Stepping up to the next level.

Tom Butcher

Well presumably there are greater metabolic demands at a higher cadence for a given power - at least at the kind of levels you are working at Trev. Fwiw I have found a similar thing when on the turbo - as an example this week I was doing a 20 minute interval at 310 watts (turbo probably optimistic but as this was the second of two intervals hopefully at least consistent within that 20 minutes !). For the last 5 I thought I'd drop a gear or two and maintain the same power with a higher cadence - heart rate went from ~154 to hovering at or close to 160 (I have a fairly low max).

The key question would be would that mean I could sustain that power for longer at a lower cadence - I don't know I haven't tried it myself and I haven't looked for research on it. All I can say is it felt harder to maintain the higher cadence - I haven't ridden fixed at all in recent years not worked much at high cadences and this was above the level I was used to - perhaps it was simply that my coordination was insufficient to pedal efficiently at that rate ?

Trev The Rev

Tom Butcher wrote:

Well presumably there are greater metabolic demands at a higher cadence for a given power - at least at the kind of levels you are working at Trev. Fwiw I have found a similar thing when on the turbo - as an example this week I was doing a 20 minute interval at 310 watts (turbo probably optimistic but as this was the second of two intervals hopefully at least consistent within that 20 minutes !). For the last 5 I thought I'd drop a gear or two and maintain the same power with a higher cadence - heart rate went from ~154 to hovering at or close to 160 (I have a fairly low max).

The key question would be would that mean I could sustain that power for longer at a lower cadence - I don't know I haven't tried it myself and I haven't looked for research on it. All I can say is it felt harder to maintain the higher cadence - I haven't ridden fixed at all in recent years not worked much at high cadences and this was above the level I was used to - perhaps it was simply that my coordination was insufficient to pedal efficiently at that rate ?

I assume there must be some greater demand somewhere to elicit the higher heart rate..be it neuromuscular difference or metabolic. I assume a higher heart rate must mean increased oxygen consumption yet work rate 312watts was the same. Whichever way you look at it the increased cadence took more out of your heart and lungs but did it take more or less out of your muscles?

Suppose you did 2 x 20 minute sessions at FTP say 312watts, one averaged 154bpm the other 160bpm. Which had the biggest training effect or higher TSS?

dzp1

I ate a ham and lettuce sandwich the other day while training, didn't even stop ! Well it was on the severn bridge bike path ! For quite a while afterwards my HR seemed elevated for the power I was putting out.

Do you think that increased HR caused additional training effect ?

golfergmc

Ric, is MAP your max wattage you can maintain for an hour. I have a FTP of 260 watts so would MAP be the same, btw the calculator is great.

Alex_Simmons/RST

golfergmc wrote:

Ric, is MAP your max wattage you can maintain for an hour. I have a FTP of 260 watts so would MAP be the same, btw the calculator is great.

MAP is defined as the maximal 1-minute average power from an incremental test to exhaustion, with the power demand/output increasing at a linear rate, typically 20 or 25 watts per minute (sometimes 15W/min). What rate is used depends on the level of athlete.

The 1-min max average power typically occurs in the final minute before you "crack" and the test is concluded. Power meter software helps to quickly identify the 1-min maximal average power.

Typically, Functional Threshold Power (FTP - maximal average sustainable quasi-steady state power for about an hour) will be in the range of 72-77% of MAP. Some might be a little higher or lower, but that's a typical range.

If you know your FTP but don't know your MAP and want to use the calculator on our website for power training levels, then as a reasonable starting estimate simply divide FTP by 0.75, and use that as your MAP.

You can read a bit more on MAP testing here:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2006/ ... ccess.html

Herbsman

Different categories of athletes should use a different starting power and different incremental rate of increase in power. Where possible, the rate should be gradual, rather than in large steps of 20 or 25W/min.

Elite athletes (e.g. Cat 1 to Professional level) should use 20W/min
Non-elite men use 25W/min, and
Women use 15W/min.

Why's this?

Not Another Hill

I wanted to do a similar thing a few years back. Got into road cycling from MTB. got fitter. Rode sportives. Then joined a club. This really brought on my speed, fitness and endurance. The next thing I did in order to train to be able to compete in Cat3/4 races and a few local hill climbs was the following:
Old second hand winter bike.
Turbo trainer for the good bike for winter/spring
Joel Friel's Cycling Training Book
HR monitor
Used the method of using average HR over a 20 min sustained effort to get LT (couldn't afford a power meter)
Stuck religiously to a training programme from November to May
The results were massive. Big increase in all aspects of my cycling: speed, endurance and power.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Herbsman wrote:

Different categories of athletes should use a different starting power and different incremental rate of increase in power. Where possible, the rate should be gradual, rather than in large steps of 20 or 25W/min.

Elite athletes (e.g. Cat 1 to Professional level) should use 20W/min
Non-elite men use 25W/min, and
Women use 15W/min.

