Really fit = no life?

Wogan

I'm confused, frustrated and demoralised.

I cycle most days. 9 miles to work, 9 miles home. On the weekend, I'll go for a spin round Richmond Park or out to Surrey for 25-35 miles. Compared to the vast majority of people I know, I am very active and relatively fit.

But looking at my sorry standing in the Richmond Park 3-lap challenge, you'd think I was a wheezing, couch-bound slob. I don't understand how I can be so slow compared to others.

The training plans in Cycling Plus and Cycling Weekly require an unrealistic amount of time spent on the bike. I'm already spending 1.5hrs a day on a bike during the week, then 2/2.5hrs at the weekend. Is that not enough??

I suspect the quality of my 'training' might not be up to scratch, so if anyone has any advice on "getting fit for the time-poor" I'd love to hear it.

brownbosh

I do at least 12 hours of quality training a week. Up to 16 hours, plus a 42 hour per week full time job. I still have time for a life, its just a matter of prioritising aspects of life. None of your rides are any real distance. Is that 18 miles taking you 1hr 25 mins? 14.4 mph average? If so its intensity you need to work on.

SBezza

I can do 10 hours + training each week, that will include turbo sessions and weekend rides. Weekend ride will normally be 5 hours plus when doing a club ride, or 2 hours at tempo pace if on my own.

If I was you I would do the 9 miles as fast as possible, as above raise the intensity of the rides you do.

felgen

hmmmm. Got to agree with brownbosh. You need to work on intensity. 9 miles to work should take you under 30 minutes including stoppping for lights if you are really going for it. Set your PB and try to htit it each time and make it really hurt. Judge yourself against others when riding- do you ride road bike or an MTB? I ride a really old MTB but make sure that I am really going hard to work and back (7 miles) I try to keep the commute under 20 minutes including stops which means lots and lots of high intensity intervals between lights and my heart rate skyrockets. I also have a hill in the commute which I really attack hard. As a result I think I have only been passed once in 8 months of commuting and I use other people commuting as hares to catch.

I only get out on the bike once a weekend for about 4 hours riding apart from commuting, and the odd 3 lap challenge (which in itself is good training). I still have improved immeasurably since getting back on a bike 11 months ago. I think one of the regular posters in this section (Alex/RST) says, just go out and ride hard, really, really hard.

chrisw12

The title gives a good question,

In trying to be as cycling fit as possible has meant for me a few sacrifices that could be regarded as loosing some of the fun elements in life. A lot less booze, early nights on the weekends, no curries on racing weekends, having to train whilst on holiday etc

So in a way yes, being fit= no life

Then again it's all about keeping a bit of perspective and making sure the rewards are worth the sacrifices.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Depends on your perspective. Eating better food, feeling healthier and being fit enough to enjoy racing is a better life IMO.

Wogan, you are riding 9-10 hrs/week (based on the numbers quoted). If so then it's about what you do with those 9-10 hours, rather than the volume. You can get very fit on 9-10 hours and many riders would love to have that much time available to ride/train.

Not every ride needs to be hard but some need to be harder than others (if you want fitness to improve).

felgen

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Depends on your perspective. Eating better food, feeling healthier and being fit enough to enjoy racing is a better life IMO.

Yeah that too!

Blonde

Depends what you're trying to acheive (and what you are starting with!) . Think about what you mean by"really fit", what it is you want to be able to do, then think about how long it might take at your current time committment to get to that stage - or indeed IF it is possible to get to that stage without putting in more hours. If you want to speed your fitness gains up you may need to put in mnore hours. It does take years though for you body to adapt enought to cycling to the extent that you can have three or four weeks off and then come back and ride say 125 miles in under 9 hours with relative ease, or 4-5 Alpine cols in a day. Doing longer rides makes you better at doing longer rides and the kind of endurance that builds up over the years stays with you long after you have stopped doing those long rides - it has stood me in good stead for some types of track racing events as I have more endurance than many of the other riders who don't ride on the road, and I can keep going - I cannot really sprint though, so I don't do the shorter events!
If it's speed over short distances you're looking for, or even explosive sprints, for rather than endurance, you can see an increase in average speed or in power output quite quickly with some structured training, but that's not the whole measure of fitness and may also dissapear equally quickly should you take time off from training, as you won't have much of an endurance base. You need to decide what it is you mean by fitness, what you (realistically) want to acheive, how long you've got to do it (weeks, months, years) and how many hours per week you can commit to training, then look for, or build your own training plan that is specific to those requirements.

