Long low level rides
Comments
-
lochindaal wrote:
From the same test I also got my KCal/hr so on the ramp test I go from 830/hr at 150W to 1300/hr at 400W. I should also say I am 40 and only started cycling 3 years ago. Previously I never did endurance sports so it could relate to me being inneficient on a bike!
Whoa. Are you saying that they told you that you burn 830 calories an hour at 150watts?! :shock:0 -
280W might be on the high side for 1000cal/hr as it assumes ~24% efficiency (I have a feeling I'm around this level). 255W would get you there if you were 22% efficient.SBezza wrote:He didn't say
, I was just saying it is 280W according to Jeff, and if he is a rider that can do sportives at 280W an hour, he can burn that sort of calories.
Now whether he can sustain 280W an hour for the duration of a sportive is another thing. Like you say that is alot of peoples racing wattage.
I do find it funny how people get to 1k an hour based on HRM and the like, I have never got 1k an hour even when racing on my HRM. Like you say only a PM will give you anywhere near accurate information of energy used.
I doubt I could do 280W (average, not normalised) for a full sportive! A 3hr one yes but not for much longer.Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
From what I've read so far I'm guessing that these low level rides can work, but relate ultimately to your cycling goals.
Hopefully, as from Monday, I'll have a go at a winter racing series until Feb then switch my attention to TT for the year with maybe the odd vets RR.
As there seems to be such an extensive fountain of knowledge in this thread, I'd be interested to see if you think my training suits my goals.
My Max HR is 176.
Monday.
1 hour turbo. 4mins@ 20watts less than 20min max test, 1 min @ 100w over 20 min max test x 8 no breaks.
Tuesday off
Wednesday 3-3.5 hours road av HR 132
Thursday 1.5 hours road av HR 150
Fri 1 hour turbo.
3min max 3min off x 8 ( I normally hit 171 HR and recovery is completely off)
Sat off
Sunday 1-1.5 hours turbo top L2 into Low L3.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Si C wrote:1 hour turbo. 4mins@ 20watts less than 20min max test, 1 min @ 100w over 20 min max test x 8 no breaks.
Jesus. Rather you than me
Yeah, is that possible? I'd have thought just doing a hour at 20w less than 20 min max was pretty difficult let alone chucking in the 100w+ bits.
Let us know how you get on?0 -
Si C wrote:1 hour turbo. 4mins@ 20watts less than 20min max test, 1 min @ 100w over 20 min max test x 8 no breaks.
Doubt I could do that. A quick calculation would suggest that for me the average wattage for the session would exceed my 20min max by about 5 Watts*.
How are you measuring power?
* EDIT: corrected lazy calculationsMore problems but still living....0 -
chrisw12 wrote:P_Tucker wrote:Si C wrote:1 hour turbo. 4mins@ 20watts less than 20min max test, 1 min @ 100w over 20 min max test x 8 no breaks.
Jesus. Rather you than me
Yeah, is that possible? I'd have thought just doing a hour at 20w less than 20 min max was pretty difficult let alone chucking in the 100w+ bits.
It would give you 40 minutes at the same average power as your 20 minute test...
So I would suggest that is either an impossible workout, or your 20minute test is not maximal.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
What would it be in xPower terms?jibberjim wrote:It would give you 40 minutes at the same average power as your 20 minute test...
So I would suggest that is either an impossible workout, or your 20minute test is not maximal.
But seriously, when evaluating the feasibility of a prospective workout, using Normalised Power is an excellent means to assess whether or not a planned workout is feasible.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
What would it be in xPower terms?jibberjim wrote:It would give you 40 minutes at the same average power as your 20 minute test...
So I would suggest that is either an impossible workout, or your 20minute test is not maximal.
But seriously, when evaluating the feasibility of a prospective workout, using Normalised Power is an excellent means to assess whether or not a planned workout is feasible.
Yep - although there the AP was enough to say it would be impossible - you wouldn't even need to get out the NP calculation - it wouldn't actually be that much more than AP I think the VI would come out only around 1.02 or so. (e.g. if 20 min test was 300 it would be a 40 minute 300 watt AP with 306 NP)
Still should be impossible.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
jibberjim wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
What would it be in xPower terms?jibberjim wrote:It would give you 40 minutes at the same average power as your 20 minute test...
So I would suggest that is either an impossible workout, or your 20minute test is not maximal.
But seriously, when evaluating the feasibility of a prospective workout, using Normalised Power is an excellent means to assess whether or not a planned workout is feasible.
Yep - although there the AP was enough to say it would be impossible - you wouldn't even need to get out the NP calculation - it wouldn't actually be that much more than AP I think the VI would come out only around 1.02 or so. (e.g. if 20 min test was 300 it would be a 40 minute 300 watt AP with 306 NP)
Still should be impossible.
