I WAS a Base Training Virgin

richardburch

So i've been reading lots about base training and the benefits. So got myself a half decent HR monitor...set my limits etc.

Went out today and was surprised at how much better the ride was when sticking to between 60-70% of my Max HR. The ride paced so much better, the hills didnt feel as hard and didnt get out of breath.

I've been riding for just over a year now...why didnt I try this earlier!!!!!!!

Hopefully this should be the way forward into becoming more efficient.

Im guessing that most people are doing this? Or am i the only idiot riding along at 16mph!!!!

jibberjim

richardburch wrote:

So i've been reading lots about base training and the benefits. So got myself a half decent HR monitor...set my limits etc.

Went out today and was surprised at how much better the ride was when sticking to between 60-70% of my Max HR. The ride paced so much better, the hills didnt feel as hard and didnt get out of breath.

I've been riding for just over a year now...why didnt I try this earlier!!!!!!!

Hopefully this should be the way forward into becoming more efficient.

Im guessing that most people are doing this? Or am i the only idiot riding along at 16mph!!!!

No, I don't do enough riding to even begin to rack up the volume required to make the low HR stuff build any sort of base, because of that lack of time I build my base with 10 hours of much harder riding.

Of course you didn't get out of breath if you limited your HR to 70% of its max. But then you probably didn't drive as much adaptation as you normally do if that's the aim of your riding.

SBezza

I do alot of endurance riding, though I mainly do nearer the 75% mark. I also do other intensities as well, so do not limit yourself to lower intensity stuff all the time.

Also it depends on how long you ride for, my endurance rides are 4 hours +, less hours means greater intensity.

Another thing, I would class anything up to about 85% of MaxHR as base, just that you can't do 85% for as long as 70% and be recovered for subsequent training sessions.

rock_hopper

Yes, there are a lot of benefits to steady endurance riding, like SBezza I find 75% more beneficial, anything below 70% feels like recovery. With a good endurance base you can maintain a higher pace for longer, cope with higher intensities better and recover quicker.

Jibberjim I believe you can build a good base with 10 hours a week and don't need to do loads of hard riding.

dgstewart

SBezza/rock_hopper, when you guys refer to 75% of MaxHR do you mean a straight 75% or are you using the heart rate reserve ("Karvonen" I believe) formula, i.e. for a max HR of 190 and resting heart rate of 50, are you meaning:

1) simply 75% of 190 = 142.5, or
2) using heart rate reserve: 0.75*(190-50) + 50 = 155?

airbusboy

The what formula.... :? :? ?

I've only recently started doing base miles; initially i aimed for 70% and felt it was FAR too easy, so currently riding at 75% and it feels much better. That's 75% of max in the most simplistic of forms. Surely 10hrs a week is enough to build a good base?

ATB.

jibberjim

rock_hopper wrote:

Jibberjim I believe you can build a good base with 10 hours a week and don't need to do loads of hard riding.

If I did 10 hours at 70% HR which would be a ~0.6 IF power my CTL would drop to 50, given that my normal CTL is in the ~105-120 region all that would do is massively reduce my fitness.

50 CTL is not a good base, it's less than a lot of people get from commuting alone.

DaveyL

I only went above a CTL of 50 for a couple of days last year :oops:

Alex_Simmons/RST

jibberjim wrote:

rock_hopper wrote:

Jibberjim I believe you can build a good base with 10 hours a week and don't need to do loads of hard riding.

If I did 10 hours at 70% HR which would be a ~0.6 IF power my CTL would drop to 50, given that my normal CTL is in the ~105-120 region all that would do is massively reduce my fitness.

50 CTL is not a good base, it's less than a lot of people get from commuting alone.

Your get your CTL to the 105-120 region on 10 hrs/week?

jibberjim

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Your get your CTL to the 105-120 region on 10 hrs/week?

Nope.

airbusboy

Can someone please explain what CTL means... I'm rather confused......

a_n_t

DaveyL wrote:

I only went above a CTL of 50 for a couple of days last year :oops:

My CTL is currently 11.1

I've been ill.