Blonde

I should have also said that regarding life - what else do you want/need to fit in around cycling? At the moment I have no other committments except working full time and spending time with my partner. I don't have children or aged parents to look after. This will of course change, so I know I will have to adapt my cycling to fit round that. This is partly why I have taken up track cycling. The time committment is 2 hours, twice a week (plus daily 26 mile commute), rather than road cycliing for 8-10 hours every Sunday (at the moment I still do both, but this will change). Everyone has to choose a type of cycling that they can fit around other committments. If you have a young family, chances are you won't be cycling Lands End to John O Groats any time soon, but it doesn't mean you can't do 10 mile TTs or track racing!

inseine

I never ride more than 7 hours a week, but I want to ride at a reasonible level so I have make sure achieve something in most sessions. I don't think that I personally would be much better if I spent a lot longer on the bike, but then I feel I need the recovery days.
I can't expect to get a good time in a sportive with this amount of time, but I can get round longer events though mainly I stick to shorter faster races.

Bhima

I do 5 days a week, 5 hours a day. Not got a busy UNI schedule and am self-employed working nights so can afford to do loads of cycling!

I see two problems for you:

Lack of time = no long distance work
- Do you watch much TV or have random slots of 20 minutes where you're not doing much round the house? Get a turbo trainer and get on it during these times.
- Get up very early, maybe only 1 day a week to start off with, and go out for a few hours before work or whatever.

1.5hrs for 18miles at 12mph average = intensity needs to be higher
- Try and do your commute faster, simple!


...and, yes, all the pro-riders spend 4-7hrs every day out on the bike. They don't have lives! :shock:

fuzzynavel

inseine wrote:

I never ride more than 7 hours a week, but I want to ride at a reasonible level so I have make sure achieve something in most sessions. I don't think that I personally would be much better if I spent a lot longer on the bike, but then I feel I need the recovery days.
I can't expect to get a good time in a sportive with this amount of time, but I can get round longer events though mainly I stick to shorter faster races.

I'm a little like you.

I can only commit 3 hours per week at the moment to cycling due to wanting to actually see my Daughter in the evenings before she goes to bed...also doing lots of overtime at work but that's another story for another day.
During the 3 hours on a Saturday I can cover 50 miles at the moment and I am knocking a few minutes off that every week at the moment with no extra training...apart from managing to get to the gym once a week too for Cardio + weights.
I have no base fitness to build on as I was out of shape for 5 years + after being diagnosed with Arthritis so there is hope for the OP.

As other have said....improvement is possible if you structure the training properly.

mclarent

Bhima wrote:

...and, yes, all the pro-riders spend 4-7hrs every day out on the bike. They don't have lives! :shock:

sounds like a full time job to me...
students... :roll:

inseine

I think that a lot of cyclists do too much, like Bhimas 25 hours a week! It's fine if you enjoy it and it doesn't mean that you are neglecting other people in your life but it's simply not necessary for most of it who ride for pleasure. A lot or guides set too high a target for workload IMO and you just end up riding tired much of the time.
Of course it depends on your goals but riding faster is going to improve your average speed more than riding longer.

Slow1972

Bhima wrote:

...and, yes, all the pro-riders spend 4-7hrs every day out on the bike. They don't have lives! :shock:

Not these days they don't some do but many don't - Rob Hayles interview in CW the other week is a good example of this - he does 2 - 3 hours max. Many more are having complete days off the bike recovering as well rather than pootling about for hours a low intensity.

From my personal experience (as somone just trying to get fitter, not as a coach) I would say intensity of effort in your training is more important than spending lots of time on your bike, particularly if you are "time poor". I have a pretty demanding job hours wise (as a lot of people do) so most of my weekday biking is restricted to my 14 mile e/w commute which I extend one evening a week to about 35 miles. But within that commute I tend to ride at either an easy recovery pace or otherwise at a hard training effort - either by doing intervals, spinning or threshold rides etc. This produces far better results for me in terms of improvement than when I was simply chugging into work and back at the same moderate to high effort level day in / day out last year, yet I'm not doing any more mileage or time on the bike.

