Turbo Session v Road miles

Tom Butcher

Chiggy wrote:

The purpose of a turbo trainer is to quantify any improvement in performance. This is done realistically with two O2 and CO2 analysers.

itboffin

After four years of cycling, three years of daily commuting on one particular route I believe I've finally conquered it, I know, why did it take so long? after all it's the same route twice a day for years.

I put it down to a couple of things, firstly I lacked the fitness for a fairly hard (for me) 20 miles 1650 ft ascent each way commute but more importantly I had no structure to my cycling, this is where the turbo came in.

On the road commuting I was just hammering it until there was nothing in the tank, then i'd start going slower and slower until I arrived at my destination, the train station - it's a dumb way to ride but I suspect a lot of commuters do similar (least I hope they do).

Riding on the turbo you need a plan, like going to the gym, 30 min, 1hr - 1.30hr session, x reps @ x cadence sort of thing, there's no doubt this is transferring to my road riding, my riding is smoother, it's feels more controlled, it's faster than ever and I feel fitter.

I'd like to say the turbo will remain part of my training plan when (if) better weather arrives, we'll see ...

P_Tucker

Pokerface wrote:

Please explain to me why I can easily do 3 hours on the road at an average of say 200w, but cannot do 2 hours on the turbo at the same wattage?

Could it be because the power outputs vary on the road (going up hills, resting going downhill, etc) while on the turbo the effort needs to be constant? I agree that the amount of work done and the total amount of power produced, etc is the same - but please explain why it is so much harder to do it on the turbo.

I don't know - I don't have this issue. Unless you have a really crap turbo, I'd guess its a mental thing. If you think its because your intensity varies on the road, then why not vary the intensity on the turbo too? Whack it in the 11, get out of the saddle for 2 minutes and give it a few beans - thats a hill. change up a few gears, spin at 120rpm - thats going down the other side. And so on.

Chiggy

Pokerface wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

x hours at y intensity on the road = x hours at y intensity on the turbo. The end.

Of course this is correct - in the strictest interpretation.

But it's significantly harder (perception-wise?) to maintain the same intensity on the road.

Please explain to me why I can easily do 3 hours on the road at an average of say 200w, but cannot do 2 hours on the turbo at the same wattage?

Could it be because the power outputs vary on the road (going up hills, resting going downhill, etc) while on the turbo the effort needs to be constant? I agree that the amount of work done and the total amount of power produced, etc is the same - but please explain why it is so much harder to do it on the turbo.

200 W is no where near LT. At LT, two things happen. 1/ the obvious; the muscles start working in an anaerobic state and 2/ the adrenal gland excretes its stuff.

Working at a steady 200 W will be in an aerobic condition where fatty acids and CHO are used as energy and DOES not have that necessary oomph to get the adrenal gland going.
At a steady 200 W, an average bloke will tire at about 1 1/2 hours in to the continuous session. This will coincide with a calorific expenditure of about 1100 kCals, which is all of the CHO in the blood, muscle and liver; and some fatty acids. The BONK !

Fluctuating intensities from 130~150 W cruise to >350 W up hills.
The higher intensities will get anaerobic. The muscles will be working in the Lactic region and adrenaline will be produced after a few minutes of >350 W exercise.
Following a couple of two minute >350 W climbs, the 150 W cruises will feel easier because the whole CV system has been stimulated by the higher intensity bursts. The lungs are opened up and the circulatory system flowing nicely.
Also following a couple of two minute >350 W bursts and return to the aerobic state, the body will be now prepared to utilize fatty acids over CHO, breaking down fat to use as energy. The brain subconsciously says "I'll keep the CHO for any more higher power events".
On downhills and freewheeling, the lungs continue to work hard to oxygenate the blood although muscular activity has ceased for a short time.

So timescale is extended by using fat as fuel during the low power parts of a road ride and having adrenaline assistance during high power climbs.

Chiggy

Then again, its easy-peasy to keep a 200 W average all afternoon tucked in behind a JCB.

SBezza

Chiggy

200W for you might not be LT, but that is not the case for all riders, stop talking as if everyone has the capacity to output the same power at the same physical level, they don't.