SBezza

If you only have x amount of hours, you don't do all the x amount at 70%. If you can train 10 hours a week, there is nothing wrong with doing 6 to 7 hours at L2/L3 pace and the remainder at higher intensities.

SBezza

dgstewart wrote:

SBezza/rock_hopper, when you guys refer to 75% of MaxHR do you mean a straight 75% or are you using the heart rate reserve ("Karvonen" I believe) formula, i.e. for a max HR of 190 and resting heart rate of 50, are you meaning:

1) simply 75% of 190 = 142.5, or
2) using heart rate reserve: 0.75*(190-50) + 50 = 155?

No it is 75% of my recorded MaxHR pure as that, and it is a guide only.

The Karvonen formula is a frig to get your supposed MaxHR IIRC, but this can be wildly wrong.

twotyred

Im guessing that most people are doing this? Or am i the only idiot riding along at 16mph!!!!

Nope you're not alone, its the way to build an endurance base. However the idea behind taking it easy is to leave yourself enough energy to do the intense workouts as well. If you just do long slow rides you'll just get good at long slow rides.

Alex_Simmons/RST

jibberjim wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Your get your CTL to the 105-120 region on 10 hrs/week?

Nope.

OK, well I don't see the point of your post then.

Clearly you are doing more than 10hrs / week and doing less with limited intensity would lower your training load.

rock_hopper

jibberjim wrote:

rock_hopper wrote:

Jibberjim I believe you can build a good base with 10 hours a week and don't need to do loads of hard riding.

If I did 10 hours at 70% HR which would be a ~0.6 IF power my CTL would drop to 50, given that my normal CTL is in the ~105-120 region all that would do is massively reduce my fitness.

50 CTL is not a good base, it's less than a lot of people get from commuting alone.

Sorry, but...............what???? LOL I'm not a massively scientific self-coach but understand the basics, threshold, intensities, anaerobic but you just totally confused me there!

Would agree again with SBezza, nothing wrong with doing 6-7 hours at L2/3 and the rest at higher intensities.

Now to research CTL!

DaveyL

There's a sticky on this forum which will explain all!

meanredspider

DaveyL wrote:

There's a sticky on this forum which will explain all!

I read that and, TBH, my initial response was what a load of guff. I'm sure it isn't but it does (the way it's described) seem an unbelieveably complicated way of measuring training & rest. Given how different each of us is, I'd have to start out very sceptical that it is actually useful for an amateur rider.

a_n_t

meanredspider wrote:

I read that and, TBH, my initial response was what a load of guff.

Yeah, complete tosh! :shock:

and dont get me started on ATL.

a_n_t

DaveyL wrote:

There's a sticky on this forum which will explain all!

Or try this http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2 ... wko-q.html

rock_hopper

It does seem overly complicated considering I know some very very good riders who have reached a high level on HR and feel. The way I see it, we all have the best in-built training tool, the RPE scale.

meanredspider

a_n_t wrote:

Or try this http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2 ... wko-q.html

Interesting read - especially the admission that it's an art rather than a science right now. I'm always slightly wary of systems that take detailed measurements and lots of "data" only for someone to suck through their teeth and make a judgement.

amaferanga

meanredspider wrote:

a_n_t wrote:

Or try this http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2 ... wko-q.html

Interesting read - especially the admission that it's an art rather than a science right now. I'm always slightly wary of systems that take detailed measurements and lots of "data" only for someone to suck through their teeth and make a judgement.

You take the data and interpret it. How you interpret that data depends on your experience.

Take for example MR imaging (my field). You get a very detailed image with lots of information. But its essentially useless for making a diagnosis without an experienced radiologist.

Same thing. Would you be dubious of the results from an MRI scan as reported by an experienced radiologist?

