Time -crunched Cyclist

macroadie

Anyone read and applied this book? If so please share your experience, result or lack of and advice.
Thanks for your time.

FatTed

Not worth the money. Basically just advises doing HIT

team47b

you should do more of these succinct book reviews, saved me no end of time

War & Peace - was there more in the book than it stated on the cover?

owenlars

I agree with Fat Ted it says go harder for less time and gives a whole load of sample routines. Also I didn't notice anything about War and Peace in the exam question.

bahzob

The author is a twat.

However the book itself is very good, especially if you fit the target profile of someone with limited time to train (though even "limited" means 6+hours per week, including 90mins+ Sat and Sun)

Contrary to the above it does not just say do HIT (even assuming there is a standard definition of HIT which ofc is not the case)

There are 4 separate 12 week plans (race/endurance * beginner/experienced). If you follow them you can be pretty sure that you will see a substantial improvement.

stueys

Agree the plans are good if you have an event in 12 weeks time that you want to get fit for. However if you are sitting here now planning a training plan for next years season you would be better off doing a more traditional plan with a proper base 1 phase.

mamba80

bahzob wrote:

The author is a fool.

However the book itself is very good)

this quote changed my boring Monday morning

spearmint_wino

I did the beginner century plan in the lead-up to this year's Etape.

My fitness definitely improved a lot but the workouts are pretty intense and I found I was tired all the time, even with the recovery days.

In terms of making a lot if progress quickly for an upcoming event I'd say it was good but I'll be doing things differently for next year's events.

A search of this part of the forum will bring up plenty of good TCTP info :cool:

macroadie

Stueys wrote:

Agree the plans are good if you have an event in 12 weeks time that you want to get fit for. However if you are sitting here now planning a training plan for next years season you would be better off doing a more traditional plan with a proper base 1 phase.

Thanks for your input. Can you give an example of the "traditional" training you are reffering to.

I ussually do;
-Tuesday & thursday: - 30 miles 20 minutes sprints.
-Saturday: -45miles fast group ride at 23- 30mphr range
-Sunday : - One long relaxed ride for 50 to 55 miles

bahzob

mamba80 wrote:

bahzob wrote:

The author is a fool.

However the book itself is very good)

this quote changed my boring Monday morning

Actually I didn't say the author was a "fool", the forum's bigbrotherware changed what I wrote.

Still the book is good and does what it says on the lid.

bahzob

macroadie wrote:

Stueys wrote:

Agree the plans are good if you have an event in 12 weeks time that you want to get fit for. However if you are sitting here now planning a training plan for next years season you would be better off doing a more traditional plan with a proper base 1 phase.

Thanks for your input. Can you give an example of the "traditional" training you are reffering to.

I ussually do;
-Tuesday & thursday: - 30 miles 20 minutes sprints.
-Saturday: -45miles fast group ride at 23- 30mphr range
-Sunday : - One long relaxed ride for 50 to 55 miles

You won't get any consensus of replies on what a "traditional" plan actually is believe me. One reason for this is that people vary so much in terms of how much time/commitment they have, how quickly they respond to training, how much time they need to recover, what their training goals are etc etc.

This is simply too complex to cover in a forum, what one person thinks of as "traditional" another will think is rubbish and your OP will be be lost in the ensuing argument..

What a forum can do is say that your current looks a bit unstructured and could most likely be improved if your goal is to get better in the most efficient way (it's fine if you are riding just for fun).

So do yourself a favour, if you are serious about training buy a book and follow its plan. If you don't fancy Time Crunched Cyclist then the other good option is Joe Friels "Cyclist Training Bible" which teaches the more traditional version.

raymond82

I bought the book after reading recommendations here at the forum but I'm not sure what to think. The author makes it sound as if the program trains you to do tours of up to three hours and that for longer rides a significant decline in performance can be expected. How do I interpret this? It makes sense that you can't train for 9 hour rides with training that lasts 3 hours at most but I also don't want to train a fitness that burns out in three hours. Although when I follow the program I'll probably be fitter after these three hours than if I don't follow the program.

The main downside is that the program lasts only 12 weeks, because I was looking for what I can do now to increase my fitness in June. I'm thinking of riding the Trois Ballons, the 12 week program is probably nice in the weeks preceding that but I want to keep training now and I want to know whether it's good to do interval training already etc. So if I'm looking for a 6 hour a week all year round training plan, is it better to buy the Friel book?

bahzob

raymond82 wrote:

I bought the book after reading recommendations here at the forum but I'm not sure what to think. The author makes it sound as if the program trains you to do tours of up to three hours and that for longer rides a significant decline in performance can be expected. How do I interpret this? It makes sense that you can't train for 9 hour rides with training that lasts 3 hours at most but I also don't want to train a fitness that burns out in three hours. Although when I follow the program I'll probably be fitter after these three hours than if I don't follow the program.

