Pete Read's Black Book training and 2 x 20's

Poulsy

Has anyone followed Pete Read's Black Book and somehow fitted in a 2x20 workout into the schedule?

I know this prob wont be until Feb/March time but I want to try following the Black Book approach for the first time but also want to try 2 x 20's, as I have read good things about the merits of both.

I will be training for a little bit of road racing (crits) and some endurance type riding (MTB Enduros and maybe Sportives).

320DMsport

Hi, i followed it last year, i got gains but once i started racing early in the year it was a real shock to the system.

I think the book was written ten years ago and i'm doing things diff this winter, i'm going to do the 2x20 throughout winter as from what i gather is still working aerobically and all that LSD rides got me very good at riding round slowly.

All trial and error i suppose t find what works for you but riding flat routes steady didn't work to my advantage when it was time to hit the hills, i'e only realised this since pushing myself alot harder and i've made better gains these last two months.

If you have never done any structured training before it will work for you as it did for me, but i don't want to do the same thing 2 winters running to get the same out if you know what i mean.

Poulsy

Thanks for the feedback.

Velke

Anyone know where to get a copy of Pete Read's Black Book?

brownleather

Velke wrote:

Anyone know where to get a copy of Pete Read's Black Book?

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... black+book

Si C

Poulsy, Sorry if this is a minor thread hi-jack...I think it's relevant and didn't want to start another Pete Read Black Book thread.

I started following the Black Book training in October. Infact I spent the first 2 weeks of October practising training at a constant, or relatively tight window of BPM, and carrying out a couple of max HR tests before starting things properly.

2 things bother me. The first is the absolute max I can get my HR to is 172BPM (I'm 43)
I've tested this on the road and turbo and got the same result. My regular 2 riding buddies think it's not high enough and I can't be working to complete exhaustion. I'm pretty sure I have and thats my max. Infact when the 3 of us ride together my HR is much lower than theirs when climbing. Is a low HR a problem? I can be at 160 BPM on the road while one of the guys is going over 200.

The other thing is just my ignorance of training effect. Pete Read suggests 1 ride a week at mid level 1 to low level 2 for 3-3.5 hours. I find this pretty easy, and struggle to keep a tight window of BPM at such low intensity...what benfit's does this ride offer?

pbt150

Si C - your heart is a different size and shape to anyone else's, YOUR maximum heart rate is YOUR maximum heart rate. I can be pushing really hard at 180+ bpm and going at the same speed as a mate of mine who's barely into the 160's. Don't worry about it, especially if you're keeping up with people on hills!

IanPV

Si,

Don't worry about it - my max HR is 175 (and seldom gets above 168, to be honest) and I'm 37. My heart tends to be ticking over at about 130 when others are knocking on 160. It is just an individual difference. You get up the hills at the same speed as your mates, so unless you're much fitter than them and are simply not working as hard, your Max HR is probably right.

320DMsport

Si i echo everybody else.

My max is 198 and the lad i road with this week is late 170's, on the climbs i was upto 180 and he was sat at 170, the diff was i could sustain that rate on long climbs where he said he never see is rate that high climbing.

It's all individual, just work in your own training zones.

I too did the black book, my mate still has Pete as a coach and the longer steady base rides are to train your body to burn more fat as he suggests just drinking plain water on these long rides and builds capiliaries etc and no high heart rate stuff at all.

I too am sceptical about this as when i ramped up the intensity my body had to learn to suffer allover again after LSD rides.

I think Alex made a point on another post, do we need to train our body's to utilise fat burning metabolism when our bodies have been doing this for millions of years....good point i thought.

And another thing the black book is ten years old now and i've seen my mates training plan from Pete for this autumn and i tell you it is completely diff from the black book days, yes one day riding long and steady but not slow the rest is intervals at higher heart rates, a hilly road ride with no heart rate ceiling so i gather things have changed and modern training ideas are very diff.

All IMHO so don't flame me.

Saying that i made gains following the book but i think i could trained diff and less hours to get the same thing.

