Undoing years of poor training?

flanagaj

Hi,

I have been riding for many years, but have always fallen in the trap of going out on 2-3 hr solo / club rides and riding hard. My average heart rate for my rides is always around my AT and I find that trying to do back to back rides at the weekend is always very hard work. Having started reading more into training, I have discovered that a number of articles state that you should spend a good portion of your early periodization in zones 1-2 so that you build a good base for the interval sessions that follow later. For me this is around the 120bpm mark

Well I sat on my turbo for 2hrs yesterday and 2hrs today at average 122bpm and I just about broke a sweat, but did find my legs felt like they had had a work out.

The reason for my post, is that I am keen to get into multi day endurance events / trips where I will be cycling 10/12 hrs per day and want to know whether these very low aerobic training sessions in zones 1/2 will help me with conditioning my body so that it can recover better or am I wasting my time.

Thanks

Royal Dragoon

I think you are missing gthe point somewhat.............

You are not training to help your body recover better, you are training to be able to increase the effort at which you can ride your event at, thus you will still need to recover. Recovery is the time in which the body improves and makes itsekf stronger.

Riding for long periods at low intensity is also as much about helping your body adapt to burning the "right" fuel.

inseine

I think it really depends on how many hours you have to spend on the bike and how you recover ( you mentioned you don't recover too well). If you're riding for 15 hours or more I think these easier efforts might pay off, whereas if you've got less than 10 I think you're better off putting some effort in.

flanagaj

Given that my previous riding has always been at the higher of the scale, I was wondering whether I have never conditioned my body to adapt very well to burning fat and as a result I eat through the glycogen stores quickly and I end up then in a deficit which I am unable to replenish for the next day?

Calpol

I have read quite a lot about this sort of training. ie 50-60% MHR zone long steady riding. Personally I don't believe it to be the a great way of training if like me you have limited time on the bike. I like riding my bike, I like going as fast as I can and far as I can. The more I ride the fitter I get. Thats all. If I stuck to 130bpm then I would hardly be moving and I certainly wouldnt have the gearing to get up anything remotely humpy at that intensity. I totally get that you need the odd recovery ride if you are training a lot but I normally have a days rest so recovery not an issue.

jibberjim

I think you've got a pretty confused idea, you've not explained why you believe your previous training was bad, and you certainly don't understand "base". 2 hours at low heart rate achieves little in isolation, unless you're going to keep doing it every day and build up even more volume (14 hours a week at a low HR is still a low volume for a typical adult)

I'd go back to the beginning and start again by asking what has gone right and what has gone wrong with your training. The fact you find two 3 hour rides at the weekend tough is certainly an indication that you don't train enough to do that, but just replacing your weekend rides with ones at lower intensities reduces your training load rather than increases it making it even harder to complete what you want.

ric/rstsport

flanagaj wrote:

Hi,

I have been riding for many years, but have always fallen in the trap of going out on 2-3 hr solo / club rides and riding hard. My average heart rate for my rides is always around my AT and I find that trying to do back to back rides at the weekend is always very hard work. Having started reading more into training, I have discovered that a number of articles state that you should spend a good portion of your early periodization in zones 1-2 so that you build a good base for the interval sessions that follow later. For me this is around the 120bpm mark

Well I sat on my turbo for 2hrs yesterday and 2hrs today at average 122bpm and I just about broke a sweat, but did find my legs felt like they had had a work out.

The reason for my post, is that I am keen to get into multi day endurance events / trips where I will be cycling 10/12 hrs per day and want to know whether these very low aerobic training sessions in zones 1/2 will help me with conditioning my body so that it can recover better or am I wasting my time.

Thanks

on the face of it, given the limited info, i'd say you're wasting your time if you just ride at low levels of effort. Additionally, the base training you suggest, is a somewhat outdated concept that no longer really passes muster. however, that's not too say that going out and riding maximally for 2 hrs at a time is the best way forward.

There's very few good books on this subject.

flanagaj

Ok, I probably am confused and should maybe seek the assistance of a coach. I have read the "time crunched cyclist" and also read papers on the internet. I would say that there are more articles that say you should start off with a base endurance period in zones 1-2 before you move onto higher intensity training. My plan was to start off with 6hrs a week in this period increasing to 10 hrs before increasing the intensity.