Why's this?

When the tests were originally devised, they were the protocols adopted and formed the bank of data from which training levels were determined.

Herbsman

Ok I mean if 'it is what it is' just because that was what was decided many years ago then I can't really argue but I just find it odd that non elite men should go up so much more per minute than elite men, but all women should go up by so much less. Doesn't make sense to me :?

cyco2

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

How on earth does resting heart rate equate to improvement?

A lower resting heart rate can be attained by exercise,reduced stress, stop smoking and weight loss. In the case of a VO2 calculation it can be used if attained by say,exercise alone, to an show improvement in the cardiovascular system. Once again I'll say this is not the same as dynamic test and can only be used as an estimate. However, if the same calculation is used consistently then it will show a trend in improvement of the cv system.
If you were to google 'VO2 max calculation' you'll see there are many ways to do it and 'resting heart rate' is only one of the factors to consider. Bearing in mind though that they are only estimates.
When I use the calculation of 15 x ( MHR/RHR) (very simple one to start with)I get a figure of 53 with other calculations on the web I get 55, which as an estimate is ok. It would be nice to have a dynamic test to compare it with but that's never going to happen to me. So, if anybody has had one done and can compare it with a calculation I'd like to hear of it.
.

ric/rstsport

this, simply, is complete rubbish [15 x (MHR/RHR)]. none of these factors can be used to calculate VO2max. MHR is either independent of fitness or tends to decrease with increasing fitness. RHR has nothing to do with VO2max. it's out by over 20% for me. in short it can't be used to calculate VO2max with anymore accuracy than guessing a number between 40 and 90.

ric

Froomes Edgar

64?

Abdoujaparov

Um...93?....Damn!

FWIW I agree completely with Maryka. Trying to persuade someone to give your company £65 for training plans (bet they're not even the good sh*t the pros use ) on an internet forum is pretty low. No advertising please.

Tom Butcher

And just how do you expect sportive riders to cope then ?

imposter2.0

Abdoujaparov wrote:

FWIW I agree completely with Maryka. Trying to persuade someone to give your company £65 for training plans (bet they're not even the good sh*t the pros use ) on an internet forum is pretty low. No advertising please.

maybe you'd like them to stop fielding 90% of all the training-related questions on here as well..?

Froomes Edgar

Imposter wrote:

Abdoujaparov wrote:

FWIW I agree completely with Maryka. Trying to persuade someone to give your company £65 for training plans (bet they're not even the good sh*t the pros use ) on an internet forum is pretty low. No advertising please.

maybe you'd like them to stop fielding 90% of all the training-related questions on here as well..?

Exactly. There are 3 kinds of posters on training forums:

1. People like Ric and Alex, who know the answers and can prove it (c.0.5%)
2. People like me who know the answer but don't have a library of links to back it up (c.2%)
3. People who have absolutely no f**king idea what they're talking about (the remainder)

People in group 2 will get swamped by people in group 3 like the scene in Matrix Reloaded when Neo is fighting a load of agent Smith clones. We NEED people in group 1, and if they want to sell a few training plans of the back of it, then fine with me.

markp80

Froomes Edgar wrote:

We NEED people in group 1, and if they want to sell a few training plans of the back of it, then fine with me.

^ +1 This

MarkP

Tom Dean

+1 with respect to maryka, who I don't think is a '3'.

ric/rstsport

markya isn't a 3. she's a 1 or 2 (i can't recall which).

Tom Butcher

For me the training forum is becoming a bit like the ask Ric show. I'm sure he's a great coach but if people just want coaching advice and pay him for his services ! If you are too tight buy a book or use google !

A forum should be more a place where people discuss their training and share experiences and that doesn't happen when everyone is waiting for what Ric says about it. For all Trev's wind ups (though there was always more noise generated by the people wanting him banned than his own posts) at least he was willing to question things - offer an alternative view. Now he's banned from the forum it's going to get very question and answer like isn't it ?

Not a dig at Ric at all though it's impossible to say the above without it sounding a bit like it is - apologies for that Ric. Of course the majority may well like things just the way they are - for my tastes I prefer a forum to be a conversation (even if it's an ill informed one) than a seminar but others will differ.

imposter2.0

Tom Butcher wrote:

Not a dig at Ric at all though it's impossible to say the above without it sounding a bit like it is - apologies for that Ric. Of course the majority may well like things just the way they are - for my tastes I prefer a forum to be a conversation (even if it's an ill informed one) than a seminar but others will differ.

The trouble with 'ill-informed conversations' is that they will always turn into arguments. I've only been on here a few days, but have been reading the forums on and off for a while longer than that. I personally think that without contributions from the likes of Ric and Alex (or indeed anyone else who is professionally qualified to offer advice on such topics) then these forums would be significantly poorer for it. As was said earlier - you need the 'type 1s' to counteract the 'type 2s and 3s'

ric/rstsport

dunno whether i should be answering this, but

1) i love Trev he's great. i hope he isn't banned. i personally find him infuriating because he adds too much ridiculous stuff to his questions (actually he's better here than he was on the TT forum), but a lot of his questions are great. they're ARE challenging and (sometimes) fun to answer (because they're stimulating). (sometimes though when he goes on about power meters for the millionth time, i'm bored by it)

2) i don't actually post that much here...

