end of the day, it's how you end up getting the average that matters. Let me demonstrate...

I went back into the archives to locate a Majorca 8) training file from an athlete who shall remain anonymous (it's not me). May as well look at real data rather than trying to speculate. In this case a typical long ride in a small group with climbs etc.

Ride time was 5hrs 13min (2,850kJ and nearly 900m of climbing total).

I have posted a picture of the ride file showing both power and heart rate. The data is smoothed to 5 minute rolling averages to make it easier to see the overall impact. Also shown are horizontal dashed lines to indicate:
- Average Power and Heart Rate attained on the ride
- Recovery Levels for Power and Heart Rate for this athlete
- Threshold Levels for Power & Heart Rate for this athlete
- Normalised Power Level attained on the ride

Things to note:

Both average Heart Rate and Average Power attained on the ride are below Recovery Levels for this athlete. :?

However, nearly half of the ride was conducted at above Recovery Power Levels including sections of the ride which were completed at solid tempo and threshold levels, indicating that even on such a ride, substantial ride time was accumulated at training levels which would provide good training effect (and of course a lot of time was spent coasting or noodling along with little to no training effect).

Note the overall Normalised Power* of 215 watts. This equates to the top-end of the endurance power zone.

So this is showing us, as is often the case, that looking only at averages of heart rates (and indeed sometimes average power) can be misleading as to what actually happens on the ride. In this example we can see the big difference in the story from looking at overall averages to looking at a 5-min rolling average.

I would classify the ride as a good endurance workout, which included the opportunity to enjoy the surroundings, smell the roses etc. From a training impact POV, the same impact could have been readily achieved on a ride of less than 3hrs, but then in this case, that wasn't the only objective of being out for a free day in the sunshine.

This is the good thing about power data, especially for variable power rides like this, since Normalised Power gives us another clue as to the overall impact such a ride has - in this case equating the ride's training impact as being well into in the endurance zone.


* Normalised Power is explained here:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/pow ... efined.asp

Jeff Jones

Ah, now that is a useful graph and explanation - thanks Alex. I guess the interpretation is that lots of climbing and descending will skew the averages towards the lower end. Yes, you could get the same training effect from just the climbing, but it as you say, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun

For the record, I was doing the climbs (all between 10 and 30min) at between 70-80% of max HR at an estimated power (using Kreuzotter) between 250W and 320W. When doing long rides at home, I normally climb harder, but 12-13 minutes is the maximum length.

Back to the original post, setting out to follow specific average heart rates might be a little misleading. Just do lots of climbing at a sustainable pace and enjoy the sun 8)

Jeff Jones

...and the report as promised.

I had a pretty good ride, and it was certainly better than my last race over a similar distance 2 weeks ago. Then, the winner put 2 min into me (I was 3rd); today, he only put 54 seconds into me (I was 4th, but in a bigger and better field). How much was due to last week's mega miles, I'm not sure.

Alas, I didn't have time to fine tune the offset on the Ergomo, so my power readings were low. I ended up with an average of only 288W, which is crazy because today I was 4min quicker than my course recce @ 297W. A pointy hat, skinsuit and fast wheels don't make that much of a difference, and the wind wasn't a factor either. I'm guessing it was more than 300W, which is a slight improvement on previous rides.

Conclusion? Based on very short term results using a 30km time trial and a sample size of one, the 30 hour training week didn't seem to have done me any harm. Too early to tell whether I got much of a fitness benefit from it.

But that wasn't the only reason I went, and I suspect this applies to many who do this. It was absolutely brilliant to get out of the horrible UK weather for a week, see some amazing scenery, ride in shorts and get a slightly sunburned nose.

I'd do it again for sure.

Jeff Jones

Jeff Jones wrote:

...and the report as promised.

I had a pretty good ride, and it was certainly better than my last race over a similar distance 2 weeks ago. Then, the winner put 2 min into me (I was 3rd); today, he only put 54 seconds into me (I was 4th, but in a bigger and better field). How much was due to last week's mega miles, I'm not sure.

Alas, I didn't have time to fine tune the offset on the Ergomo, so my power readings were low. I ended up with an average of only 288W, which is crazy because today I was 4min quicker than my course recce @ 297W. A pointy hat, skinsuit and fast wheels don't make that much of a difference, and the wind wasn't a factor either. I'm guessing it was more than 300W, which is a slight improvement on previous rides.

Conclusion? Based on very short term results using a 30km time trial and a sample size of one, the 30 hour training week didn't seem to have done me any harm. Too early to tell whether I got much of a fitness benefit from it.

A follow up to this, 'cos it got me thinking...

In the eight days after getting back from France, I finished fourth in both TTs I did. Maybe it's because I was tired in the first one and it was extremely cold for the second one, I'm not sure. But two weeks after I got back, I started going well. 3x1sts, including at least one course record, 2x2nds and one 9th in a '10' that I didn't ride hard. Last weekend I even beat the guy who had been giving me a kicking in the early races.

In the last six weeks, I've done no hard training apart from three club 10s. Maybe I could have improved by doing a bit more mid-week but I can't argue with the results. I was hoping that my base + racing would see me through, which it appeared to do very well.

Unfortunately it was hard to compare power outputs because I switched from a Ergomo to a PowerTap, and the power readings of the two differed by 20-30W in the tests that I ran with both of them on.

If I can fit in a week of mega miles into my training program again, I'll definitely do it. Maybe I could have achieved similar results another way, but this seemed to work, probably for the reasons Alex outlined above.

synchronicity

eh wrote:

B*gger training plans when in Mallorca unless you are some kind of elite rider, just go and ride and enjoy. Only thing I'd say is alternate flat days with mountain days and take a day off when you feel knackered.

Quite frankly if you do a stack of riding but with the aim to enjoy the scenery, riding, company etc. you are going to come back faster, a better bike handler and also enthusiastic to race/ride more. If you are going to spend the 2 weeks glued to a HR and/or power meter then you may as well stayed at home on the turbo IMHO.

Well said... I ditched my old Polar power meter & going to sell the S710 HRM soon. I just didn't find my rides as enjoyable looking at LCD displays all the time. Now I prefer to just jump on the bike & go without having to wear HRM straps & press a load of buttons... I must be getting old.