This may all be pointless, but given I am aiming to ride a 7 day mtb transalp in early September I need to sort out my training. My thought process here was that my current 'go out and ride hard' approach will not work as back to back days of this are not doable as I struggle to recover well if I ride for long duration with an average heart rate near my AT of 157. Trouble is, if I go out and ride at 130 bpm I crawl along so slowly that I don't feel I go anywhere.

I appreciate that the old school approach of hours of base training has been challenged by some coaches for individuals limited by time. These new approaches look great, but they all focus on those who either want to kick their pals backside on the Sunday 3 hr club ride or for someone doing a century, but they don't seem to offer any help with those wanting to do a 7 day back to back ride.

Thanks

jibberjim

6 hours a week of zone 2 riding will just reduce the fitness you currently have.

Fitness is very simple until you have a very high fitness, your body adapts to the demands put on it, reduce those demands it detrains, increase those demands it trains. If you do too much for your level of fitness then you struggle at the end of the ride, or on subsequent days. If you do too little for your level of fitness then you get less fit.

This has nothing to do with "old school" or anything else, you can increase your demands on your body by riding more you can currently do at a low intensity, or a high intensity, what matters is the more. And of course you need to do the more in the controlled way that means you don't require days off to "recover" from that more. At the moment you sound like a weekend warrior who goes out at the weekend does loads more than your current fitness (which is relatively low, I can comfortably do over a week of 2-3 hour high intensity for me rides) and then takes the rest of the week off, either because your life gets in the way or you need to "recover".

You cannot build significant amounts of fitness by just riding at the weekend. And you certainly cannot get any sort of fitness to not crawl along ever so slowly in your 7 day event by riding 6 hours a week at a low intensity.

What you need to do is build the volume, now that may have some low intensity riding as a component, but that's actually irrelevant, how you get the volume doesn't matter right now, you just need to get it.

ric/rstsport

flanagaj wrote:

Ok, I probably am confused and should maybe seek the assistance of a coach. I have read the "time crunched cyclist" and also read papers on the internet. I would say that there are more articles that say you should start off with a base endurance period in zones 1-2 before you move onto higher intensity training. My plan was to start off with 6hrs a week in this period increasing to 10 hrs before increasing the intensity.

i would suggest that low level training in this way is important if you've never trained before. but from what you've said this isn't the case for you. and, even with people that have never trained before it's possible to start them off with (relative to them) high intensity work.

This may all be pointless, but given I am aiming to ride a 7 day mtb transalp in early September I need to sort out my training. My thought process here was that my current 'go out and ride hard' approach will not work as back to back days of this are not doable as I struggle to recover well if I ride for long duration with an average heart rate near my AT of 157. Trouble is, if I go out and ride at 130 bpm I crawl along so slowly that I don't feel I go anywhere.

firstly, i don't how you've arrived at a figure of 157 b/min for AT (not that AT is the correct term here), and secondly, it would be better to think of this figure as a range rather than a specific single number. Lastly, you seem to think that training should occur at either this figure or at 130 b/min. But there are a whole load of 'numbers' inbetween that you could train at. FWIW, if you go here http://www.rstsport.com/?event=training&feature=zones and use the top calculator for HR and play around with the numbers (you'll have to estimate max HR) you'll see that 130 b/min would be around the top of recovery and just below zone 1, whereas 157 is in zone 4 or 5 (depending on exactly what numbers you use). In other words, you have zones 1, 2, 3 to train in before you reach your 157. Additionally, you have numbers above this.

I appreciate that the old school approach of hours of base training has been challenged by some coaches for individuals limited by time. These new approaches look great, but they all focus on those who either want to kick their pals backside on the Sunday 3 hr club ride or for someone doing a century, but they don't seem to offer any help with those wanting to do a 7 day back to back ride.

Thanks

You probably won't find many books that are geared towards 7 days of hard rides!

As Jibberjim points out it seems like you need to increase your consistency. And increasing your training volume. Additionally, it needs to be of a sufficiently high enough intensity to build the aerobic machinery that will make you fitter (capillaries, enzymes, mitochondrion) and this will include riding at a variety of intensity. It's impossible to say what that is via a forum.

If you'd like some coaching help, please give me a shout.