200W WOULD be OVER LT for my wife without a doubt, but no where near it for me.

I know what Pokerface is on about regarding the turbo, 3 hours on a turbo equals hell to be honest whatever power is produced, 3 hours on the road is easy in comparison. It is mainly a mental issue rather than a physical issue to be honest. I

f you can do 3 hours at 200w, you can do it either at a steady power, or the power will be all over the place, but 3 hours at 200w is 3 hours at 200w. Is that not what NP is for?

Butterd2

Pokerface wrote:

Please explain to me why I can easily do 3 hours on the road at an average of say 200w, but cannot do 2 hours on the turbo at the same wattage?

Because your legs may be strong but your mind is weak <said in a Darth Vader voice>

I have never actually pedalled to a point where I physically cannot turn the cranks one more turn yet I have often cycled to the point where I "have" to stop. Therefore the limit of my performance is determined by my mind and not my legs.

Chiggy

SBezza wrote:

Chiggy

200W for you might not be LT, but that is not the case for all riders, stop talking as if everyone has the capacity to output the same power at the same physical level, they don't.

200W WOULD be OVER LT for my wife without a doubt, but no where near it for me.

I know what Pokerface is on about regarding the turbo, 3 hours on a turbo equals hell to be honest whatever power is produced, 3 hours on the road is easy in comparison. It is mainly a mental issue rather than a physical issue to be honest. I

f you can do 3 hours at 200w, you can do it either at a steady power, or the power will be all over the place, but 3 hours at 200w is 3 hours at 200w. Is that not what NP is for?

I included Pokerface's question as a quotation before my explanation. He asked "Please explain to me why I can easily do 3 hours on the road at an average of say 200w, but cannot do 2 hours on the turbo at the same wattage?" talking about himself in the first person singular. I answered him as he was the questioner.

I wasn't answering your wife, or even you for that matter.

What I should have done, in retrospect, was to PM Pokerface to explain my theories of what happens on the turbo and on the road; and left everyone else in ignorance.

The human body is a wondrous organism, and its brain controls the whole of it. Faced with a high energy demand situation, it adapts to preserve resources for future high energy demand situations. Without presenting any high energy demand situations, like in Pokerface's 200 W turbo scenario, ( not your wife ) it will just carry on and use the energy available until it falls down exhausted.

Chiggy

Butterd2 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

Please explain to me why I can easily do 3 hours on the road at an average of say 200w, but cannot do 2 hours on the turbo at the same wattage?

Because your legs may be strong but your mind is weak <said in a Darth Vader voice>

I have never actually pedalled to a point where I physically cannot turn the cranks one more turn yet I have often cycled to the point where I "have" to stop. Therefore the limit of my performance is determined by my mind and not my legs.

This guy has never 'hit the wall'.....

if your mind gives up first, maybe you should consider selling all your bikes....

Butterd2

Chiggy wrote:

Butterd2 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

Please explain to me why I can easily do 3 hours on the road at an average of say 200w, but cannot do 2 hours on the turbo at the same wattage?

Because your legs may be strong but your mind is weak <said in a Darth Vader voice>

I have never actually pedalled to a point where I physically cannot turn the cranks one more turn yet I have often cycled to the point where I "have" to stop. Therefore the limit of my performance is determined by my mind and not my legs.

This guy has never 'hit the wall'.....

if your mind gives up first, maybe you should consider selling all your bikes....

Well it's felt like the wall at the time but afterwards I'm not so sure. If you have hit this point what happens next the bike just stops and you fall over I assume?

Pokerface

Look - I understand the math and watts and power. I know that 200w @ 2 hours uses the same amount of energy on the road or turbo.

I also know that it's not just a mental thing that makes the turbo seem harder.

Me personally - I can't do out of the saddle efforts on the turbo. Combination of my physical limitations and the limitations of my turbo. I don't have this problem on the road. Maybe this is why a long road spin is easier for me - I can get the watts up with quick out of saddle bursts?

