Short Higher Intensity Rides - Beneficial?

Mettan

Are short higher intensity rides beneficial, as a form of training for longer rides? - I'm thinking along the lines of:

A reasonably fit person.
Typically 5-10 mile solo training loops at a 17-22 mph average
Typically 200-350 ft of climbing per session
3 - 4 times a week.

Would that kind of a setup prove beneficial on an 60-80 mile ride with 3000-4000 ft climbing - if it does prove benficial, to what extent?

Toks

Mettan wrote:

Are short higher intensity rides beneficial, as a form of training for longer rides? - I'm thinking along the lines of:

A reasonably fit person.
Typically 5-10 mile solo training loops at a 17-22 mph average
Typically 200-350 ft of climbing per session
3 - 4 times a week.

Would that kind of a setup prove beneficial on an 60-80 mile ride with 3000-4000 ft climbing - if it does prove benficial, to what extent?

Whats the story? how much training time do you have available? If you're short on time then moderately intensive rides are definitly the way to go. Thats 30-90mins at a decent/fastish pace or even time trial pace once or twice perweek if its less than 40 minutes. How often you can repeat these efforts will depend on your current fitness levels. But yes you've definitly got the right idea. Someone with 15-25 hours training time could probably do a lot less of the intensive stuff but if you're in the 10 hours and below boat you'll need some degree of intensity to make good fitness gains, especially if you want to be competitive. Do a search on 2 x 20's and 'sweet spot rides'. One longish ride per week should help mentally cope with distance, fuelling and even weight control. Good luck

azerna

What kind of speeds should one be looking to average on a shorter 40-90min ride to aid fitness/training to be most optimal?

Toks

azerna wrote:

What kind of speeds should one be looking to average on a shorter 40-90min ride to aid fitness/training to be most optimal?

That depends on so many factors so giving guidelines can be tricky. IAre you a newbie or racer, is it flat or hilly terrain, is it windy, are you big or small etc etc. Assuming you don't have a powermeter perceived exertion is your best guide. For the duration your suggesting it should feel fine initially and become a little challenging towards the end. Breathing should be fine but a little more noticeable as the ride continues. However you should be able to give extra 10% if needed.

All things considered equal unless you're an absolute newbie. You should be able to replicate the effort the next day. If training hours are at a premium the the less time you have available the harder you should push yourself on the ride. Hence if you only have 60minutes available for a session you shouldn't ride at the same pace/power as a five hour ride. In the former you're wasting time or its a recovery ride and if you did the reverse you'd simply blow up.

Mettan

Toks wrote:

Mettan wrote:

Are short higher intensity rides beneficial, as a form of training for longer rides? - I'm thinking along the lines of:

A reasonably fit person.
Typically 5-10 mile solo training loops at a 17-22 mph average
Typically 200-350 ft of climbing per session
3 - 4 times a week.

Would that kind of a setup prove beneficial on an 60-80 mile ride with 3000-4000 ft climbing - if it does prove benficial, to what extent?

Whats the story? how much training time do you have available? If you're short on time then moderately intensive rides are definitly the way to go. Thats 30-90mins at a decent/fastish pace or even time trial pace once or twice perweek if its less than 40 minutes. How often you can repeat these efforts will depend on your current fitness levels. But yes you've definitly got the right idea. Someone with 15-25 hours training time could probably do a lot less of the intensive stuff but if you're in the 10 hours and below boat you'll need some degree of intensity to make good fitness gains, especially if you want to be competitive. Do a search on 2 x 20's and 'sweet spot rides'. One longish ride per week should help mentally cope with distance, fuelling and even weight control. Good luck

Thanks Toks - Time-wise, I do tend to have enough time to do longer rides, although in the context of training I actually prefer short rides at a higher intensity (at the moment) (and a knee injury keeps the long rides to a minimum). I'm happy enough with all that at the mo. given the above injury. I'll check out the 2x20s, sweet spot rides and similar ideas.