Ric

flanagaj

The figures I used where based on vo2 testing I had done last spring.

max hr - 188
vo2 max - 55
At threshold - 157bpm

I will take a look at your site as with the limited time I have I need to ensure I do the correct training for the goal I have in mind

nevman

If its any help,you need to look at replicating the ride you are training for.How long is each day,how much climbing,how much descending then go out and do it.Do two consecutive days,then three if you can find the time.That will condition the body and give you the confidence to do seven days.Worked for my LeJog trip last year.Forget the numbers.

ric/rstsport

i don't think this is necessarily true (although could be useful very occasionally). For e.g. how many people riding 12 hour TTs undertake 12 hour training sessions (i coach the previous world record holder over 12 hours).

Ric

ooermissus

I am not even going to begin to claim I know what I am talking about here, so go easy on me... but is it true that running coaches tend to favour low intensity sessions (the unbearably tedious long, slow run, at well below your race pace, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of a marathon programme), while cycling fashion is for much harder sessions?

If so, why?

imposter2.0

ooermissus wrote:

If so, why?

Most likely because running is not the same as cycling.

There's no 'fashion' for harder sessions necessarily. Only a need to train at the intensities you will be required to perform at during whatever type of cycling event you are doing.

jibberjim

Because running is significantly harder on the body, you cannot exercise at high aerobic intensities for particularly long, because whilst your aerobic systems would have no problem with it, your muscles and ligaments cannot take the pounding.

Cycling, which doesn't have any real pounding at all at aerobic intensities can be done to optimally work the aerobic systems without having to worry about the damage.

But of course, you're also assuming that the "long slow run" is the cornerstone of a marathon programme in an elite marathoner, as opposed to the marathon programmes you see for non-runners who simply do not have the condition to actually run a marathon generally such that the only way they can get through the event is to do it at a low intensity. It's very often not, in fact it's rare to see the long run being at less than marathon pace, and often will have intervals faster.

cyco2

Why don't you try a replicate the event you want to do and spend a week or two riding in the Lake District or Wales. Go and find out what it's like to ride day after day climbing, climbing and then some more climbing. This will tell you more about yourself than all the pottering about you're doing. That event I would imagine is very ,very hard and what you have to do needs hard training rides. Also, there is a lot of hairy descents so pack some spare brake blocks.

flanagaj

I am not convinced a weeks cycling in the lakes is the best preparation. In fact I am more confused now than I was before posting.

I was speaking with a colleague who does iron mans and has just done a lactate test and his coach looked at the results and said "base endurance" riding for 2 months. The theory here is that by doing the base endurance his lactate will not start increasing at lower heart rates, but will start further along the heart rate curve.

ric/rstsport

flanagaj wrote:

I am not convinced a weeks cycling in the lakes is the best preparation. In fact I am more confused now than I was before posting.

I was speaking with a colleague who does iron mans and has just done a lactate test and his coach looked at the results and said "base endurance" riding for 2 months. The theory here is that by doing the base endurance his lactate will not start increasing at lower heart rates, but will start further along the heart rate curve.

To add to your confusion

1) the term that you used "AT" is incorrect. AT stands for anaerobic threshold, and is used (wrongly) to suggest the effort associated with a 1 hour maximal TT. The term is wrong, because your body is *aerobic* up to VO2max, and your maximal (TT) effort is always below this. There's no actual physiological term for this effort; although it's reasonably well represented by MLSS (maximal lactate steady state); which is the maximal effort that can be achieved without a rise blood lactate. There's also the critical power concept, and lactate threshold (which is where lactate starts to increase)

2) lactate is actually *good* for you. it is not the source of pain that you often feel in your muscles when exercising hard, and nor is it the reason for your fatigue. It is a fuel source, without which we would fatigue at a faster rate. We always have lactate present; even at rest (although there is a condition/illness where lactate isn't produced or produced in very small amounts - i can't recall just at this moment).

3) i'm not entirely sure what the other person's coach meant, and potentially something has been lost as the coach told the friend in easy to understand terms, and the friend told you. But, in essence HR means nothing and you can't deduce any training ideas from it. Heart rate is _simply_ the rate at which your heart beats, and is relatively unimportant. What is important is the cardiac output of your heart which is the volume of blood leaving the heart. It's the product of heart rate and stroke volume. Again, though, i have no idea how these could be used to provide training insight (they can't).