I know there are a lot of bright sparks on here, but I don't understand why my coach (and apparently many others) seem to think that a turbo workout is 'worth' more than a road workout of the same length?

jibberjim

Pokerface wrote:

Look - I understand the math and watts and power. I know that 200w @ 2 hours uses the same amount of energy on the road or turbo.

Not necessarily, your efficiency could be different. But more importantly the nature of fatigue is also different due to inertial and heat differences when cycling indoors.

Pokerface wrote:

I also know that it's not just a mental thing that makes the turbo seem harder.

It's not, cooling is harder, but for many people, the lack of inertia meaning a much larger dead spot in the pedal stroke changes the pedalling dynamics enough that you're having to change your muscle activation. Likely needing either higher or earlier peak forces.

Personally I say it's just a different workout to on the road - you can't say it's worth more or less it'll depend on the workout. The lack of specificity for me would make it less than equivalent watts on the road, but then the lack of adaptation to trainer workouts would likely offset that if you did do the same watts.

Pokerface

jibberjim wrote:

It's not, cooling is harder, but for many people, the lack of inertia meaning a much larger dead spot in the pedal stroke changes the pedalling dynamics enough that you're having to change your muscle activation. Likely needing either higher or earlier peak forces.

Personally I say it's just a different workout to on the road - you can't say it's worth more or less it'll depend on the workout. The lack of specificity for me would make it less than equivalent watts on the road, but then the lack of adaptation to trainer workouts would likely offset that if you did do the same watts.

Thanks Jim - that more along the lines of an answer I was looking for!

So are you saying that if you do turbo workouts very regularly - your body gets 'used' to them and they become 'easier'? That your body adapts to them?

Chiggy

Does your turbo have a flywheel? Yes, that's the inertia simulation device.

The load simulation device, might be a fan, some magnets, a container of fluid with paddles in it, an Eddy current brake or an AC regenerative dynamometer.

Together,
If you stop pedaling and let the bike freewheel, the rear wheel should slow at the same rate as rolling on a flat road through still air.


What a lot of home turbo trainers don't have is a 'Speed tracking fan' to blow air over the rider in proprtion to the wheel speed. If you do have one of these, 25 Deg C air temperature is the FTP 75 emissions test specification, and the temperature I had to put up with on Triumph Motorcycles' chassis dynamometer.
That thing had a 'base inertia' of 80kg, so needed to electrically simulate 13kg as soon as a speed signal was detected.
The speed transducer was a 3600 bit encoder and was a damned sight more accurate than a bike computer.

jibberjim

Pokerface wrote:

So are you saying that if you do turbo workouts very regularly - your body gets 'used' to them and they become 'easier'? That your body adapts to them?

Yes - you'll likely adapt to the inertial differences such that you return to being limited by your CV and energy systems etc. which will limit you outside rather than muscle activation / strength issues that might happen 'cos of the larger dead spot.

Personally I don't think that is necessarily a great adaptation to make - although of course it will let you focus more on the energy/oxygen systems which will ultimately improve your outdoor cycling. I'd say it's a different exercise but with enough cross over of fitness to be worth doing if there's no alternative.

Chiggy

Go back to the chart on the first page of this thread. It's from Dave Wilson's book 'Bicycling Science'.

Draw a straight line across from 200 W until it is at the time of your turbo session. This represents a one-off continuous turbo session of steady 200 W. Draw a rectangle. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes beyond the line 'Healthy men'.

Now, with your power recording from a road ride which averaged 200 W, plot each individual W vs mins data point, and draw a rectangle. I bet every one doesn't get near the 'Healthy men' line.

Now if you summate all the areas of the many rectangles, it should equal the area of the turbo session rectangle.

On the road ride, every individual data point, and therefore intensity, is lower than the 'healthy men' line BUT on the turbo rectangle, the 90th minute ( and a few before it ) are ABOVE THE LINE, making the turbo session feel more tiring during its last few minutes.

Discuss.

Pokerface

jibberjim wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

So are you saying that if you do turbo workouts very regularly - your body gets 'used' to them and they become 'easier'? That your body adapts to them?

Yes - you'll likely adapt to the inertial differences such that you return to being limited by your CV and energy systems etc. which will limit you outside rather than muscle activation / strength issues that might happen 'cos of the larger dead spot.

