Winter miles.....

Lady Venom

I'm a quality over quantity person - seems to work with my running and I apply the same rules to the bike. Lots of progression runs, interval work and the weekly long slow one with some hill reps thrown in. I've been using rollers and whilst I'm not quite at the interval stage I can certainly turn and burn for 30mins at cadences I rarely do on the road. Looking at getting the magnetic resistance unit for my rollers as well so I can throw in some harder hill reps as I'm running out of gears now (can sustain 33mph and it's hard).

Did a good google on winter training for a time stretched person, and a lot of people are suggesting intervals etc. are the way forward. Apparently the fastest iron man bike leg was done by an American who just did intervals/hill reps etc with a couple of 4 hour rides before the race. Long rides are just awful in the winter. I remember last January well - anything over 30mins and I had numb feet and was chilled to the bone and whilst I was warm I remember getting off the bike to try and get feeling back in my arms and legs on more than one occasion. So this winter I'm going hard, fast and varied with the once weekly endurance.

incog24

A winter 'base' is relative to your season goals, so don't generalise about it being rubbish or amazing to do longer distances. If you're only doing 10mile and 25mile TTs, a good base might come from a lot of 2 or 3 x 20 sessions. However, if you're looking to tackle longer 80mile + road races, then you obviously have slightly different demands. Last year I did very little rides over 3hrs, had good form to short TTs and Crits, but awful form in road races. This year I'm looking to do more road races so I'm doing an 80-100 mile day on Sundays. These aren't at a low effort though, training stress is pretty constant between both set ups. Specificity and consistency are the watch words!

SBezza

You don't need to do quality over quantity, you can do both if you have the time. Even when I was doing my 7 hour endurance rides, they were of high quality

To be honest I wouldn't believe personally what a elite athlete says about there training in a mag, they won't give their secrets away so easily IMO. Also as a triathlete his bike work might have been a strong point so worked on his swimming and running more.

I will admit doing long rides in the winter isn't the most pleasant, but there are times when it is warmish over the winter, it isn't freezing everyday.

It all comes down to your aims I suppose, there is no way I would prepare for a year of doing 50 and 100 mile TT's as well as 12 hr TT's, with just interval work, and possibly the occasional longish ride. I know I have to build a solid base if I want the rewards next year. If you are time stretched then your targets are not likely to include such long distance racing, so doing less volume is unlikely to cause as many issues.

Even if you can't stand long rides, I would still get out on the road and do perhaps 2 hours rides at a high tempo level, to help build some base.

freehub

So how do you make say a 130 mile ride good quality? I'm riding to Cumbria and back on Saturday and that's 130 miles, might add an extra 20.

jibberjim

incog24 wrote:

A winter 'base' is relative to your season goals, so don't generalise about it being rubbish or amazing to do longer distances. If you're only doing 10mile and 25mile TTs, a good base might come from a lot of 2 or 3 x 20 sessions. However, if you're looking to tackle longer 80mile + road races, then you obviously have slightly different demands.

I would say quite the opposite - classical periodisation from the general needs of cycling, to the specific needs of the event - would suggest doing 80 mile race simulation rides in winter which sound highly specific to your event isn't really appropriate?

peanut

Lady Venom wrote:

I'm a quality over quantity person -

.

I agree with the maxim (quality over quantity) in theory but to clarify , quality training is always important and I'm sure no-one would disagree about that but not at the expense of sufficient quantity.

.With regard to the quality/ quantity argument I would suggest that any sensible training program needs to assess appropriate mileage at an appropriate qualty.

At the end of the day it is results that matter. If you are training for racing you need to develop a suitable program to suit your lifestyle and time available, which gives you results in the type of racing that you intend to do.

By keeping a training diary you can develop your own specific training program using analysis of previous training and racing results. There are no short cuts.

If you don't know how to construct a program there are plenty of guides and sample templates out there to get you started or alternatively use a personal trainer who has a good racing record .