Toks

Mettan wrote:

Thanks Toks - Time-wise, I do tend to have enough time to do longer rides, although in the context of training I actually prefer short rides at a higher intensity (at the moment) (and a knee injury keeps the long rides to a minimum). I'm happy enough with all that at the mo. given the above injury. I'll check out the 2x20s, sweet spot rides and similar ideas.

You're welcome. The 2 x 20's or even 3 x 20's are great because quite simply they cut to the chase. They target threshold improvement which is the esential for anyone who wants to improve they're endurance cycling (sportivs, rr, and TT). For 2 x 20's warm up for 10-15mins then ride at a pace above normal endurance riding ( which maybe slighltly below or at time trail pace) Your breathing will be far more noticeable - a bit like climbing and there may be mild discomfort in the legs after a while. Once you've done 20 mins rest for 5-10 and then repeat. If you've got more time keep riding at a less intensive pace, if not call it quits.

Sweet spot ride is a notch or two down from 2 x 20's and can be ridden from 1-2 hours at a friendly fast pace. Generally you feel fine at the beginning but things feel a little tougher towards the end. If you include a diet of these rides in your training along with a longish ride you should see good improvement over the next few months

Mike Willcox

You shouldn't mix endurance training and speed training. It is a mistake therefore to judge the value of a week's training purely in terms of miles covered or hours in the saddle.

In the build up to peaking for an event it makes sense to start a phase with two or three days rest from all training. Then to embark on a programme which gets you some speed work on two of the days in the week (not consecutive) with the rest either recovery rides, one endurance ride, and then treat one day as race day (or an actual race) and go out and ride your bike at a fast tempo (include rest periods).

Inevitably the number of hours training will drop from what it was previously. You can't expect to do lots of miles and interval train at the same time and then remain fresh for a race at the weekend.

When I was racing at my peak I was doing no more than 150 miles a week of which 70% was easy riding. All my long miles had been done in the winter and spring.

Toks

Mike Willcox wrote:

You shouldn't mix endurance training and speed training. It is a mistake therefore to judge the value of a week's training purely in terms of miles covered or hours in the saddle.

.

Er with respect Mike, are you responding to the OP's question or just telling us about what you think is right. To be fair we haven't got a lot of info to go on so I think if you are reponding to the OP's post its all a little presumptuous

Mike Willcox

Toks wrote:

Mike Willcox wrote:

You shouldn't mix endurance training and speed training. It is a mistake therefore to judge the value of a week's training purely in terms of miles covered or hours in the saddle.

.

Er with respect Mike, are you responding to the OP's question or just telling us about what you think is right. To be fair we haven't got a lot of info to go on so I think if you are reponding to the OP's post its all a little presumptuous

The OP is asking if riding short distances at high intensity is a substitute for longer rides at lower intensity even though he has the time to do longer rides. My post implies that it is not as simple as that.

Sure high intensity training is a pre-requisite for rding fast but IMO you still need the endurance stuff if you want to ride at your best later on in the season.

Toks

Mike Willcox wrote:

The OP is asking if riding short distances at high intensity is a substitute for longer rides at lower intensity even though he has the time to do longer rides. My post implies that it is not as simple as that.

Sure high intensity training is a pre-requisite for rding fast but IMO you still need the endurance stuff if you want to ride at your best later on in the season.

mmm I guess it depends. I'd agree that anyone who hasn't got a significant base of miles could do with a period of racking up endurance miles esecially as a Newbie planning to do a sportiv perhaps. Is this the only way? Definitley not. Fastish efforts (not flat out) in the 20min - 90min duration are very good at stimulating the adaptions that take place in long rides, glycogen storage, increase lactate threshold etc. Ask Micheal Hutchinson if he still goes out and does 4-6 hour rides every day. No because the same adaptions can be achieved on moderately intensitive rides. I got Gold in the Etape a few years ago and 90% of my training was based on lots and lots of flat 60 minute rides around Regents Park and then fast 3 lappers around Richmond Park

There's no denying from a psychological, weight management and fuelling perspective endurance rides really help. And of course if you race competitively in event s of 4hr + duration. However considering most of us have 9 hrs or less to train, a steady diet of 3-5hr slow plods month after month is a complete waste of time if you plan to ride competitvely

Jamey

I Googled for 2 x 20s.

