time or miles

dan man

im hopeing to do a few xc races next year . so trying to get some base miles in on the road im trying to work with hart rate monitor and stay in my base zones of 124 to 144 bpms. dose it matter that im doing my trainng on a mtb bike on the road if i stay in my zone :?: . what s more importent time on bike in zone or miles on bike . think i would get more miles in on a road bike in same time but cant afford one at the minute :?

Pross

Time in zone is time in zone whether road bike, MTB or pedalo! Work on a set time and the miles will follow.

DrKJM

So, when I was watching England get tatered by the French i was training? Cool!

cougie

Have you measured your heart zones by doing a max heart rate test, or just calculated from the 220-your age thing ?

You need to test properly or your levels will probably be wrong.

And cross is fast and furious - so you'll need to get onto doing lots of hard intervals once you have some base.

dan man

thanks .got my max hart rate form hill sprints and intervals on the turbo 193 max hr :? .got the zones from association of british web site :? how much base would i need to do :?: will have to try and get proper training program.sorry this is alll new to me . :?

Chip \'oyler

cadseen wrote:

Forget the zones, just ride the bike, preferably with other riders.

This is crap advice. If the guy intends to race and train properly then training in zones with either HR or Power is a must.

Tom Dean

Quality - 'time in zone'

But, you won't get much benefit from riding at 124-144bpm unless you are doing mega hours each week.

hulla the hulla

agree that sounds too low - when I'm out I regularly sit between 160 and 180bpm and max out at late 180's and to bring that into context I'm 41yrs old

SBezza

Chip \'oyler wrote:

cadseen wrote:

Forget the zones, just ride the bike, preferably with other riders.

This is crap advice. If the guy intends to race and train properly then training in zones with either HR or Power is a must.

+1 on this.

If I went on my fastest club ride, I would spend a huge majority of it in my recovery zone, so would be a pointless ride IMO.

Unless you can ride with others that have similar aims/goals and are of a similar level or even higher than yourself, training with others is not always the best thing to do.

Sure it can help with boredom, but that is all.

I train in zones and haven't done too badly with my racing.

To the OP, training in your endurance zone is OK, but you do need to make sure you are riding for long enough IMO. If for say you only had 2 hours for a ride, I would ride harder than the endurance zone. I would suggest 3 hours minimum at the endurance zone to get the required benefit's.

Chip \'oyler

To the OP = take a look at this article. Some good advice here.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/fitness/a ... sics-28838

meanredspider

Tom Dean wrote:

Quality - 'time in zone'

But, you won't get much benefit from riding at 124-144bpm unless you are doing mega hours each week.

It will develop an increase in mitochondrial and enzyme activity - but it should be mixed with some harder stuff too.

All training at 160-180bpm all the time will do is wear you out. The balance is important - slow (base) days and hard days

meanredspider

Chip \'oyler wrote:

To the OP = take a look at this article. Some good advice here.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/fitness/a ... sics-28838

Spot-on

inseine

This is crap advice. If the guy intends to race and train properly then training in zones with either HR or Power is a must.

Not sure about 'a must'. Sounds like yiou're writing off group riding all togther.
And Hulla the Hulla, not being rude but your stats mean nothing since you don't say you've tried other methods that produced different results.

hulla the hulla

meanredspider wrote:

All training at 160-180bpm all the time will do is wear you out. The balance is important - slow (base) days and hard days

agree, balance is needed - sorry my fault for not explaining. 160-180 is when I'm pushing on. I can sustain for a good period though but understand that this is the high intensity part of my rides.

Tom Dean

meanredspider wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Quality - 'time in zone'

But, you won't get much benefit from riding at 124-144bpm unless you are doing mega hours each week.

It will develop an increase in mitochondrial and enzyme activity - but it should be mixed with some harder stuff too.

All training at 160-180bpm all the time will do is wear you out. The balance is important - slow (base) days and hard days

As I understand it these adaptations are highest around FTP, so working harder = better training. (I am not an expert)

Of course everyone has to find their own balance, depending on how many hours they train and how well they recover.

Chip \'oyler

Tom Dean wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Quality - 'time in zone'

But, you won't get much benefit from riding at 124-144bpm unless you are doing mega hours each week.

It will develop an increase in mitochondrial and enzyme activity - but it should be mixed with some harder stuff too.

All training at 160-180bpm all the time will do is wear you out. The balance is important - slow (base) days and hard days

As I understand it these adaptations are highest around FTP, so working harder = better training. (I am not an expert)

Of course everyone has to find their own balance, depending on how many hours they train and how well they recover.

You've hit the nail on the head. Training to race is all about pushing your body then allowing your body to recover. So I have Recovery rides built into my training schedule - just 45 mins ambling along in a low gear but I treat these just as seriously as other harder days. This is where riding in zones is important. They're not only there to know how hard to batter yourself but also to help you make sure you're not going hard on your recovery rides.

meanredspider

Tom Dean wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Quality - 'time in zone'

But, you won't get much benefit from riding at 124-144bpm unless you are doing mega hours each week.

It will develop an increase in mitochondrial and enzyme activity - but it should be mixed with some harder stuff too.

