The appliance of science....

briantrumpet

Running round my head is a woolly question that I'm trying to get into pithy form, but so far have failed. It comes from my enjoyment of pushing myself on the bike, and wanting to ride further and faster, but having little appetite for all the clever ways of helping me achieve that (partly because I haven't been doing this riding thing properly for very long, partly because I'm reasonably happy with what I can do currently, and partly because I'm sometimes stubbornly reactionary and take perverse pleasure in achieving things my own antediluvian way).

My 'training' centres on two activities: riding the bike over various distances at varying levels of exertion (but usually with the aim of pushing something during the course of each ride) throughout the year; and swimming at least five days a week, to keep heart & lungs functioning well (again, not at an 'easy' pace). Whether it's cycling or swimming, I am fairly 'driven', and don't really need any exterior motivation to push myself towards my limits.

So, all the things I'm not doing:
specific diets
supplements
club riding
heart-rate monitors & thresholds
cadence monitoring
interval training
and, erm, anything else that vaguely serious riders do.

So my 'woolly question': how much of serious riders' performance is down to the appliance of each/all of these things? It's such a 'woolly question', I don't even know if the answers are quantifiable in any sensible form.

Put another way: could vaguely serious riders imagine they could reach a similar level of performance without all the modern aids and training methods?

Chiggy

If you've got no tech gadgets, but maybe a wristwatch, there's a little test to determine if you've got 'the right stuff'.

Find a nice stretch of road where you can hurtle for 25 miles.

Make a note of the start and where 25 miles is. ( make it a 'there and back' so wind has minimal effect ).

Ride it as fast as you dare, timing the 25 miles.
Work out your average speed.

Compare your speed with some high class 25 TT events.

If you are within 80% of the Cat 1 riders, you have a chance of getting good.

20% off the speed is like 1/3 off the power requirement, and a 50% improvement in Power is a big ask.

I was in this predicament 35 years ago when I could get 75% of the best TT boys speed.
I chose not to compete as I would have been wasting my time. I took a paid job promoting skateboard equipment instead.

Garz

They are merely ways of monitoring your progress so that you can train more wisely or try to improve usually faster.

For your last question absolutely as this was achieved before any modern methods, nutrition and studies were available.

The basic of all basics will to be just get out and ride. If you struggle to adopt anything else then do this and simply enjoy it!

Anonymous

I'm a middle aged asthmatic with two duff legs who only started training a few years ago. If I can win trophies anyone can.

Don't write yourself off by doing silly tests and comparing yourself with the Elite.

It's a combination of-

The right (most efficient within your time frame) training that relates to your goals.
The right nutrition
The right mental attitude.
The rest is genetics.

You don't need to be a 'top guy' to enjoy riding/racing...

briantrumpet

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm a middle aged asthmatic with two duff legs who only started training a few years ago. If I can win trophies anyone can.

And you're obviously very determined. So do you think you could have got anywhere near to where you are without your obviously very organised and rigorous methods and routines?

I'm not going to be daft enough to suggest that using modern methods and gadgets isn't going to help some people in some ways, but I sometimes wonder if some people might ride faster and longer if they, well, just rode faster and longer. I'm a great believer in KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

My only gadget is a cycle computer, and yes, I do use that to set speed/distance goals - then I push my body to achieve them. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

Anonymous

briantrumpet wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm a middle aged asthmatic with two duff legs who only started training a few years ago. If I can win trophies anyone can.

And you're obviously very determined. So do you think you could have got anywhere near to where you are without your obviously very organised and rigorous methods and routines?

I'm not going to be daft enough to suggest that using modern methods and gadgets isn't going to help some people in some ways, but I sometimes wonder if some people might ride faster and longer if they, well, just rode faster and longer. I'm a great believer in KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

My only gadget is a cycle computer, and yes, I do use that to set speed/distance goals - then I push my body to achieve them. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

Everyone is different. I only get about 6-8 hrs a week to train with maybe 1 long ride (over 2 hours) a month. So I need to really ensure my training is as efficient as possible.
It also limits me to shorter races.

I wish I had longer to train but, well, I do what I can!

Pokerface

briantrumpet wrote:

Put another way: could vaguely serious riders imagine they could reach a similar level of performance without all the modern aids and training methods?

Personally - no.


I didn't get remotely good until I stopped 'just riding my bike' and started 'training'.

It helps me to have a power measurement system to help ensure I push myself consistently in the right ways and a coach/training plan to build fitness the 'right' way.

But I don't think I would have seen the improvements I did without some sort of focus.

Chiggy

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm a middle aged asthmatic with two duff legs who only started training a few years ago. If I can win trophies anyone can.

Don't write yourself off by doing silly tests and comparing yourself with the Elite.