OK. Your terminology and knowledge has moved way above my understanding. :shock:
This session was given to me by a friend who is a coach and kindly gave me a little help.
Initially has asked me to perform a max test at 30 sec, 1min, 3min, 6 min, 12min and 20 min intervals over a week. (This is on a flow. I know they are inaccurate, but assumed at least they are conssistant)
My 20 max came out at 333watts. So this session for me was based on 310watts for 4 mins with a 1 min interval at 430 watts x 8.
The first week I tried this session I started to tail off at the 5th interval and failed on the 6th. A similar story the second week with a sharp calf spasm and failure at the 6th interval.
I pulled the targets back by 10% the following week and finished it. The week after I pulled back by 5% and finished it. Then managed it the week after this at 100%.
I'm sure that I don't perform this perfectly and struggle to get back to the 310watts straight after the 1 min interval. But i'm guessing thats the whole point...it's meant to be bloody hard!0 -
Jesus (again). Your absolute maximum for 20 mins is apparently 333w (we'll ignore how inaccurate/inconsistent Tacx flows are), yet your coach mate prescribes doing 40 minutes, non-stop at an average of 334w. Don't know about you, but when I finish a 20 min test I struggle to climb off the bike - let alone do another one immediately without even a second's rest.
Furthermore, RE all the VI / NP gumf that's being talked about above - the general gist is that, physiologically the easiest way to deliver a certain average power is in a constant fashion - any jumping around (e.g. a minute at 430w) makes things a lot harder. So although your average for the prescribed workout is 334w, in reality because of said jumping around its actually probably the equivalent of riding at a consistent 340w-345w (based on some hasty estimates) - which is impossible for you because you can only do 333 for 20 minutes.
Even if you could finish, it would be an astonishingly tough workout and you might wish to consider whether you could realistically see yourself doing this week in week out for the next 8 months. You can get most of the adaptions that this workout would deliver with sweetspot training (88% - 94% of 1 hr max - which can be estimated at 95% of your 20 min max) which is mentally much easier to do and physically much easier to recover from - one can easily do consecutive days doing them, whereas I think I'd need about a week off if I tried your workout.0 -
Alex, (anyone feel free as well, please)
I have a question or two Re: Level 1 training.
I started riding more seriously this year. In 2009 I did 1250 kms; 2010 I did 5,500kms.
alomst all of those rides have been hardpaced. No hrm for most of them.
I've felt that my training has been missing long rides becasue I've still not built a decent level of stamina and endurance imo.
There's been hill rides every week; every ride has almost maxed my hr at some point.
All of my rides are with faster riders. It's not been working lately.
I've been doing the 100kms weekend ones at a pace that is friggin hard for me; I recover from them ok but I've had trouble hanging on recently.
I race mtn bikes (I'm pretty young; only 53yo) and want to do road races this year as well and to be blunt I need better fitness, strength, speed and endurance.
So....what type of long rides does one do. I did a "easy" (73% of max hr) the other and was rooted all day. And I'm confused about what's good for me.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Jesus (again). Your absolute maximum for 20 mins is apparently 333w (we'll ignore how inaccurate/inconsistent Tacx flows are), yet your coach mate prescribes doing 40 minutes, non-stop at an average of 334w. Don't know about you, but when I finish a 20 min test I struggle to climb off the bike - let alone do another one immediately without even a second's rest.
Furthermore, RE all the VI / NP gumf that's being talked about above - the general gist is that, physiologically the easiest way to deliver a certain average power is in a constant fashion - any jumping around (e.g. a minute at 430w) makes things a lot harder. So although your average for the prescribed workout is 334w, in reality because of said jumping around its actually probably the equivalent of riding at a consistent 340w-345w (based on some hasty estimates) - which is impossible for you because you can only do 333 for 20 minutes.
Even if you could finish, it would be an astonishingly tough workout and you might wish to consider whether you could realistically see yourself doing this week in week out for the next 8 months. You can get most of the adaptions that this workout would deliver with sweetspot training (88% - 94% of 1 hr max - which can be estimated at 95% of your 20 min max) which is mentally much easier to do and physically much easier to recover from - one can easily do consecutive days doing them, whereas I think I'd need about a week off if I tried your workout.
That is the best answer I've seen you give on the forum yet. In all seriousness, please continue to contribute in the same manner. I actually learned something from that!!0 -
Si C wrote:jibberjim wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
What would it be in xPower terms?jibberjim wrote:It would give you 40 minutes at the same average power as your 20 minute test...
So I would suggest that is either an impossible workout, or your 20minute test is not maximal.
But seriously, when evaluating the feasibility of a prospective workout, using Normalised Power is an excellent means to assess whether or not a planned workout is feasible.