All training at 160-180bpm all the time will do is wear you out. The balance is important - slow (base) days and hard days

As I understand it these adaptations are highest around FTP, so working harder = better training. (I am not an expert)

What I read (and, yup, there's nothing definitive in this world) is that those adaptations work best at low intensities (as per the article above - "slow is the new fast" or whatever it was..). Your body needs to adapt to burn fat better - you therefore need to train at speeds that you burn fat as a higher percentage of your overall fuelling. You then combine this with your high intensity work. The "beauty" (as I see it) of this approach is that the low intensity work doubles up as recovery

dan man

im cofused lads :? i raced xc last year and got on well in the novis category . i did all my training in the woods and found i was climing really well with my hart rate 175 to185 on hills then free wheeling down hill. the problem i found with this kind of traning was when i raced i could race well and finish but if you asked me do an other lap i would be hard pressed.so this year i want to work on my base training. i dont want to train like a hammer head when mabe i could train clever :?: my limted understanding of zone traing is minus 115 bpm not trainiing. zone one 115 to124 economy 6 hrs spins.zone two moderate 124 to 144 four hrs spin base.zone tree aerobic capacity 2 hrs spins. zone four 157 to 170 race pace 1 hrs spins. zone 5 170 to 180 lactate clearnce 40 min spins. zone 6 180 to 192 intervals 20 min hi intensity. got these zones from the association of british cycling useing my age 32 and my max hr 192 :?

dan man

grate read chip answers all my qustions [/quote]

Chip \'oyler

dan man wrote:

im cofused lads :? i raced xc last year and got on well in the novis category . i did all my training in the woods and found i was climing really well with my hart rate 175 to185 on hills then free wheeling down hill. the problem i found with this kind of traning was when i raced i could race well and finish but if you asked me do an other lap i would be hard pressed.so this year i want to work on my base training. i dont want to train like a hammer head when mabe i could train clever :?: my limted understanding of zone traing is minus 115 bpm not trainiing. zone one 115 to124 economy 6 hrs spins.zone two moderate 124 to 144 four hrs spin base.zone tree aerobic capacity 2 hrs spins. zone four 157 to 170 race pace 1 hrs spins. zone 5 170 to 180 lactate clearnce 40 min spins. zone 6 180 to 192 intervals 20 min hi intensity. got these zones from the association of british cycling useing my age 32 and my max hr 192 :?

If you've worked out your Max HR by the Age equation then DON'T use this as a basis to work out your zones. Everyone is different.

Ideally you need to do a ramp test to find your correct max HR or try a test of your own. Do a bit of research, there are quite a few out DIY tests out there!

SBezza

If you do all your training at high intensity, you will not be doing very many hours a week, and you might struggle to recover properly, depending on how stressful your normal day to day life is. I would struggle to do 10 hours of high intensity stuff a week, and I am a pretty fit rider.

Training is a mixture of intensities, and they all knit together to produce a better performing rider.

I would have thought a rider that can do a mixture of rides for 10 hours, would be a more complete rider than someone that only does 4-5 hours at just higher intensities. As mentioned by Dan Man he raced OK, but would struggle to ride another lap, now that is OK to a degree, but if you are fitter, you will recover very quickly and be able to do another lap without any issues. That comes from endurance training, but you need to mix up the endurance training with higher efforts as well.

Someone that says just do one thing, is not training very clever at all, and certainly not reaching their potential. If you only have 4-5 hours a week to train, you have to train accordingly, but I would try and find more hours in the week to train, to get even better.

neeb

Quick question here - does recovery training need to be on the bike? I'm rather bad at doing long rides at lower intensity, partially because I find it pretty boring, and to some extent because of time constraints (or, rather, not being willing to devote all of my spare time to an activity I don't particularly enjoy). If you are doing 6-8 hours of quality high-intensity riding a week, is there any reason you can't balance that with lower-intensity activity off the bike, e.g. inline skating or even just a lot of brisk walking?

Tom Dean

neeb wrote:

Quick question here - does recovery training need to be on the bike? I'm rather bad at doing long rides at lower intensity, partially because I find it pretty boring, and to some extent because of time constraints (or, rather, not being willing to devote all of my spare time to an activity I don't particularly enjoy). If you are doing 6-8 hours of quality high-intensity riding a week, is there any reason you can't balance that with lower-intensity activity off the bike, e.g. inline skating or even just a lot of brisk walking?

...or lying on the sofa - there may be no reason to do 'recovery training' at all. Some people find a short easy ride helps them to stay fresh. Personally I find it adds to my fatigue and I prefer to take a day off.

A long slow ride is not a recovery ride.

SBezza

neeb wrote:

Quick question here - does recovery training need to be on the bike? I'm rather bad at doing long rides at lower intensity, partially because I find it pretty boring, and to some extent because of time constraints (or, rather, not being willing to devote all of my spare time to an activity I don't particularly enjoy). If you are doing 6-8 hours of quality high-intensity riding a week, is there any reason you can't balance that with lower-intensity activity off the bike, e.g. inline skating or even just a lot of brisk walking?

If you find a short recovery ride boring, then don't do them. To be honest for most people a recovery ride might not even be needed. A recovery ride only needs to be 30 mins to 1 hour, so not alot of time to get bored, and not alot of time out of the schedule.

I will do them if I am doing alot of training, as a day off the bike completely normally means terrible legs in the next session, I find they help but others do them completely wrong and probably find they don't help. Recovery rides are taken very very easy, as as mentioned above a recovery ride is completely different to an endurance ride.

Zoomer37

Recovery rides are good for the legs and the soul.

Nice to just sit up and take the country side in and just spin away for 40 mins. We have cycle path to Bath from Bristol and its perfect for getting over a hard days riding.

neeb

Yes, sorry, conflating recovery rides and endurance rides, I think because I don't do either very well...

The nearest thing to an endurance ride I do might be 60 miles at about 80% of HRmax. I find them pretty knackering and so most of the time do 40-45 mile rides instead at that or a slightly higher average intensity (usually with lots of short hills where I push it up 90-95% HRmax for brief periods). I mix these with 1 - 1.5 hour rides at about 85%+ HRmax. However I find it very difficult to go out on my own and do, say, 80 miles at 70% HRmax or less - I mean I could, I just find it hard to find the motivation (unless it's a club ride where there is a social dimension, but my current location and schedule means I don't get the chance to do those very often).