It's a combination of-

The right (most efficient within your time frame) training that relates to your goals.
The right nutrition
The right mental attitude.
The rest is genetics.

You don't need to be a 'top guy' to enjoy riding/racing...

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

On a TT bike like yours, what power is required to ride a flat 25 mile simulation at 20 mph average on the turbo?

On the same bike, how much more power is required to get the same distance finished at 25 mph average?

One more question. What was your first 25 mile turbo average speed, and what is it now?

P_Tucker

briantrumpet wrote:

It's such a 'woolly question', I don't even know if the answers are quantifiable in any sensible form.

Since every rider will be answering based on experience of a sample size of 1, you're probably right. Certainly, excellent performance isn't impossible without the latest gizmos and methods - Eddy Merckx would still be an excellent professional rider today. But he probably wouldn't be the best (assuming he didn't update his methods) - modern riders would be able to squeeze an extra couple of percent out of themselves that he couldn't (d0ping aside)

As for how this applies at the beginner level, I have no idea.

Chiggy

P_Tucker wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

It's such a 'woolly question', I don't even know if the answers are quantifiable in any sensible form.

Since every rider will be answering based on experience of a sample size of 1, you're probably right. Certainly, excellent performance isn't impossible without the latest gizmos and methods - Eddy Merckx would still be an excellent professional rider today. But he probably wouldn't be the best (assuming he didn't update his methods) - modern riders would be able to squeeze an extra couple of percent out of themselves that he couldn't (d0ping aside)

As for how this applies at the beginner level, I have no idea.

Are you for real?



Here's David Wilson's chart again with Eddy's 1975 ergometer test labelled quite clearly.

Who do you know can keep 520 Watts for 50 minutes?

Boardman's hour record was pale in comparison.

What's YOUR FTP? Half of Eddy's?

Anonymous

Chiggy wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm a middle aged asthmatic with two duff legs who only started training a few years ago. If I can win trophies anyone can.

Don't write yourself off by doing silly tests and comparing yourself with the Elite.

It's a combination of-

The right (most efficient within your time frame) training that relates to your goals.
The right nutrition
The right mental attitude.
The rest is genetics.

You don't need to be a 'top guy' to enjoy riding/racing...

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

On a TT bike like yours, what power is required to ride a flat 25 mile simulation at 20 mph average on the turbo?

On the same bike, how much more power is required to get the same distance finished at 25 mph average?

One more question. What was your first 25 mile turbo average speed, and what is it now?

The questions aren't relevant and I haven't done those specific tasks.

P_Tucker

Chiggy wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

It's such a 'woolly question', I don't even know if the answers are quantifiable in any sensible form.

Since every rider will be answering based on experience of a sample size of 1, you're probably right. Certainly, excellent performance isn't impossible without the latest gizmos and methods - Eddy Merckx would still be an excellent professional rider today. But he probably wouldn't be the best (assuming he didn't update his methods) - modern riders would be able to squeeze an extra couple of percent out of themselves that he couldn't (d0ping aside)

As for how this applies at the beginner level, I have no idea.

Are you for real?



Here's David Wilson's chart again with Eddy's 1975 ergometer test labelled quite clearly.

Who do you know can keep 520 Watts for 50 minutes?

Boardman's hour record was pale in comparison.

What's YOUR FTP? Half of Eddy's?

Since you love this chart in the way a Welshman loves his sheep, can you explain how the very data point you highlight is above the line labelled "estimate of maximum human output with optimum mechanism"? Kinda renders the whole thing pointless, non?

Pokerface

My turbo doesn't have a speedo. It always goes ZERO mph. Therefore it is impossible to do speed-based training on it.

Anonymous

Hmm. Chiggy posting = thread derailing.

Seems to be a trend.

Apologies to the OP. I shouldn't reply and perpetuate the irrelevance!

Chiggy

quote]

Since you love this chart in the way a Welshman loves his sheep, can you explain how the very data point you highlight is above the line labelled "estimate of maximum human output with optimum mechanism"? Kinda renders the whole thing pointless, non?[/quote]

Eddy WAS a demi God.

Now would you like to hazard a guess how NASA tested umpteen college students, military personel and professional cyclists to generate their curves?
Suprisingly similar methods to the tests you lot are doing on you toys, except NASA used bespoke calibrated cycle ergometers ( cus they were testing to get a specification on who could be an astronaut), not 'consumer electronics' ( it might be right ) mass produced Far Eastern, low tolerance component thingymagigs.

Chiggy

NapoleonD wrote:

Hmm. Chiggy posting = thread derailing.

Seems to be a trend.

Apologies to the OP. I shouldn't reply and perpetuate the irrelevance!

If the OP listened to you, he'd go out and spend a thousand quid and find out in four weeks that he'll never be a competative cyclist.

He could, free of charge, test himself on the road and see how he compares before splashing out the cash.