In training with power the experience and knowing how to interpret the data is obviously key. You can't buy a power meter, go for a ride and expect it to help you much. You need to get experience of using it and spend lots of time reading up on the theory.

meanredspider

amaferanga wrote:

You take the data and interpret it. How you interpret that data depends on your experience.

Take for example MR imaging (my field). You get a very detailed image with lots of information. But its essentially useless for making a diagnosis without an experienced radiologist.

Same thing. Would you be dubious of the results from an MRI scan as reported by an experienced radiologist?

In training with power the experience and knowing how to interpret the data is obviously key. You can't buy a power meter, go for a ride and expect it to help you much. You need to get experience of using it and spend lots of time reading up on the theory.

And yours might be a (near) perfect example. A lot of doctors will admit (usually in private) that medicine is an art. A life-long friend told me that she was told at medical school that half of what they are taught will turn out to be wrong and half of that would actually turn out to be harmful.

I guess I see all of these three-letter acronyms banded about on here and I really wonder if they are helping or hindering folk.

Just healthy scepticism rather than criticism

Dan in Oz

meanredspider wrote:

And yours might be a (near) perfect example. A lot of doctors will admit (usually in private) that medicine is an art. A life-long friend told me that she was told at medical school that half of what they are taught will turn out to be wrong and half of that would actually turn out to be harmful.

That's not unique to medicine though, all scientific knowledge is constantly evolving.

P_Tucker

Dan in Oz wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

And yours might be a (near) perfect example. A lot of doctors will admit (usually in private) that medicine is an art. A life-long friend told me that she was told at medical school that half of what they are taught will turn out to be wrong and half of that would actually turn out to be harmful.

That's not unique to medicine though, all scientific knowledge is constantly evolving.

Indeed. People don't like this though - they want definite answers said with utter confidence.

meanredspider

P_Tucker wrote:

Dan in Oz wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

And yours might be a (near) perfect example. A lot of doctors will admit (usually in private) that medicine is an art. A life-long friend told me that she was told at medical school that half of what they are taught will turn out to be wrong and half of that would actually turn out to be harmful.

That's not unique to medicine though, all scientific knowledge is constantly evolving.

Indeed. People don't like this though - they want definite answers said with utter confidence.

More to the point, people don't like it when it's dressed up as indisputable fact and said with utter confidence. I appreciate the honesty of the blog.

The questions regarding the cross-training (cycling, running & swimming) though, also indicated another flaw - it seemed like they were measuring something with a micrometer (the power meter), a ruler (the Garmin) and a piece of string (the swimming estimate). Again, there's honesty about the limitations - I'm not sure I see that same honesty in other discussions about this technology.

P_Tucker

meanredspider wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Dan in Oz wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

And yours might be a (near) perfect example. A lot of doctors will admit (usually in private) that medicine is an art. A life-long friend told me that she was told at medical school that half of what they are taught will turn out to be wrong and half of that would actually turn out to be harmful.

That's not unique to medicine though, all scientific knowledge is constantly evolving.

Indeed. People don't like this though - they want definite answers said with utter confidence.

More to the point, people don't like it when it's dressed up as indisputable fact and said with utter confidence. I appreciate the honesty of the blog.

Disagree completely - the majority of people want simple, definite answers to everything. It's why religion still exists for a start.

mrlobber

P_Tucker wrote:

Disagree completely - the majority of people want simple, definite answers to everything. It's why religion still exists for a start.

Exactly. Everyone is generally lazy, thus, the more simple and "robust", clearly understandable and easy implementable (such as "just follow the advice of the coach", for instance) solution to any complex problem, which doesn't demand additional thinking, the better.

meanredspider

Sorry - I should have made myself clearer. People want definitive answers but feel cheated when they discover that it was something closer to a guess or find out that the answer was wrong...

I was actually accused, by a consultant, of making him (the consultant) physically ill by constantly challenging his opinion on my son's fever. I had to remind him that I'm the parent of the kid with cancer, he's the doctor and it was him and his staff who were giving me inconsistent and inaccurate answers.