A suitable program for one individual is not necessarily going to be the best for everybody else. There is probably no 'ideal' for everyone.

SBezza

freehub wrote:

So how do you make say a 130 mile ride good quality? I'm riding to Cumbria and back on Saturday and that's 130 miles, might add an extra 20.

Making sure the vast majority of it is in the right training zone. Don't just do the miles without putting the effort in. If you did the majority of it in your recovery zone, or sub endurance level, then it is is pointless training wise.

SBezza

jibberjim wrote:

incog24 wrote:

A winter 'base' is relative to your season goals, so don't generalise about it being rubbish or amazing to do longer distances. If you're only doing 10mile and 25mile TTs, a good base might come from a lot of 2 or 3 x 20 sessions. However, if you're looking to tackle longer 80mile + road races, then you obviously have slightly different demands.

I would say quite the opposite - classical periodisation from the general needs of cycling, to the specific needs of the event - would suggest doing 80 mile race simulation rides in winter which sound highly specific to your event isn't really appropriate?

But Jim, if you don't do 80 mile rides in the winter, how do you expect to fit them in when racing starts. If you want to be able to last the pace and distance of an 80 mile race, you do really need to get the body used to actually riding this distance.

No doubt that with just 2 hours rides etc, you can do the distance, but can you do the distance comfortably, and this is what you are training for. No point raising your threshold, if you can't translate that to a 3 or 4 hour race.

jibberjim

SBezza wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

incog24 wrote:

A winter 'base' is relative to your season goals, so don't generalise about it being rubbish or amazing to do longer distances. If you're only doing 10mile and 25mile TTs, a good base might come from a lot of 2 or 3 x 20 sessions. However, if you're looking to tackle longer 80mile + road races, then you obviously have slightly different demands.

I would say quite the opposite - classical periodisation from the general needs of cycling, to the specific needs of the event - would suggest doing 80 mile race simulation rides in winter which sound highly specific to your event isn't really appropriate?

But Jim, if you don't do 80 mile rides in the winter, how do you expect to fit them in when racing starts. If you want to be able to last the pace and distance of an 80 mile race, you do really need to get the body used to actually riding this distance.

I didn't comment on if it was sensible training for the event, I commented on the justification that you should do specific event training 6 months before your events - that doesn't follow any of the classical periodisation logic - indeed it's absolutely refuting periodisation and suggesting that appropriate training is the same thing the whole year around.

A classical periodisation would have you bringing specific event needs in the training block immediately preceeding the event - and I think there's plenty of evidence that you can build the endurance to ride for 3-4 hours in a couple of months - so no need to do these until feb or march for a season start in May (assuming you're happy to consider March and April events training events)

For amateurs, it really matters little - you don't need periodisation, you don't really need to do anything but ride hard a lot - you'll get a lot better very easily, in fact I'd say most people get too hung up on training programs and waste time doing stuff - there's certainly no harm whatsoever from not periodising, and doing the 80mile rides now. My problem was purely with the justification that it was somehow necessary and justified by the nature of the events.

The events are so far away in training terms that all you need now is to train to be fit enough to do the specific training near the time. You can get that fitness however you want. Everyone knows what I advocate, but that's mainly 'cos it seems everyone else advocates throwing fitness away in winter...

mclarent

Seems there are two seperate points here:

1. I want to ride long events so my training plan needs to add those miles in at an appropriate time. This is not the same as
2. Aerobic base training:

Think of this type of training as the foundation to a pyramid. The broader the base the taller the pyramid can be built, which is equivalent to how long and hard you can go. Without a wide base the pyramid cannot be very tall.

I just grabbed the first quote I could, but there's lots of web and book references to this.

I'm going to guess that "Mr Record Ironman" or whoever most likely has a huge aerobic base (and is most likely also a genetic freak / supertalented athlete) and therefore can focus on increasing FTP (and the swimming / running equivalent) without having to worry so much about base fitness...