It said "40".

If anyone's got a proper link, I'd love to see it.

Mettan

Toks wrote:

Ask Micheal Hutchinson if he still goes out and does 4-6 hour rides every day. No because the same adaptions can be achieved on moderately intensitive rides. I got Gold in the Etape a few years ago and 90% of my training was based on lots and lots of flat 60 minute rides around Regents Park and then fast 3 lappers around Richmond Park

Thanks Toks & Mike - some good information there. I managed a 4:19 ride-time in the recent Cheshire Cat 60 miler (with ~ 2100-2200 ft climbing) - Given my knee injury, the training period and amount done I'd estimate my injury cost me around 30-40 minutes (I'm confident of a 3:40 - 3:50 even on that training) - given all that, I'm happy enough with the way it went. Similar to your training above Toks, for the CC I typically did 5-12 milers with anything between 80-450 ft of climbing per route at a moderate to higher intensity (obviously they were in tandem with a small number of longer rides) - so to an extent, the training was beneficial.

So to sumarise a bit:

If you're reasonably fit, regular, short, moderate to higher intesity rides can produce positive effects re "glycogen storage, increase lactate threshold" and are beneficial (to an extent) in terms of preparation for longer rides. These rides are obviously not meant to be done in isolation - a mixture of shorter and longer rides would be optimal.

I'm probably stating the obvious in the above and its a gross over-simplification , but it's nice to see that there are some positives to be had out of shorter rides re prep for longer rides.

Mike Willcox

Toks wrote:

There's no denying from a psychological, weight management and fuelling perspective endurance rides really help. And of course if you race competitively in event s of 4hr + duration. However considering most of us have 9 hrs or less to train, a steady diet of 3-5hr slow plods month after month is a complete waste of time if you plan to ride competitvely

Come on Toks.

How long have we been posting on here? Must be 3 years at least. You know that I've never advocated lots and lots of steady miles month after month. Nearly all my base training is at what you would call 2 x 20 pace but out on the road for 2 / 2.5 hours. :shock:

Then when 3 to 4 weeks away from first race it's tempo and intervals (now) and then when racing season it's intervals and recovery and racing.

I don't do any 4 hour rides and ony occasional 3 hour rides. They bore me silly and this time of the year when it's cold, wet and windy are demotivating.

DaveyL

If Toks is doing his 2 x 20s at the pace of a 2-2.5 hour ride then he will not see much improvement - but I doubt he is.

Actually I was just reading an article today in the Journal of Sports Medicine which shows that relatively untrained cyclists will benefit almost immediately from high intensity training.

Mike Willcox

DaveyL wrote:

If Toks is doing his 2 x 20s at the pace of a 2-2.5 hour ride then he will not see much improvement - but I doubt he is.
Actually I was just reading an article today in the Journal of Sports Medicine which shows that relatively untrained cyclists will benefit almost immediately from high intensity training.

I thought I was comparing what I imagine to be Toks 2 x 20 level of effort with my level of effort for 2 - 2.5 hour; not his.

Not quite the same thing.

DaveyL

I still doubt it....

Alex_Simmons/RST

Jamey wrote:

I Googled for 2 x 20s.

It said "40".

If anyone's got a proper link, I'd love to see it.

Search this forum, just use the phrase "2x20" and you'll see a stack on links on the subject.

SteveR_100Milers

Toks, I'm confused again now....2x20 at a pace where your legs "just start to hurt". If I ride at that PE then (since I dont have a power meter) my HR is around 75%. That's surely nowhere near enough effort to get real gains (maybe for a complete newbie perhaps, but the OP isnt).
I *thought* that 2x20 would have to be at TT pace, i.e. >85% MHR for them to be worthwhile For me at least this intensity is a bit more than just starting to hurt my legs!!!