Yep - although there the AP was enough to say it would be impossible - you wouldn't even need to get out the NP calculation - it wouldn't actually be that much more than AP I think the VI would come out only around 1.02 or so. (e.g. if 20 min test was 300 it would be a 40 minute 300 watt AP with 306 NP)
Still should be impossible.
OK. Your terminology and knowledge has moved way above my understanding. :shock:
This session was given to me by a friend who is a coach and kindly gave me a little help.
Initially has asked me to perform a max test at 30 sec, 1min, 3min, 6 min, 12min and 20 min intervals over a week. (This is on a flow. I know they are inaccurate, but assumed at least they are conssistant)
My 20 max came out at 333watts. So this session for me was based on 310watts for 4 mins with a 1 min interval at 430 watts x 8.
The first week I tried this session I started to tail off at the 5th interval and failed on the 6th. A similar story the second week with a sharp calf spasm and failure at the 6th interval.
I pulled the targets back by 10% the following week and finished it. The week after I pulled back by 5% and finished it. Then managed it the week after this at 100%.
I'm sure that I don't perform this perfectly and struggle to get back to the 310watts straight after the 1 min interval. But i'm guessing thats the whole point...it's meant to be bloody hard!
Very worrying! When you say your friend is a coach, are you implying he has coaching qualifications, or just saying he's a 'coach'?
I'm worried as a maths teacher that yet a gain there might be someone who has no understanding of percentages or in this case, some very basic maths. I blame the teachers myself, too many holidays.
0 -
Nice work on riding more and getting into it but (and don't take this the wrong way) 5,500km is only a little over 100km per week on average.ireland57 wrote:So....what type of long rides does one do. I did a "easy" (73% of max hr) the other and was rooted all day. And I'm confused about what's good for me.
So a weekend 100km ride is a big deal for someone that only averages 105km/week and it wouldn't surprise me that it fatigues you significantly.
I mean that's 3-4 hours per week on average. You'll need to train a lot more than that to really see a sizable fitness boost.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Nice work on riding more and getting into it but (and don't take this the wrong way) 5,500km is only a little over 100km per week on average.ireland57 wrote:So....what type of long rides does one do. I did a "easy" (73% of max hr) the other and was rooted all day. And I'm confused about what's good for me.
So a weekend 100km ride is a big deal for someone that only averages 105km/week and it wouldn't surprise me that it fatigues you significantly.
I mean that's 3-4 hours per week on average. You'll need to train a lot more than that to really see a sizable fitness boost.
Alex, I'll take that in good faith thankyou. I want to ride 5 days per week but often need recovery days to let the knees heal because I worked them harder than they can handle.
If I ease back a bit and ride more all should come together?0 -
need recovery days to let the knees heal because I worked them harder than they can handle.
That shouldn't happen unless you're carrying an old injury or some other health problem.
If you're 'maxing out' on most rides I'd suggest you're ging too hard. It takes a while to recover from that and you'd be better trying to ride at a more consistant, but hard, pace for at least some of the rides.0 -
I'm getting paranoid and feelings of insecurity as I don't own a power meter...!
I'm sure it was Ric who said a while back that for most amateurs who have <10 hrs a week the most effective way to improve speed is to ride as hard as you can every ride. I realise that you need recovery periods, and that for me is simply achieved by not riding for 2-3 days (maybe doing a turbo session that is easy like riding rollers). I have been doing several hours a week at the velodrome, most of it is intense; a combination of short anaerobic all out efforts and longer aerobic endurance (so think taking laps, and scratch/devil racing / motorpacing). All I know is that I am faster and leaner at this time of the year ever. I have enough energy to ride two 2 hour sessions in one day, though am well and truly smashed after the last one. I have decided that I was not going to do any long steady riding this winter unless I simply wanted to get outdoors and enjoy the scenery (i.e. not training).
I've done track sessions where we have covered 50+ miles, and am pretty sure I could easily ride double this without too much discomfort, even at *sportive pace*0 -
Steve
I would say if you are having to take 2-3 days off after a session, it is way too hard. I cycle most days of the week, and alot of it is pretty hard, though not very hard.
I know we are all different with regards to recovery, but I do feel having to take a couple of days off it not conducive to a good long term training plan. Surely it is better to ride more frequently, even if this means some sessions are at a slightly easier pace.0 -
SBezza wrote:Steve
I would say if you are having to take 2-3 days off after a session, it is way too hard. I cycle most days of the week, and alot of it is pretty hard, though not very hard.
I know we are all different with regards to recovery, but I do feel having to take a couple of days off it not conducive to a good long term training plan. Surely it is better to ride more frequently, even if this means some sessions are at a slightly easier pace.
I don't take the time off though choice, its because of other / family commitments. Otherwise I'd be riding every day.0