Alex_Simmons/RST

I can't comment on this book specifically or what it suggests/intends, however I make the following points:

1. Steady rides should not be "easy" or recovery rides. And when terrain varies, well you should expect your effort level to vary as well. One shouldn't fall for the trap of being a "zone drone" every minute of the ride.

2. Capillary density is developed at all aerobic training levels above recovery pace. It is most effectively enhanced by sufficient training at levels that induce VO2max, e.g. multiple hard efforts of 4-6 minutes duration (just in case there was any inference of potential capillary damage by riding hard - which is complete bunkum).

3. Our body already knows how to use fat as a fuel source, just as it already knows how to use carbohydrates. We don't need to train it to do this.

What we need to train is our ability to ride at a higher absolute and relative power levels while still using a relatively high proportion of fats as fuel, which spares our relatively modest glycogen storage for when we need to really go hard.

This is enhanced by riding at all aerobic levels above recovery pace. But it is most effectively enhanced by sufficient training at levels that improve our oxygen delivery capacity, i.e. by riding hard aerobic efforts at and near threshold (TT pace) and also that induce VO2max. While these hard efforts rely predominantly on glycogen, the effect they have on us is to lift our threshold and to enable us to ride at the same sub-maximal intensities while using a higher proprtion of fats as fuel than we did before, or to ride at a higher overall power for the same level of fat utilisation.

This is why higher intensity training is so important for developing our sustainable aerobic and sub-maximal endurance and power. It helps us to go both faster and further, even if our chosen event never requires us to ride anywhere near TT level effort (like e.g. an Ironman bike leg).

inseine

Sorry to take this thread further off topic, but I've started to follow the Balck Book but I'm already doubting it due to the comments here. I agree that the rides do seem almost too easy (but hey, It's November) but on the other hand I'm pretty good up to 3 hours or so and climb/TT OK too, but I crumble in the last part of a 5 hour plus event even if I ride well below threshold. Aren't the longer rides at 75-80% useful for training this aspect?

Poulsy

All hijacks welcome regarding the Black Book and a more modern approach.

Like Inseine, I am starting to doubt whether this is the right thing to follow and if maybe I should stick to the long L2 rides on the weekend but mix it up during the week and work outside L2 with intervals and/or 2 x 20's :?:

Any tips welcome

Si C

Thanks all...that's really useful. Reading the above I am now also doubting the Black Book,
which is not good this time of year, as I need something to believe in fully that will take me up to the first race in March.

The Level 2 stuff feels just right to me. I can keep HR in a 10 beat window on the turbo, and the 2 hour level 2 road ride is reasonably taxing....It's just this long ride at level 1. It feel alien to me to have to crawl up inclines in the lowest gear to try and keep HR at the right level.

I don't know if I should stick with it now I've started, or spend yet more money (just spent a bloody fortune on a new build!) and use the sevices of a pro coach. I have Dave Le Grys quiet near me who comes highly recommended.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Si C wrote:

...It's just this long ride at level 1. It feel alien to me to have to crawl up inclines in the lowest gear to try and keep HR at the right level.

Well it makes no sense whatsoever to do this, even if it were actually possible.

It's a hill, ride up it, HR be damned. It won't kill you

Anonymous

I looked at the black book. I'll not be following it.

I don't have a lot of time to train so I bought the new Carmichael book called something like the Time Crunched Training Plan or similar.

It states from the outset that it is never going to be as good as a training plan for someone who has the hours to put in and also warns about the shorter peaks in performance but to me it looks great.

It is geared towards riders who can only manage about 6 hours a week...

inseine

I'm not here to support the Black Book, but I guess the logic behind riding slowly up the hills (or keeping your heart rate in the same zone as the flat) is that you can complete a long ride (3-3.5 hours) at high level one, which is harder than you think if you really never back off.
Also, we all know that 2x20 etc will make you a lot faster, but do we need to do this in Novemeber if our targets are the Marmotte etc? Maybe it's just a ploy to make you take it easy and it doesn't matter too much what you do as long as it's not too hard.
I thought i might give it a go and give the early season races a miss but be better prepared for some longer summer Sportives.

ut_och_cykla

I have no interest in the black book (not a racer in any shape or form) but I have read it and I do think that the idea of riding slowly etc. should be taken in the context in which it is presented a clear progresion towards a better season next year coming off the back of a racing season that has newly finished.
Clearly LSD where S stands for slow has little or now training effect but it does provide a level of pleasant bike riding after a hard racing season that I'm sure many would appreciate The programme is progressive and you do eventualy increase the intensity of these sessions and also include other much harder sessions every week. So no it wont be for everybody but if your problem is having no idea what to do its probably as good a start as any and better than aimless riding around....or complicated micro programmes.