Lady Venom

Very interesting read this thread. I can agree that it's definitely goal specific. For me I'm training for 2x Ironman 70.3s and other tris. My longest ride to date on my bike - 40miles and it took me 2hrs. I regularly ride around 20-30miles on rolling terrain with hills and it has been commented on that I am very strong on my bike - can quite happily do blokes times on the cycle part of a tri course. I got to this from lots of 10 - 15 milers hard over winter and then longer rides throughout the summer. I guess it's what works for each individual snd their goals??

SBezza

Jim, you can do various training rides in the winter, but getting the miles in during winter is normally the easier time, unless you do have alot of hours to spend in the summer, doing harder intervals, and racing. If you only have 8 hours a week to train year round, and you are doing hard intervals, and hard races, where would you find the time to keep this base up/going and recover properly.

I would never advocate dropping threshold/hard tempo rides, but the winter is the easiest time to actually build up the base, there are certain adaptions base training brings on that threshold work will not. Once March arrives, no doubt my endurance volume would drop off, unless I actually stopped racing (or happy to race at a mediocre level whilst tired).

I must admit I am more old school, though the events I generally tackle and the fact I need to be fairly consistent for a 6 month period means a solid base is critical IMO

Mclarent, the 2 are mutally interlocked IMO, you need the aerobic base to be able to complete longer races at your best.

Lady Venom, I am sure as a triathlete you need to think about all aspects of the sport, and hence you wouldn't be able to spend as much time on the bike, as to what might be more ideal. You might be peaking more for specific tri's whereas alot of the people here would be racing all summer without real peaks.

jibberjim

SBezza wrote:

there are certain adaptions base training brings on that threshold work will not.

Please list in physiological terms what these are. People keep stating this, but I have yet to find a single adaptation that is not driven by all aerobic exercise of any aerobic intensity, and all of it driven more at higher intensities. So what is it? What are the changes you get.

SBezza

jibberjim wrote:

SBezza wrote:

there are certain adaptions base training brings on that threshold work will not.

Please list in physiological terms what these are. People keep stating this, but I have yet to find a single adaptation that is not driven by all aerobic exercise of any aerobic intensity, and all of it driven more at higher intensities. So what is it? What are the changes you get.

Not being a physiologist I can't say for certain, just what I have read about is fat utilisation efficiency, mitochondrial density increase, amongst other things.

These may well be achievable at higher levels, but from what I have read not in the same way. Some things require time on the bike, like I said if you can do a 3/4 hour ride at tempo or above regularly then go for it, but normally this mean bring back the intensity a touch.

Bearing in mind your aerobic capacity takes years to plateau, doing 3 or 4 weeks of endurance doesn't quite add up. Even 3 or 4 weeks of aerobic base is eroded pretty quickly once racing.

I guess this is where a qualified coach/physiologist would be able to add specific details.

People keep talking about losing power doing endurance work, that may not be the case in every rider, I done some of my best races on high levels of volume basically endurance rides and tempo rides, we each are different and require different training to elicit the required training effects.

ride_whenever

If you want to be fast come the summer you need to train fast. If you've not got a load where overtraining is an issue then you can quite happily thrash yourself every session until you're strong.

If you're used to training hard then when you're completely knackered in a race then you'll settle to your training intensity.

SBezza

ride_whenever wrote:

If you want to be fast come the summer you need to train fast. If you've not got a load where overtraining is an issue then you can quite happily thrash yourself every session until you're strong.

If you're used to training hard then when you're completely knackered in a race then you'll settle to your training intensity.

Sorry that is just rubbish, I don't train near the speed I race, and yet it doesn't slow me down, and I am not a slow rider when racing

Alot of racing is mentality and is another thread alone.

ride_whenever

That's not what I said, I said you need to train hard. The physiological adaptations come from doing something repeatedly, and the only sensible reason to lower your training intensity is to allow you to train more often.

