why the training?

bahzob

Herbsman wrote:

I'm sure training with power ensures no wasted training, and completely efficient use of your limited time. But the day I start measuring and analysing instead of just going out and riding is the day I stop cycling just for the fun of it.

A perfectly acceptable POV. But I am afraid one that means you have also opted out of riding to the absolute best in terms of what you are capable of.

Which I am afraid also puts into context any other comments you may make about training.

bahzob

"I do like the techy side of things, and am interested in it, but thus far I've not let it rule my cycling, I do that on feel. But I think many people over complicate things, and I'd say its possible for most people to get to 2nd cat without really taking things too seriously."

Probably not true that most people can get to 2nd cat without taking things too seriously. But say for the sake of argument it is.

Then its probably also the case that, for the exact same amount of time spent training, these same people could get better results once they get to 2nd cat and/or progress to 1st if they trained smarter. Which to me sounds like a bit of a no-brainer. Why bother spending time training for something if you don't want to do it as best you can?

To read some of the views here you would think some people hadn't seen any recent cycling results or don't seem to understand why British cycling is doing so well atm.

TONY.M

bahzob wrote:

To read some of the views here you would think some people hadn't seen any recent cycling results or don't seem to understand why British cycling is doing so well atm.

Completely true bazhob. A decision must be made if you are riding a bike for a bit of fun or to compete seriously. British cycling success would not be possible if they trained in an inappropriate manner in a way and with similar attitudes that many amateurs do out of enjoyment.

Saying that many if not most lower level amateurs might not enjoy or wish to get into the technical and controlled aspects of properly constructed and targeted training, although if they are enjoying cycling the way they are doing and not making a living out of it then all is well whatever they wish to do.

Herbsman

bahzob wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

I'm sure training with power ensures no wasted training, and completely efficient use of your limited time. But the day I start measuring and analysing instead of just going out and riding is the day I stop cycling just for the fun of it.

A perfectly acceptable POV. But I am afraid one that means you have also opted out of riding to the absolute best in terms of what you are capable of.

So what? I'm not being paid to ride my bike, therefore I don't need to take it seriously. It doesn't matter if I don't ever reach the best of my capabilities, and it doesn't matter if I never win a race again, because cycling is a hobby, not a job. I could comfortably spend money on power meter measurement at the moment, but I wouldn't be able to justify it as I have more important things in my life than cycling. I'd rather spend the money on gifts for my loved ones, or a holiday abroad, or things for the house, or just save it for a rainy day.

People seem to be pushing power meters so hard lately, there are people banging on about how you should hire a power meter from them, questioning people's reasons as to why they don't use a power meter, as if it's essential, as if it's the be-all and end-all of cycling. I'm getting sick of hearing about them to be honest, not everyone can afford or justify spending such a large wad of cash on a power meter, and if people are happy to do without one then what's the problem? Other than the fear of being left behind by people who do use one?

Which I am afraid also puts into context any other comments you may make about training.

You'll have to spell it out for me, not quite sure what to make of this :?

jgsi

Herbsman wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

I'm sure training with power ensures no wasted training, and completely efficient use of your limited time. But the day I start measuring and analysing instead of just going out and riding is the day I stop cycling just for the fun of it.

A perfectly acceptable POV. But I am afraid one that means you have also opted out of riding to the absolute best in terms of what you are capable of.

So what? I'm not being paid to ride my bike, therefore I don't need to take it seriously. It doesn't matter if I don't ever reach the best of my capabilities, and it doesn't matter if I never win a race again, because cycling is a hobby, not a job. I could comfortably spend money on power meter measurement at the moment, but I wouldn't be able to justify it as I have more important things in my life than cycling. I'd rather spend the money on gifts for my loved ones, or a holiday abroad, or things for the house, or just save it for a rainy day.

People seem to be pushing power meters so hard lately, there are people banging on about how you should hire a power meter from them, questioning people's reasons as to why they don't use a power meter, as if it's essential, as if it's the be-all and end-all of cycling. I'm getting sick of hearing about them to be honest, not everyone can afford or justify spending such a large wad of cash on a power meter, and if people are happy to do without one then what's the problem? Other than the fear of being left behind by people who do use one?

Which I am afraid also puts into context any other comments you may make about training.

You'll have to spell it out for me, not quite sure what to make of this :?

I wouldnt worry about it, bud.
The guy is obviously going for his coaching badge, or if he isnt, what a waste of rather convoluted postings

t.m.h.n.e.t

I'm surprised wattbikes and pedal technique haven't been mentioned yet

poynedexter

today on a "short" 50 mile run i went up the following hills:

carrowreagh hill, whinney hill, church road, amoung a few others. i didnt need any gadgets to tell me how easy it wasnt. i rode for well over 2 hrs without a sports drink or any gels at risk of collapse but i survived. i call it cycling and used the only pedalling system i know, the left right left one .

dw300

poynedexter wrote:

today on a "short" 50 mile run i went up the following hills:

carrowreagh hill, whinney hill, church road, amoung a few others. i didnt need any gadgets to tell me how easy it wasnt. i rode for well over 2 hrs without a sports drink or any gels at risk of collapse but i survived. i call it cycling and used the only pedalling system i know, the left right left one .

That's 3 steep climbs right there!

okgo

bahzob wrote:

"I do like the techy side of things, and am interested in it, but thus far I've not let it rule my cycling, I do that on feel. But I think many people over complicate things, and I'd say its possible for most people to get to 2nd cat without really taking things too seriously."

Probably not true that most people can get to 2nd cat without taking things too seriously. But say for the sake of argument it is.

Then its probably also the case that, for the exact same amount of time spent training, these same people could get better results once they get to 2nd cat and/or progress to 1st if they trained smarter. Which to me sounds like a bit of a no-brainer. Why bother spending time training for something if you don't want to do it as best you can?

To read some of the views here you would think some people hadn't seen any recent cycling results or don't seem to understand why British cycling is doing so well atm.

Agree, and that is why this off season and indeed next, will be a bit more structured as I do want to get to 1st and think I can get there ability , but I'm just saying, that isn't everyone's goal, as I said, you can ride nearly any race you want as a 2nd cat so for some people that's more than enough. I was chatting to a past national champ TTer who rides a few of the same races I do (he's a 2nd cat) and he says he doesn't bother with 'training' and just races at this level for fun, it obviously helps being known somewhat when getting entry to the bigger races, and obviously his natural talent is obvious, but not everyone in a 70 field in a 2/3 or whatever is that bothered about going up a level

fish156

poynedexter wrote:

my question would be, why are you doing this "training".

Effective training takes physical and mental effort. Ultimately you have to motivate yourself to get off your backside and do the hours, the intensity, etc. All training is stretching you to some degree.

What the OP's numbers give me is some reassurance that what I am doing is potentially effective. If I've doubt in the effectiveness in the training I'm doing, I'll be less motivated to do it and less motivated to do it at an appropriate intensity. The realtime numbers whilst I’m riding allow me to be specific in what training I’m doing.

It’s far easier to be “riding my bike with a few friends and our shiny toys”, but far less effective. Don’t get me wrong though, riding with mates is good for the soul, and good coffee is compulsory in cycling. If I exclusively do this though, I get a kicking in races.

okgo wrote:

I was chatting to a past national champ TTer who rides a few of the same races I do (he's a 2nd cat) and he says he doesn't bother with 'training' and just races at this level for fun, ....

I'd take many strong rider's "oh, I've not been training much" comments with a pinch of salt.

okgo

Well yes, in some cases you have to. But I don't think he has any reason to lie, winning 2/3 races is hardly comparable to his former palmares