3) people should post their experiences here. however, when people ask some questions someone somewhere tends to provide some (psuedo or real) scientific answer. this generates a response(s) and then leads to alex or me (and others) posting something scientific and rebuttal of that then tends to require a scientific/evidence answer rather than an anecdote. it doesn't mean you shouldn't post your anecdote.

4) it's not just Trev that questions the status quo. there was a 'status quo' prior to e.g. myself, alex, others becoming coaches and we challenged that (one of the things i wanted to do was to bring some science to coaching because i was sick of old wives tales that had no real basis). we're constantly looking at new research to see how (if) things are changing but also challenging existing or new research

5) personally, i love reading most/all of the threads here (and elsewhere). i love talking about cycling and the science behind it.

Anyway, Tom, i'm not taking it as a dig. I enjoy posting here, it's fun. it's not a Ric show (i don't post much at all!). everyone should post here

Tom Butcher

Thanks for taking it in the spirit it was meant Ric.

Trev is banned - I think by NickLouse one of the moderators - but for his postings on Brailsford in the ProRace forum rather than anything that has gone on here. No doubt he will now return to winding people up on our club forum (we are in the same cycling club) where I can assure you all he has caused far more upset than he ever has in this place !!

matt-h

well,this has been quite informative and entertaining.

Thanks very much for the responses - even if some were a little off topic :P

I am going to leave the bike fit as i have yet (fingers crossed) to be uncomfortable or have any injuries.
I will also leave the V02 Max testing as this seems to be of little gain in my current abilities.

I will be looking for a second bike as a winter hack and carry on using the turbo trainer

I certainly had no problem with RST offering training plans, and maybe something i could be interested in a little later.
thanks for the info and facts to back up your posts.

I hope Trev wasnt banned because of his post on this thread - that would be terrible :?

Its only a forum, i am unsure as to why people get so wound up

Matt

bernithebiker

Come back Trev, we miss you!

ShutUpLegs

Tom Butcher wrote:

Thanks for taking it in the spirit it was meant Ric.

Trev is banned - I think by NickLouse one of the moderators - but for his postings on Brailsford in the ProRace forum rather than anything that has gone on here. No doubt he will now return to winding people up on our club forum (we are in the same cycling club) where I can assure you all he has caused far more upset than he ever has in this place !!

His Pro Race discussion were interesting, but the forum regulars weren't as welcoming towards him for some reason I'm sure he's ok as a person......

Froomes Edgar

Tom Butcher wrote:

A forum should be more a place where people discuss their training and share experiences and that doesn't happen when everyone is waiting for what Ric says about it. For all Trev's wind ups (though there was always more noise generated by the people wanting him banned than his own posts) at least he was willing to question things - offer an alternative view. Now he's banned from the forum it's going to get very question and answer like isn't it ?

The thing with training queries is that there's often a right answer - and a consensus of idiots doesn't necessarily produce it. What you'd want is for a beginner/improver to come on here and ask the questions we've all asked and get good answers so they can get better (if that's their aim). Unfortunately, without Ric and Alex this wouldn't happen because the numpties who've bought into the latest faddy bolleaux outnumber those who have even a loose grasp of the principles of training for cycling by a factor of about a million

mattshrops

P_Tucker is that you?

Abdoujaparov

Imposter wrote:

Abdoujaparov wrote:

FWIW I agree completely with Maryka. Trying to persuade someone to give your company £65 for training plans (bet they're not even the good sh*t the pros use ) on an internet forum is pretty low. No advertising please.

maybe you'd like them to stop fielding 90% of all the training-related questions on here as well..?

Fair play - must admit I haven't been visiting the training forum for quite a while so didn't know that context. All good

cyco2

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

this, simply, is complete rubbish [15 x (MHR/RHR)]. none of these factors can be used to calculate VO2max. MHR is either independent of fitness or tends to decrease with increasing fitness. RHR has nothing to do with VO2max. it's out by over 20% for me. in short it can't be used to calculate VO2max with anymore accuracy than guessing a number between 40 and 90.ric

I do appreciate what you are saying that the calculated method is not the same as a proper test. Which I have said twice now. But using a mathematical calculation with some sort of exercise to mimic the VO2 test is a way that is suggested by many contributors on the web. Are they all wrong to suggest this?
Also, the resting HR does go down with fitness. I would imagine somebody took a load of data about VO2 test and come up with an equation that nearly fitted the test results. So, what's wrong with that. It's only an estimate.
I personally have found race results to be my meter.