P_Tucker

Chiggy wrote:

Eddy WAS a demi God.

Now would you like to hazard a guess how NASA tested umpteen college students, military personel and professional cyclists to generate their curves?
Suprisingly similar methods to the tests you lot are doing on you toys, except NASA used bespoke calibrated cycle ergometers ( cus they were testing to get a specification on who could be an astronaut), not 'consumer electronics' ( it might be right ) mass produced Far Eastern, low tolerance component thingymagigs.

Dunno, but I do know my mobile phone has more processing power than, well, 1964. So there's a fair chance they got it wrong.

So, Eddy Merckx's hour record - excellent in it's day, now its held by some relative nomark. Explain that then.

Anonymous

It's happening again folks.

meanredspider

briantrumpet - it's not clear what it is that you are trying to achieve so I'm not sure what, of those things, would help you.

I'm an engineer by training and profession and work in the field of medical science. I believe in measuring lots of things to work out what helps and what doesn't help. Unless you try something and measure the result against the former state, you have no idea if it helped or not. I'm sure, for instance, that diet helps - and, to be honest, that's no real surprise if you have half an understanding of how the body works.

The thing I'm working on most is getting recovery right. I took a week off my 30-mile round trip commute during the summer and was worried about how my riding would be afterwards. It was like I was supercharged: I was faster and actually sought out the longer tougher climb.

Where I do agree with some other posters is around not comparing yourself with others unless you are planning on competing - it's irrelevant and may even be limiting.

Most of all, have fun.

briantrumpet

Chiggy wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Hmm. Chiggy posting = thread derailing.

Seems to be a trend.

Apologies to the OP. I shouldn't reply and perpetuate the irrelevance!

If the OP listened to you, he'd go out and spend a thousand quid and find out in four weeks that he'll never be a competative cyclist.

He could, free of charge, test himself on the road and see how he compares before splashing out the cash.

Er, I think you might be answering a different question from the one I posted.

I was just looking for inidividuals' opinions on how much they think could personally achieve without modern gizmos & methods. Thanks to NapD and Pokerface, in particular, for doing just that.

meanredspider

Chiggy wrote:

If the OP listened to you, he'd go out and spend a thousand quid and find out in four weeks that he'll never be a competative cyclist.
.

But where is it written that's his goal?

briantrumpet

meanredspider wrote:

briantrumpet - it's not clear what it is that you are trying to achieve so I'm not sure what, of those things, would help you.

I'm an engineer by training and profession and work in the field of medical science. I believe in measuring lots of things to work out what helps and what doesn't help..

Re the latter - it won't come as a great surprise from my avatar that I'm a trumpeter & trumpet teacher, and I have noticed that there are two distinct trends especially in America for teaching the trumpet. One 'school' is extremely technically-centred, doing minute analysis of how muscles and body needs to work to produce the sound: the technique is the starting point. The other 'school' dismisses this entirely, saying that the end result will tell the body what to do, and shies away entirely from discussing technique in detail. Fortunately in this country we don't have this polarisation of methods. My own way of working is closer to the latter 'school', but still drawing on the technical side when necessary - too much technical detail draws away from thinking of the activity as an essentially musical one. Hence (I guess) my question. I get out there and ride - but not goal-lessly, and using excellent resources such as this very forum to get ideas from.

Re goals - they are both woolly and specific. Woolly: to be able to ride longer and faster over distance. My specific ones are about my average speeds, and the distances I can maintain them for. I'm not really interested in competing against others: it's myself that I want to beat.

petejuk

Having drive and being able to push oneself without exterior motivations are qualities that will help you massively. There are many riders who are very good through good training techniques but don't have the ability to really hurt themselves. This is a limiting factor. I strongly believe that riding harder and longer will produce excellent results so long as you don't do both on every ride. By simply doing what your body is most receptive to at the time should benefit you greatly. The trick is knowing what type of training your body is most receptive to at any particular given time.

Good luck.

jibberjim

briantrumpet wrote:

Put another way: could vaguely serious riders imagine they could reach a similar level of performance without all the modern aids and training methods?

Of course they could - as you said a lot of people got just as good as todays best without all those things. However one of the reasons for that is that they fall into doing the right things through luck or guesswork, and of course the right thing for them changes over time and differs between individuals anyway. You may well get more out of yourself following that path - or you may do pretty badly as you fall into the wrong things.

Most of what you list are pretty irrelevant anyway - diets make little difference unless your lacking - supplements too although some will make a small difference it's nothing major. Monitoring HR's are unnecessary etc. You say you don't do interval training - but you almost certainly do - you do various distances always pushing something - if you go out and decide to climb a few hills as hard as you can that's interval training. It's no different to say doing 4x8 with 5 minutes rest or some other regimented block.