As for your experience, how do you know you wont be faster? Take a season and try it you might well be pleasantly surprised.


Alternatively consider this, who progresses most in the season, the guy who rides with the same people he did last season at the same sort of pace or the newcomer who is struggling come the start of the season. The only way to get faster is by riding faster.

jibberjim

SBezza wrote:

Sorry that is just rubbish, I don't train near the speed I race, and yet it doesn't slow me down, and I am not a slow rider when racing

Yes, that's rubbish, there's a lot of ways to build the fitness and you certainly don't need to be as fast - although TTing and speeds are a little unfair to combine - all the gear adds a lot of speed that you won't have in training even if the watts are the same!

jibberjim

SBezza wrote:

Bearing in mind your aerobic capacity takes years to plateau, doing 3 or 4 weeks of endurance doesn't quite add up. Even 3 or 4 weeks of aerobic base is eroded pretty quickly once racing.

Except it's not... Unless you drastically reduce your load once racing - which is what a lot of people do - although I've no idea why but that's why there's a reduction, not because racing somehow destroys aerobic fitness.

SBezza wrote:

I guess this is where a qualified coach/physiologist would be able to add specific details.

I've yet to find one who says anything but the vague terms you spoke about (and as you said those are also built at higher intensities) I really want to find out what the benefits are. Of course if you increase load by increasing volume with these long rides then that's a good thing. The biggest problem with comparing any plans etc. is equalising volume, as I said above racing leads a lot of people to reduce volume - not least because having to travel to the race etc. takes up a lot of time.

SBezza wrote:

People keep talking about losing power doing endurance work, that may not be the case in every rider, I done some of my best races on high levels of volume basically endurance rides and tempo rides, we each are different and require different training to elicit the required training effects.

If you increase volume - you'll do better, I don't think there's any doubt about that in the recreational rider - the only problem comes with people who increase time and decrease volume by doing their riding around a very low intensity and call it winter miles. I'm sure you don't fall into that, but a lot of people do. I also don't assume you'll lose power by continuing to ride hard, I'm just challenging the assumptions here that it's required to do long miles in the winter.

SBezza

Riding faster is only one aspect of racing. I race TT's so it is a pure 100% effort over 20min to 12 hours. Obviously from this you can see you need to have a varied training structure and a well built plan.

You said you need to train fast, and I don't agree, you need to train wisely, and this isn't always fast, not that speed in training is an effective measurement.

I have said you need to do endurance, tempo and threshold work if you want a race season where you can be at least consistent.

I let my coach tell me what to train, and I think I know what works best for me. As to getting faster, I will no doubt get faster over the next couple of years, this year was only my 3rd year of being back on the bike, and only my 2nd year racing.

jibberjim

SBezza wrote:

You said you need to train fast, and I don't agree, you need to train wisely, and this isn't always fast, not that speed in training is an effective measurement.

I've never said you need to train FAST - look above, I just agreed with you about the nutter who said that.

I've actually said training make-up is almost completely irrelevant, it's pretty much all proportional to volume (and partially within that in volume at different intensities).

SBezza

jibberjim wrote:

SBezza wrote:

You said you need to train fast, and I don't agree, you need to train wisely, and this isn't always fast, not that speed in training is an effective measurement.

I've never said you need to train FAST - look above, I just agreed with you about the nutter who said that.

I've actually said training make-up is almost completely irrelevant, it's pretty much all proportional to volume (and partially within that in volume at different intensities).

That wasn't aimed at you Jim. Your reply got posted before mine LOL

mclarent

SBezza wrote:

Mclarent, the 2 are mutally interlocked IMO, you need the aerobic base to be able to complete longer races at your best.

Agreed, but I'm going to argue the toss and point back to my "super ironman" comment...

Anyway, I'll let you two get back to your fight...

irezumi

Just to throw something new in to the mix, everyone goes on about various types of training on the bike.