Personally I don't think that is necessarily a great adaptation to make - although of course it will let you focus more on the energy/oxygen systems which will ultimately improve your outdoor cycling. I'd say it's a different exercise but with enough cross over of fitness to be worth doing if there's no alternative.

I do find that turbo work ultimately makes me better on the road - and I do tend to do the majority of my workouts outside. But with winter fast approaching and more and more snow clogging up the roads - I see more turbo days in my future!

(But 30 days in Mallorca for training between Jan and March should help alleviate that problem) :oops:

Pokerface

Chiggy - if you can't learn to answer in simple terms and use language that doesn't involve spouting scientific language or stuff you googled off the 'net - everything you say just becomes background noise and is just clogging up the forum.

It adds zero benefit to anyone.

I'm sure that you have some good points to make and some knowledge to add, but if you can't learn to express it in terms that people who don't have PHDs can understand, then don't bother answering.

Chiggy

Pokerface wrote:

Chiggy - if you can't learn to answer in simple terms and use language that doesn't involve spouting scientific language or stuff you googled off the 'net - everything you say just becomes background noise and is just clogging up the forum.

It adds zero benefit to anyone.

I'm sure that you have some good points to make and some knowledge to add, but if you can't learn to express it in terms that people who don't have PHDs can understand, then don't bother answering.

This was a problem on another forum. One person doesn't understand a post and slags off the member who posted it.

There may be some clever 'Lurkers' reading this who are able to pick up on the theory.

There might be some regulars who can understand and are right now contemplating the implications of what I've posted.

Only the administrator has rights to tell a member what he/she can post and what he/she shouldn't post.
My post was cycle training orientated and I thought it was apt for this thread. I'm sorry you can't understand it, but you and I are not the only members of this 'public' forum.

Pokerface

I'm not the first person to express the *opinion* that your posts are difficult to understand. I was *suggesting* that you 'dumb' it down a bit.

I have a Mensa-level IQ with a university education. And I DO understand what you are trying to say in your posts. However - the majority of people who can also understand what you are saying already have the knowledge base for this type of training (ie coaches) so you're not helping them.


The fact that 'you've had this problem on other forums' *might* be a clue to you that simplicity is better. Jim and other coaches manage to get the same information across in such a way that *everyone* can understand and learn from it.

Take it as you will - it's not meant to be a "F.U." to you - just a friendly suggestion. As I said - I'm sure you have some great info to share - but if you can't express it in such a way that everyone understands - why bother posting it?

UpTheWall

Pokerface wrote:

Chiggy - if you can't learn to answer in simple terms and use language that doesn't involve spouting scientific language or stuff you googled off the 'net - everything you say just becomes background noise and is just clogging up the forum.

It adds zero benefit to anyone.

I'm sure that you have some good points to make and some knowledge to add, but if you can't learn to express it in terms that people who don't have PHDs can understand, then don't bother answering.

Unnecessary negativity man. Less rudeness makes the world a better place.

I'm enjoying reading these erudite posts. not at all logorrheic.

Chiggy - thanks for adding your perspective.

amaferanga

I don't think Chiggy has written much that is of benefit from a training point of view. But that's just my opinion. If he continues posting I'll continue to skim read his posts and quickly move on to the posts by knowledgeable individuals with the ability to get ideas across coherently.

Btw Chiggy - are you that Jim guy on Cycle Chat? You do sound awfully similar....

Chiggy

OK, I'll put it simply.

On a turbo, the session is a condensed, continual one off effort and can exhaust and fatigue quickly.
On the road it's broken up into segments of high and low effort. The low effort segments can allow the body to recover and prepare for the next high effort segment.