If anything I'm doing less mileage / time than I did last year (weekend rides have cut down to 3 hours max in one session most weekends instead of the 6-7 I was doing) but I'm quicker. In an ideal world (no job) I'd train more, but in the absence of that imho a quality 8-10 hours a week will beat a lower intensity unstructured 16 hours a week.

Blonde

Bhima wrote:

...and, yes, all the pro-riders spend 4-7hrs every day out on the bike. They don't have lives! :shock:

Of course they have lives. Many have wives/partners and several kids. The definition of a Pro-rider is someone who gets paid for riding. This is their job. I work 8 hours a day 5 days a week - it's the same amount of time. Of course many pro-riders have to go on training camps or races away from their home town and family for weeks at a time, which must be hard for them and their families, but when they're at home it's the same as any other job in terms fo time commitment. Most non-pro riders are trying to fit in their cycling time on top of working full time and that's where the problem lies - now, if only we didn't have to work....

andy_wrx

"Really fit == no life"

I'd agree with that, if "having a life" is what some of the younger ones where I used to work termed it to be
- going-out most nights of the week, drinking so much they threw up the kebabs and pizza they'd eaten earlier, then getting a taxi home at 4am and crawling-in to work ooking like death a few hours later.

That sort of life == not fit at all...

Blonde

Yes but in my opinion that's not a life - that's a waste of time. It depends what your priorities are. If anyone wants to spend time getting pi%%ed and feckin' about, then they're not really all that interested in getting fit - and they're on the wrong forum! It's different if you're talking about the difficilties of balancing the demands of work/family life/sport.

Most cyclists are passionate about the sport for it's own sake as a means of enjoyment, relaxation, escape, and just the pure damned exhilarating feel of it - it's not just about "getting fit".

GyatsoLa

I'd agree that its all about intensity and working it into your daily routine.

There is an interesting short article here about how high intensity training can work:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_n6011850

there are various other regimes around, I'd hate to advise as I'm not a specialist in this.

I know some people who simply add sprints to traffic lights into their commute. Personally, I'm not comfortable pushing hard in traffic, so I get most mornings about an hour earlier than I would normally, and take my fixie to my local park and just do 4-5 hard sprints. When I get home I do a few floor/pilates exercises, and then do my short commute to work. Its not ideal (I don't race), but I do find it makes me much fitter than when I'm just putting in bike time for the sake of it and it just means getting up a little earlier, my evenings are still free.

A few years ago I did have caring responsibilities for my parents - I had to visit hospitals or nursing homes every evening and most weekends, which took up a huge amount of spare time. But I decided to cycle all the time and I worked out little detours on the bike through quiet parks or along segregated cycle routes and I made a point of hammering these sections (I usually took my road or mtb rather than my commuting hack). I found that I actually saved time by doing all my trips by bikes and I stayed pretty fit.

shockedsoshocked

Slow1972 wrote:

Bhima wrote:

...and, yes, all the pro-riders spend 4-7hrs every day out on the bike. They don't have lives! :shock:

Not these days they don't some do but many don't - Rob Hayles interview in CW the other week is a good example of this - he does 2 - 3 hours max.

I wouldn't take much notice of Hayles methods of training.

Slow1972

It was an example that people can train in other ways and be fit, there's lots of pro's and teams that don't spend the same amount of time on their bikes doing very long rides as they used to, not just Rob Hayles. In an ideal world I'd have more quantity to go with the quality, but quantity alone isnt enough and long hours in the saddle does not automatically equate to higher levels of fitness.

If it was, by anology, I could go for longs walks every day and then expect to run the London marathon. Likewise I don't think riding around at 15-17 mph for 6 hours would help me go 20 mph for 3 hours as much as riding for an hour and half at 22 mph will (although it is accepted I probably do need to also ride for that 3 hour duration at times as well).