Dont forget to do some basic body exercises too. Stretching/flexibility, push-ups, sit-ups (core) and pull-ups will help with your overall fitness too.

paddlemyowncanoe

irezumi wrote:

....core....will help with your overall fitness too.

Hey, here'a another chestnut nearly as good as the L2 miles one. Core stability has never been proven to make a jot of difference.

The only positive controlled study I have seen demonstrated reduced lateral lower leg movement (side to side wobble) but no change in power, HR, lactate, RPE or knee pain. (Think of all those negative studies that must have been done and gone unpublished.

walsht1105

paddlemyowncanoe wrote:

irezumi wrote:

....core....will help with your overall fitness too.

Hey, here'a another chestnut nearly as good as the L2 miles one. Core stability has never been proven to make a jot of difference.

The only positive controlled study I have seen demonstrated reduced lateral lower leg movement (side to side wobble) but no change in power, HR, lactate, RPE or knee pain. (Think of all those negative studies that must have been done and gone unpublished.

I disagree with you in regards core strength exercises, since doing Chin ups and Press ups daily and bicep and tricep weight training I have found an improvement in my cycling out of the saddle in two areas:-

1. Just generally holding my weight up while out of the saddle, it takes less effort now my upper body / core is better, where as before I was struggling to stay out of the saddle for 15mins - I was getting achey arms. I'm not a heavy guy at 58kg for 5ft8"
2. When pulling in to the pedal stroke when giving hard / sprint efforts / or going from the standing to seating position - Having a good core really helps this.

these improvements have helped me convert more power for the energy I use.

phreak

paddlemyowncanoe wrote:

irezumi wrote:

....core....will help with your overall fitness too.

Hey, here'a another chestnut nearly as good as the L2 miles one. Core stability has never been proven to make a jot of difference.

The only positive controlled study I have seen demonstrated reduced lateral lower leg movement (side to side wobble) but no change in power, HR, lactate, RPE or knee pain. (Think of all those negative studies that must have been done and gone unpublished.

Plus of course as none of us are pro athletes it would seem healthier if we didn't aspire to look like The Chicken

peanut

before you knock core stability muscle strengthening maybe you should take the time to find out which muscles are involved and what your core muscles actually do! :roll:

Toks

walsht1105 wrote:

paddlemyowncanoe wrote:

irezumi wrote:

....core....will help with your overall fitness too.

Hey, here'a another chestnut nearly as good as the L2 miles one. Core stability has never been proven to make a jot of difference.

The only positive controlled study I have seen demonstrated reduced lateral lower leg movement (side to side wobble) but no change in power, HR, lactate, RPE or knee pain. (Think of all those negative studies that must have been done and gone unpublished.

I disagree with you in regards core strength exercises, since doing Chin ups and Press ups daily and bicep and tricep weight training I have found an improvement in my cycling out of the saddle in two areas:-

1. Just generally holding my weight up while out of the saddle, it takes less effort now my upper body / core is better, where as before I was struggling to stay out of the saddle for 15mins - I was getting achey arms. I'm not a heavy guy at 58kg for 5ft8"
2. When pulling in to the pedal stroke when giving hard / sprint efforts / or going from the standing to seating position - Having a good core really helps this.

these improvements have helped me convert more power for the energy I use.

Nah...I reckon that over time you've simply mastered the skill of 'riding out of the saddle' IOW's your technique and fitness has improved. How can you attribute the improvement to core strength exercise? its not as if you stopped riding your bike completely. Anyways, proven or not, whatever you believe in always works

freehub

SBezza wrote:

freehub wrote:

So how do you make say a 130 mile ride good quality? I'm riding to Cumbria and back on Saturday and that's 130 miles, might add an extra 20.

Making sure the vast majority of it is in the right training zone. Don't just do the miles without putting the effort in. If you did the majority of it in your recovery zone, or sub endurance level, then it is is pointless training wise.

Most 100+ mile rides I'm doing between 140 and 170bpm average, is in-between that a good range?