How much of a difference the things you list might make will depend on what you're doing - if you're doing intervals which work on your limiters and give you a good mix of training just because that's what you do, then going to some regimented plan will often make you worse. But if you're mostly just riding around easily then you'll likely see a lot of improvement. From what you say I don't think you'd see big improvements.

There does seem to be an assumption amoung many that NxY intervals are somehow better than riding hard for Z - but often it's completely identical or worse. The intervals are really just a way of making sure you actually do it.

Garz

The latest gadgets and gizmo's are great as they are readily available to most people. If you don't use them as tool to help (to some this is a steep learning curve) you improve then you could be wasting your time. Apart from hiring a coach the best person to trial if something will work is yourself.

Off-topic: Chiggy, that graph you keep referring to is highlighting "healthy men" "first-class athletes" and then the elite.

Believe it or not when people do their studies and fancy experiments at university standard or higher if they pick professionals to test they often find that the expected results get skewed. This is because they are often freaks (in a nice sense) or taking enhancing substances.

Average Joe who just wants to have fun or compete with like minded folk are merely using these tools and methods to improve. Going to extremes and comparing Merckx to us forum users is severe to say the least.

SBezza

I think you can get pretty close without the gizmos, they can give you that remaining element that is required to be your best though.

I personally think a structured training plan can get a hell of alot out of you, though this generally relies on some gizmos, unless you are very good at working with percieved effort.

Thing is if you are a serious rider (either racing, or going for golds in sportives), you will look to the best tools to get the best performance out of yourself within your budget. I would like a PM, but can't justify the costs currently, so I work with the next best thing, a HRM.

Jibberjim has made some good points, though I will argue that diet plays a very important role, and getting decent nutrition is a must if you want to train hard and recover properly between sessions. I notice a fairly big difference if I resort to not eating properly for a few days, and I am sure NapD will have similar experiences.

meanredspider

jibberjim wrote:

diets make little difference unless your lacking

Err - isn't that kinda obvious? You'll be fine unless you're not.

Eating and drinking correctly is really important to your ability to train the way you want to. I'm not talking about weird concoctions or supplements. But ensuring that your blood sugar levels remain right and you remain properly hydrated is critical, else you aren't going to be able to train anything like effectively.

SteveR_100Milers

[quote="P_Tucker"

Since you love this chart in the way a Welshman loves his sheep, can you explain how the very data point you highlight is above the line labelled "estimate of maximum human output with optimum mechanism"? Kinda renders the whole thing pointless, non?[/quote]

Yep Nap, it's started.... :roll:

briantrumpet

jibberjim wrote:

You say you don't do interval training - but you almost certainly do - you do various distances always pushing something - if you go out and decide to climb a few hills as hard as you can that's interval training.

In truth, I probably do. Sometimes longer rides with some sharp hills in, sometimes one-hour bursts, sometimes flatter rides just to sit in a rhythm. And though it's mostly only commuting at the moment, all the traffic lights give an opportunity to do lots of bursts of acceleration. In the summer, though, probably three one-hourish rides and one or two longer rides a week. A mix, but a largely impromptu one. One ride in twenty or so might be with a friend, so I'm usually setting my own pace/rhythm.

I'd have to admit that the basic cycle computer is a good aid, particularly as it helps me push up hills, as for every mph under my target speed up a hill I know I'll need to balance that with a similar length of time over my target speed by the same amount. It gives me the spur to make it hurt. Basic, but it works for me, at the moment.

Alex_Simmons/RST

There is nothing particularly modern about applying the basic training principles of sustainable progressive overload; a primary focus on improving power output at threshold; and specificity in training.

One does not need any fancy gizmo to do the above.

However, the tools we have available now days to guide, monitor and track how well we are applying those principles have improved significantly, and help to short cut the learning curve for proper application of these principles, and/or highlight the (in)efficiency of one's training time in achieving set objectives.

Most people, for instance, when they start using a power meter, realise how ineffective much of their training actually is, or how much harder they could actually work.

So if you are unsure how to go about it, then some sensible guidance, or a plan and an appropriate tool to assist track/guide you can takes some of the guess work out. It doesn't mean a strict training regime. Indeed that's one of the nice things about it - you can actually work out how to train with a high degree of freedom, yet still apply the fundamental principles.

When training is haphazard, results and progression will also be haphazard. That does not mean that training and the results will be less enjoyable - that really depends on the individual as to what they are satisfied with.

Wheelspinner

@Briantrumpet.

Think of it this way. YOU are a "performance improvement and measurement device" for your trumpet-learning students.

Now ask the question: if your students had sufficient skill to get a noise from a trumpet to start with, and then went and practiced on their own, unguided by you, would they improve to the same level as they might (in the same time) as they would WITH your guidance?

I hope for your sake the answer is "no".