BeaconRuth

ut_och_cykla is the epitomy of common sense again. A very helpful post IMO.

inseine wrote:

I'm not here to support the Black Book, but I guess the logic behind riding slowly up the hills (or keeping your heart rate in the same zone as the flat) is that you can complete a long ride (3-3.5 hours) at high level one, which is harder than you think if you really never back off.
Also, we all know that 2x20 etc will make you a lot faster, but do we need to do this in Novemeber if our targets are the Marmotte etc? Maybe it's just a ploy to make you take it easy and it doesn't matter too much what you do as long as it's not too hard.

Yup, I'd agree with that. Many newish cyclists who are keen to improve their fitness tend to thrash their way up small hillls or slight drags and I think this comes from an inclination to try to maintain an even speed. More experienced riders tend to be more accepting that their speed will drop on the hills and they 'smooth out' the peaks and troughs of effort so that over the course of a ride their effort is much more even. This kind of difference in riding style is very noticeable if you ride with former racing cyclists who have 30-40 years experience and then, say, go for a ride with some new cyclists who are strong but don't yet have a lot of experience. I'm pretty sure that all Pete Read is trying to get you to do by saying you should stay in Level 1 is to ride a bit more evenly, as a very experienced cyclist would. It needn't be restrictive, but it's just plain good riding IMO.

Ruth

ut_och_cykla

:oops:
thanks Ruth!

inseine

Clearly LSD where S stands for slow

It doeasn't stand for slow, but is a common mistake They are steady rides and 3 hours plus on your own is actually quite tiring.

320DMsport

Everone is different, if i'm doing a 5 hour ride i'll mix up some level 1 ridiing on the flat into low level 2 but if i stayed at level 1 for the entire ride i wouldn't be that taxed but i am used to doing longer events like 10 hour mtb enduro's where the terrain could have you in level 1 one minute then flat out the next.

As i was saying my mate uses pete read and his modern training plan is alot diff for this time of year compared to the black book.

But also if you haven't followed a program or riding aimlessly around like ruth said you will benefit.

It is 10 years old and things change.

320DMsport

Also cheers Alex for the tips, i'm riding more like that this winter and i'm already feeling better after the last 2 months of varied intensity.

greenclaws

I'm trying to follow the Black Book but am a bit confused about the HR zones. My MHR is 204 so my zone numbers look lime this

Level 0 - 133 (55% - 65%)
Level 1 - 153 ( 65% - 75%)
Level 2 - 173 (75% - 85%)
Level 3 - 194 (85% - 95%)
Level 4 - + (95%)

So if I'm doing a 3 hour ride at mid upper level 1 to low level 2 does this mean I should be keeping my HR between 143 -160 approx? Have I got this correct?

ANy help would be much appreciated

inseine

So if I'm doing a 3 hour ride at mid upper level 1 to low level 2 does this mean I should be keeping my HR between 143 -160 approx? Have I got this correct?

I guess it is but I think you've got to go a bit on feel. AFAIK the idea is to ride at a constant an effort as possible without going mad at any point and arrive home 'pleasantly tired' I think he says. He also says that if it's way too easy or too hard then adjust your levels. It's too easy to hammer a climb and then spend 2 miles either waiting for your mates or recovering but I think you have to go outside the zone to get over some hills;

Si C

inseine wrote:

So if I'm doing a 3 hour ride at mid upper level 1 to low level 2 does this mean I should be keeping my HR between 143 -160 approx? Have I got this correct?