I think it was Ric that suggested a while back that if you did less than 8 hours a week riding, then you should ride every ride flat out, even a 2-3 hour one if you want to get the most beneficial effect - especially of most of your training is done on the road since your effort will vary constantly, unlike using a turbo.

chrisw12

Steve, I think you'd have to be pretty special/motivated to ride training 2x20's at race pace. We all know that sticking a number on the back is always good for another at least 1% effort.

The way I do them now, is in one of two ways, either ride the Rhigos hard (twice) where you are guaranteed to be in the right zone or I'll ride my local tt circuit where I know I'll be at least 5 beats below my race tt average. If I go too much below that then tbh I don't think it's worth bothering with them. If I go much higher then it's called a race and I can pretty much forget about any constructive training for a few days after.

andrewgturnbull

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I think it was Ric that suggested a while back that if you did less than 8 hours a week riding, then you should ride every ride flat out, even a 2-3 hour one if you want to get the most beneficial effect - especially of most of your training is done on the road since your effort will vary constantly, unlike using a turbo.

Hi there.

This is almost exactly what I do. I train about 12-14 hours a week, but only half of that is on the bike, hence it is "all killer no filler". My longest ride is usually taking the long (and hilly) way home from work on a Friday~ 2 hours.

Works for me, but then I'm not aiming at any race that takes more than 2 hours either! My last race was 61 minutes dead.

Cheers, Andy

ut_och_cykla

I've always thought 2 x 20's should be done at a pace you can just hold for the 2 intervals

Toks

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Toks, I'm confused again now....2x20 at a pace where your legs "just start to hurt". If I ride at that PE then (since I dont have a power meter) my HR is around 75%. That's surely nowhere near enough effort to get real gains (maybe for a complete newbie perhaps, but the OP isnt).
I *thought* that 2x20 would have to be at TT pace, i.e. >85% MHR for them to be worthwhile For me at least this intensity is a bit more than just starting to hurt my legs!!!

Come on Steve mate, whats going on with you? You should be able to write a dissertation on 2 x 20's the amount of info myself an others have given you.

1. Basing 2 x 20's purely on heart rate won't always be perfect - fatigue, improved fitness, heat, cold, dehydration, slight illness will all affect 2 x 20 av HRT

2. As you do more 2 x 20's you'll be able to cope better with the physiological sensations they elicit. So laboured breathing, discomfort in the thighs, concentration, will all seem less apparent over time.

3. You can hit them bang on TT intensity but this will limit how many you can do per week. 1 or 2 perhaps

4. You can hit 2 x 20's @ 5-10% below TT heart rate/power and possibly add extra 20mins (3 x 20's) or more regular repeats throughout the week

5. Finally there's nothing special about 2 x 20's. You can just as easy maintain the effort for 60mins (hard psychologically) or ride 2 x 30,s 2 x 40's or indeed 'do the sweet spot thing' and ride for 90-120mins (obviously not at classic 2 x 20 pace, I think it was called 'No Mans land' back in the days).

oldwelshman

Back to the same old arguments about how to train, whats best, the old 20 x 20 again, and again
For beginners it's way too much info and TBH I think too many riders get too involved with stats, hr, power meters.
Basicall longer ride will give endurance, shorter intense rides help you go faster.
If you want to race, you have to do intensive rides, if your not going to race, why bother?
Best way for intense rides? Join onto a chain gang and see how long you can last, and try to improve each week.
Another way? Go track training and try to keep up with the fast guys and improve each week.
If you want to do a long sportive? You will need some endurance and is nice to get some long rides in but as Toks said, it can be done with highish intensity 90 minute ride on flat even. But some prefer to have the knowledge they hae done longer miles and done some climb trainig but it is not 100% essential.
I personally get more out of riding with others, and doing unstructured intervals I call them Wher we just go balls out at certain times of a group ride and also sprints.
Anyway difeerent things work for different people we are all slightly different and we do not need the full scientific approach unti elite standard which most of us will never get to
Unless of course you have lots of money to spend on gizmos and gadgets and lots of coaching and training camps in order to get a 3rd cat

chrisw12

oldwelshman wrote:

Back to the same old arguments about how to train, whats best, the old 20 x 20 again, and again
For beginners it's way too much info and TBH I think too many riders get too involved with stats, hr, power meters.
Basicall longer ride will give endurance, shorter intense rides help you go faster.
If you want to race, you have to do intensive rides, if your not going to race, why bother?
Best way for intense rides? Join onto a chain gang and see how long you can last, and try to improve each week.
Another way? Go track training and try to keep up with the fast guys and improve each week.
If you want to do a long sportive? You will need some endurance and is nice to get some long rides in but as Toks said, it can be done with highish intensity 90 minute ride on flat even. But some prefer to have the knowledge they hae done longer miles and done some climb trainig but it is not 100% essential.
I personally get more out of riding with others, and doing unstructured intervals I call them Wher we just go balls out at certain times of a group ride and also sprints.
Anyway difeerent things work for different people we are all slightly different and we do not need the full scientific approach unti elite standard which most of us will never get to
Unless of course you have lots of money to spend on gizmos and gadgets and lots of coaching and training camps in order to get a 3rd cat

Has Mike Wilcox got a pseudoname? I'm confised now as well...

Mettan

Today's "stats":

7.59 miles - loop
371 ft climbing
17.8 mph avg

Hindered in parts by a headwind, and helped in others by a tailwind - briefly ended up with a sort of sharp burning pain behind my forehead though (between the eyes) -

oldwelshman

That is too short , thats about the distance for a good warm up before the intense effort
You will do more harm than good, going flat out straight from the start.

Mettan

Admitedly, on that particular route today, the "warm-up" was virtually non-existent - it consisted of a slowish saunter for 260 metres before the first Hill :oops: - and the first Hill was ~ 520 metres length with 67 ft climbing (pretty shallow tbf) - looking at it rationally though, a 260 metre warmup is grossly insufficient

Mike Willcox

If you don't do a proper warm up then at the time you start your high level effort you will not be at your full potential for going fast. Having to climb a hill as soon as you leave the house is a nuisance so if you have an indoor trainer it might be better to spend 15 minutes or so just turning your legs over before going out of the front door.

It sounds as though you are treating the loop as a TT. To increase speed you could try splitting the ride into 3 or 4 sections and introduce some 1 to 2 minute recovery phases between each section. After your rest you will immediately notice that for the next minute or so you will be refreshed and ride faster than before. In this way your aggregrate speed over the sections will be faster than the whole ride taken in one effort.

Oh and I agree with old welshman. You need to make the ride a longer one, ideally at least 45 minutes, probably 1 - 1.5 hours in total including warm up and warm down.

SteveR_100Milers

Toks thanks for clarification - I have always understood them to be done at near maximal effort, which is harder than you suggested in a previous post that was all! Although I *know* the answer, I guess if there is an easy way out to some beneficial training then I'm all for it, for example if riding at 75%MHR for 45 minutes on a turbo had some positive benefit then I'd do a lot more of it! (Don't answer that one - example only)

Ultimately I'm with Chris and Andy - I simply cant mentally overcome the leg pain on the turbo to make it effective enough, wheareas on the road I can easily go much much harder for a lot longer.

Mettan

Thanks Mike, & OldWelshman - did a fraction longer ride today with a:

12.4 mile loop
318 ft climbing
17.6 mph avg

Admitedly again, the warm-up was part of the ride but instead of going from Home, I parked the car up and started down a slight decline for 1 mile-ish (which had to be climbed at the end) which gave a brief but relaxing start. I've been a bit sceptical about Turbos, but given the amount of positive coverage they're receiving here, I'm going to look into it more.

Mettan

Climbing-wise, a better ride to day (quite windy though):

11.8 miles - loop
618 ft - Ascent
Avg - 15.6 mph

Got off to a reasonable start with a 20.2 mph avg for the first 3.7 miles (very slight decline in parts) - this was pegged back to the final avg via the 618 ft Ascent & wind - that included one repeated Hill (to get as much ascent in as poss) , which was psychological misery (the second time around)