... and Hayles seems to "get by" on his training regime!

kingstongraham

I don't get huge amounts of cycling done, and my other training (1-2 sessions of swimming, couple of runs) only tends to add up to another 4 hours or so. But what it looks like you are missing might be some intensity. If your ride to work is in London, 9 miles isn't going to be going hard, and a gentle 25-35 miles at the weekend isn't going to be pushing too much either.

(Also, you've only posted one time on the the three laps, set on a sunday afternoon. The next one will be quicker, and that's the only benchmark you should be looking at.)

I'm pretty new to cycling, and am only cycling twice most weeks, but these are a long (for me) ride into Surrey (last week was 100K), plus normally a go at three laps of Richmond Park. I come more from a running background, so these equate to the sessions I tried to never drop when running - one long to work on endurance, and one hard to work on speed. I'd prefer to put in an interval session as well, but never seem to get around to it unless I get the turbo out.

liversedge

For me the impact on the family is the worst part about cycling, esp. at the weekends. During the week its not a problem at all.

doyler78

Bhima wrote:

I do 5 days a week, 5 hours a day. Not got a busy UNI schedule and am self-employed working nights so can afford to do loads of cycling!

1.5hrs for 18miles at 12mph average = intensity needs to be higher
- Try and do your commute faster, simple!

...and, yes, all the pro-riders spend 4-7hrs every day out on the bike. They don't have lives! :shock:

Sorry can't resist this one :twisted: however you said in this thread:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... hlight=250

that you do 250 miles a week so that would mean you have an average of 10mph so does that mean your intensity needs to be higher

Bhima

Sorry if it sounded like I was generalizing ALL pro cyclists. I meant that every pro cyclist i've personally asked comes into the category of 4-7 hours per day and they've all said it's hard to find time to do anything else but cycle.

doyler78 wrote:

Sorry can't resist this one :twisted: however you said in this thread:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... hlight=250

that you do 250 miles a week so that would mean you have an average of 10mph so does that mean your intensity needs to be higher

Clever...! No, I do slower rides some days and really push the boundaries on other days. I do a lot of climbing in the peak district too, which means my average speed can sometimes be 12mph at the end of one day, as opposed to the 20/21mph averages on the "fast" days.

shockedsoshocked

Slow1972 wrote:

... and Hayles seems to "get by" on his training regime!

Must be why BC dropped him like a hot brick!

ride_whenever

In short yes, look at uni level sports, by no means serious, but they basically don't have a social life until after the racing season....

Slow1972

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

Slow1972 wrote:

... and Hayles seems to "get by" on his training regime!

Must be why BC dropped him like a hot brick!

Oh, I thought the reason he didnt make the BC squad is because they've concentrated on taking the younger riders to the worlds as the start of the build-up to 2012, as their success at 2012 is the main determinant on their funding, not the worlds in between. Hayles is 35 so the expectation is he won't be around in 2012 and I understood that was why he wasn't included. BC seemed happy enough to send him off to world cup events to make sure they had enough points to be in madison event at the world championships though and he's been a regular training at the velodrome up until the squad was selected.

But if there's other reasons you "know" why not share them? Or do you just think his training means he's not quick enough to merit a place anymore?

celbianchi

It really is about using time wisely.

Rob Hayles can kick ar$e in pretty much any road race in the Uk week in week out, so if you are genetically suited then 2-3 hours is no problem.

The fastest TT rider in the North East does less than 10 hours per week.

Greg Lemond suggested when he guest edited pro cycling that if he were still racing he would not do any 5+ hours rides as he used to, but would do more intensity for less time.

If you do some decent intensity work and racing is your goal you can do well enough in most UK races on < 10 hours per week.

I certainly subscribe to the theory that 5 hours riding on a Sunday at 15mph is a waste of time for my race training.

mclarent

ride_whenever wrote:

In short yes, look at uni level sports, by no means serious, but they basically don't have a social life until after the racing season....

Maybe they're concentrating on their studies? :shock:

BeaconRuth

celbianchi wrote:

I certainly subscribe to the theory that 5 hours riding on a Sunday at 15mph is a waste of time for my race training.

And would you also consider that 5 hours at, say, 18mph would be a waste of time?

Ruth