I guess it is but I think you've got to go a bit on feel. AFAIK the idea is to ride at a constant an effort as possible without going mad at any point and arrive home 'pleasantly tired' I think he says. He also says that if it's way too easy or too hard then adjust your levels. It's too easy to hammer a climb and then spend 2 miles either waiting for your mates or recovering but I think you have to go outside the zone to get over some hills;

This is the only part of the Black Book that has me questioning what I am doing. Unless you live in the Cambridgeshire Fens I think keeping the HR zone tight on the longer level 1 ride is near on impossible. Pete also says in the book 'Controlled effort can be difficult, but it is vital that you do otherwise the session will be wasted'

I suppose it's how you interpret that line. Does controlled effort mean keeping it consisstant and not worrying about drifting out of your BPM range on hills, or staying tight to the BPM range even if it means granny gears and walking pace?

I suppose this is where books fall down as apposed to paying for a coach...they don't come with a phone line.

Alex_Simmons/RST

To be frank, trying to keep within one limited "zone" is neither practical nor productive. It doesn't reflect real world riding. Power is highly variable, that's normal. Accept that if you live in variable terrain (or do any form of racing) then variable effort is a necessary element of training.

The idea on some days is simply not to attack the hills hard but approach them moderately. But attempting to ride up them in low level zone makes no sense. Unless you are totally cooked and have no choice

Si C

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

To be frank, trying to keep within one limited "zone" is neither practical nor productive. It doesn't reflect real world riding. Power is highly variable, that's normal. Accept that if you live in variable terrain (or do any form of racing) then variable effort is a necessary element of training.

The idea on some days is simply not to attack the hills hard but approach them moderately. But attempting to ride up them in low level zone makes no sense. Unless you are totally cooked and have no choice

Thank you Alex.

I think I'm going to stick with the book, but adapt this longer ride given the advice from you guys.

The turbo sessions and 2 hour level 2 ride feel quiet taxing, and I can control them within the parameters that Pete Read suggests.

320DMsport

That was my problem, kept low HR until end of january and did a sportive in feb and it was a total shock to the system.

Stick with it but be i can't hr rising on climbs is going to harm things.

I did like the power session but will modify it for this winter and i'll be riding using zones to top L3.

LoveVelo

I've just read through the Black Book and there's one key aspect of it that troubles me, and it relates to the definition of heart rate bands. I come from a rowing background and have used a training guide devised by Concept 2, the ergometer manufacturers.

The full guide, which places great store by HR based routines, can be viewed here:

http://concept2.co.uk/training/guide

with the section specifically relating to HR bands here:

http://concept2.co.uk/training/guide?ar ... _intensity

The Concept 2 guide uses a ramp test similar to that described in the Black Book to define MHR, so no difference there, but the means of defining HR bands is quite different. The Black Book arrives defines intensity levels as a simple percentage of MHR, whereas Concept 2 guide bases them on a heart rate range that also uses resting pulse as a factor.

Take as an example an athlete with an MHR of 200bpm and a resting pulse of 40bpm. Subtracting 40 from 200 gives a heart rate range of 160, and it is this figure that is used to define percentage of MHR, by adding a percentage of the range to the resting heart rate. To follow through that example, 85% of MHR would be (0.85x160)+40, giving a figure of 176bpm. This is rather different from the Black Book method which would define the 85% band as simply 0.85x200, ie 170 bpm. The difference is even more marked for less fit athletes. Take an example of a MHR of 170 combined with RHR of 60. 85% by the Concept 2 formula gives a target heart rate of 153.5, whereas Black Book gives a figure of 144.5.

It's fair to say, then, that an 85% HR based workout based on the Concept 2 method of defining heart rate range would feel significantly harder than one using heart rate defined using the Black Book.

Given that the Concept 2 erg is the de-facto standard for indoor rowers – used by pretty much every international rower in their training – and the guide is written by some very respected contributors in that field, I'm inclined to stick with its method for defining training bands. Sorry if this sets the cat among the pigeons!

inseine

Lovevelo, I'm not sure it matters how you arrive at the figures. Maybe if Pete Reed had used the rowing method he'd have knocked 5% of the figures? Everyone seems to have a slightly different way to define the zones (and some of 4, 5 or 6 zones).