4) i can't think of any reason why anyone should do low intensity base training in cycling (which is different to triathlon and running) unless they have some specific issues.

5) Previously, some people who should have known better, suggested that base training should be done at low intensity, because high intensity work destroyed capillaries were completely wrong. High intensity (around MLSS & VO2max) training actually increases the number of capillaries, as well as other aerobic machinery.

6) i wouldn't bother doing a lactate test either. can't think of a reason why you'd want to sample blood and go through that rigmarole for training purposes when you're much better off just measuring power output. (measuring lactate and blood glucose etc, for scientific purposes is a different issue)

Ric

flanagaj

I thought I would post an article that adds to my confusion.

http://totalcyclingperformance.com/2009 ... lists-aet/

vs

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

To add to your confusion

Nice...and you are a coach?

ric/rstsport

yes, why?

ric/rstsport

flanagaj wrote:

I thought I would post an article that adds to my confusion.

http://totalcyclingperformance.com/2009 ... lists-aet/

I believe that this article is suggesting that Joe Friel is the expert in terms of cycle coaching. While i have no real indication of his *coaching* ability (although from what i understand he mainly deals with triathletes) it's been apparent in the past that his exercise physiology ideas aren't quite correct. This article appears to have been written in 2009, and i *think* that Joe has changed some of his ideas since then (i don't really know, because i don't follow what he says).

The article doesn't entirely make sense from a physiological perspective. For e.g. the main thrust of the article suggests that aerobic training is most important to the physiological development of an endurance athlete. This is correct. Furthermore it states that anaerobic efforts, fast group rides, and race type workouts are 'bad'. The article doesn't state what it means by anaerobic efforts.

Fast group rides and race type workouts, if continuous are generally aerobic and can be good training (they can also be rubbish). There is possibly an inference that anaerobic workouts are something similar to race workouts and from previous articles i've seen, and from the previous metric you mentioned ("AT" which is anaerobic threshold) i am thinking that they may be talking about efforts that are around 1 hour TT pace. JF has previously said this in some of his articles.

As previously explained there is no such threshold as AT (the effort at which 1 hr TT occurs is aerobic and would be about zone 4 or 5 in many people training zones system). We're aerobic all the way up to VO2max! Certainly, doing short or long efforts at this intensity (1 hr TT effort) would feel hard and taxing. Many people would call these high intensity, especially if you are completing a lot of them, and fatigue starts to set in (it would).

The article infers that that endurance type work is the best thing to do and it looks like it's suggesting long, lowish intensity work. It suggests that these are great at building aerobic machinery (e.g., enzymes, capillaries, mitochondria, and increasing the amount of fat that can be burnt). While, undoubtedly, such training _does_ have a benefit on these (and other) points, it's by no means the best way of doing so. Table 2 in this link http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... oggan.aspx shows that the best benefits occur at mainly zone 4 and 5 for endurance type athletes. Andrew is one of the leading scientists in the field of exercise physiology.

Previously, some coaches have suggested that during the base building period efforts should be for long periods and low intensity, as doing otherwise would cause "capillaries to burst". This is of course nonsensical, but the idea has pervaded for a long time. Capillary density actually increases at moderately high intensity work (see table 2 in the link).

Some of these ideas (low intensity in base period) are a result of some people transferring from running to cycling (and potentially coaches coming across). On the face of it, it might be thought that running and cycling require similar training (both endurance based, both use the legs mainly). However, the issue is that running causes significantly more mechanical stresses on the joints, tendons, etc and thus, lighter work needs to be done. especially in the beginning phases.

In short, as an experienced coach dealing with athletes (cyclists) at levels from international world-class through to regular racers i don't believe that there is any need to do lots of long, low intensity work (except in certain situations which go beyond the remit of such a response). As a published author in peer reviewed journals I don't believe that JFs ideas have always been in line with the evidence that's available.

Hope that helps

Ric

cyco2

flanagaj wrote:

I am not convinced a weeks cycling in the lakes is the best preparation.

Perhaps after reading this http://www.justridingalong.com/news/jra ... -transalp/ it may help you to think again about what you need to do before the event.