In my experience, I can perform low and high equal length intervals for longer than one continuous exertion of the mid-range effort.

chalford

have been following this with interest, comparin road and turbo, lots of variables here , ive found from bein on the road and downloading my power tap data,from a 2hr ride you freewheel , theres junctions,and so on . compare that to a two hour ride on turbo , its constant effort, no freewheeling or stoping, outside theres wind gradiant , but working over a set time , the turbo, you get a non interupted 2hrs ride, so yes id say a turbo ride is more than a road ride

mikeeye

UpTheWall wrote:

logorrhoeic

Fabulous word ;-)

Butterd2

chalford wrote:

have been following this with interest, comparin road and turbo, lots of variables here , ive found from bein on the road and downloading my power tap data,from a 2hr ride you freewheel , theres junctions,and so on . compare that to a two hour ride on turbo , its constant effort, no freewheeling or stoping, outside theres wind gradiant , but working over a set time , the turbo, you get a non interupted 2hrs ride, so yes id say a turbo ride is more than a road ride

Ok just to throw a spanner into the works where does road riding on a fixed gear sit? I work my socks off every morning going down Greenwich Park hill, no freewheeling or resting for me.

chalford

id say the same as turbo as pedalling all the time,i use fixie in winter, and you can feel the difference in your legs , compared to riding road bike.

P_Tucker

Pokerface wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

It's not, cooling is harder, but for many people, the lack of inertia meaning a much larger dead spot in the pedal stroke changes the pedalling dynamics enough that you're having to change your muscle activation. Likely needing either higher or earlier peak forces.

Personally I say it's just a different workout to on the road - you can't say it's worth more or less it'll depend on the workout. The lack of specificity for me would make it less than equivalent watts on the road, but then the lack of adaptation to trainer workouts would likely offset that if you did do the same watts.

Thanks Jim - that more along the lines of an answer I was looking for!

So are you saying that if you do turbo workouts very regularly - your body gets 'used' to them and they become 'easier'? That your body adapts to them?

I'm not saying Jim is wrong, but you'll never learn anything if you wait for someone to post what you currently think then accept it as "the answer".

P_Tucker

Chiggy wrote:

Go back to the chart on the first page of this thread. It's from Dave Wilson's book 'Bicycling Science'.

Draw a straight line across from 200 W until it is at the time of your turbo session. This represents a one-off continuous turbo session of steady 200 W. Draw a rectangle. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes beyond the line 'Healthy men'.

Now, with your power recording from a road ride which averaged 200 W, plot each individual W vs mins data point, and draw a rectangle. I bet every one doesn't get near the 'Healthy men' line.

Now if you summate all the areas of the many rectangles, it should equal the area of the turbo session rectangle.

On the road ride, every individual data point, and therefore intensity, is lower than the 'healthy men' line BUT on the turbo rectangle, the 90th minute ( and a few before it ) are ABOVE THE LINE, making the turbo session feel more tiring during its last few minutes.

Discuss.

So, if I understand this correctly, you are claiming that because on the road you don't hold a constant power, that for some reason you have to split the ride up into sections of the same power, then compare them individually with some random chart and that somehow, because these ride segments are of a different power, they don't add together to produce fatigue?

Taking this to it's logical conclusion, next time I'm doing a 25 and I feel a bit tired with 5 to go, I'll just crank it up by 50 watts. Obviously I'll have a copy of your chart in my back pocket to remnind me that I'm now starting from scratch and I've got at least 10 minutes at this pace before I hit the "healthy man" line.

P_Tucker

Chiggy wrote:

OK, I'll put it simply.

On a turbo, the session is a condensed, continual one off effort and can exhaust and fatigue quickly.
On the road it's broken up into segments of high and low effort. The low effort segments can allow the body to recover and prepare for the next high effort segment.

In my experience, I can perform low and high equal length intervals for longer than one continuous exertion of the mid-range effort.

Lets assume that your FTP is 300w. Riding at 300w for an hour is your absolute limit, by definition. Now try riding 450w for a minute, then 150w for a minute for an hour. You wouldn't last 15 minutes.

For a given average power, the easiest way to achieve it is a constant isopower ride. Any variation makes things more difficult, because you suffer more on the harder bits than you recover on the easy bits i.e. there is not a linear relationship between watts and the physiological responses of the body. Coggan thinks its a 4th power relationship i.e. doubling the power is 16 times as fatiguing for your body (subject to a 30 second "grace period"). Since he's an actual sports scientist with a PhD and stuff, I reckon we listen to him.