The main downside is that the program lasts only 12 weeks, because I was looking for what I can do now to increase my fitness in June. I'm thinking of riding the Trois Ballons, the 12 week program is probably nice in the weeks preceding that but I want to keep training now and I want to know whether it's good to do interval training already etc. So if I'm looking for a 6 hour a week all year round training plan, is it better to buy the Friel book?

Based on experience of training and doing lots of sportives. Not done Trois Ballons but used to live there and know the area well.

Question 1: The book is fine for a long sportive like the Trois Ballons. The main difficulty with events like this is doing the climbs. Performance on this is very dependent on your threshold power (best power you can sustain for an hour or so). Following the book will improve this and thereby your performance. This ofc is not all you need to do but much of the rest is learning to ride these distances sensibly in terms of pacing/nutrition and skills such as descending/group riding which can only be done with practice. When the weather improves then you would benefit from some long rides to check this out but there is no harm leaving that for later. Doing them now when the weather is crap and your fitness level is relatively low wont be of much benefit, especially given very limited training time.

In terms of TCC vs Joe Friel then if you really only have 6 hours a week then it is absolutely sure this book is better. It's a very small amount of time and you want to spend almost all this close to or above your threshold to improve significantly. TCC does this, Joe Friel has a different approach more suited to those with a lot more time to train. It would, literally, be impossible for you to follow his recommendations for the event you are planning to ride given only 6 hours a week. (I'm not biased towards TCC, as it happens right now I am following a Joe Friel plan simply because I have the time to follow it).


Question 2. The answer is straight forward. Take a week or so's rest, re-test and do another 12 weeks. The re-test should show your improvement compared with your first result and the next 12 weeks should improve this even more. So long as you are showing improvement then keep repeating. Looking ahead check the date of the Trois Ballons and work back 13 weeks. If you start a 12 week plan so it finishes 1 week before the event then spend the final week repeating week 1 but only doing 1 interval each session (so they are nice and short) you will in reasonable shape. This assumes you are constrained to 6 hours per week.If you can manage more then doing some long rides on the weekends 3-6 weeks out will help. These should include some long efforts at the time and intensity you plan to be doing the climbs during Trois Ballons. The other good training for events like these are time trials, especially longer ones (25/50 miles). There should be a club nearby that runs these and taking part in these would help though it may be difficult given your limited schedule.

PS
- The other main focus for training to do events like Trois Ballons is your weight. This is always the case but even more so if training time is limited (since it's one way you can get better outside of your training). Target is straightforward. Your BMI should be at least be in "normal" range, ideally close to the middle. If it's higher then right now getting it down to a lower weight that you can maintain should be number 1 priority.

raymond82

bahzob wrote:

Based on experience of training and doing lots of sportives. Not done Trois Ballons but used to live there and know the area well.

Question 1: The book is fine for a long sportive like the Trois Ballons. The main difficulty with events like this is doing the climbs. Performance on this is very dependent on your threshold power (best power you can sustain for an hour or so). Following the book will improve this and thereby your performance. This ofc is not all you need to do but much of the rest is learning to ride these distances sensibly in terms of pacing/nutrition and skills such as descending/group riding which can only be done with practice. When the weather improves then you would benefit from some long rides to check this out but there is no harm leaving that for later. Doing them now when the weather is crap and your fitness level is relatively low wont be of much benefit, especially given very limited training time.

In terms of TCC vs Joe Friel then if you really only have 6 hours a week then it is absolutely sure this book is better. It's a very small amount of time and you want to spend almost all this close to or above your threshold to improve significantly. TCC does this, Joe Friel has a different approach more suited to those with a lot more time to train. It would, literally, be impossible for you to follow his recommendations for the event you are planning to ride given only 6 hours a week. (I'm not biased towards TCC, as it happens right now I am following a Joe Friel plan simply because I have the time to follow it).


Question 2. The answer is straight forward. Take a week or so's rest, re-test and do another 12 weeks. The re-test should show your improvement compared with your first result and the next 12 weeks should improve this even more. So long as you are showing improvement then keep repeating. Looking ahead check the date of the Trois Ballons and work back 13 weeks. If you start a 12 week plan so it finishes 1 week before the event then spend the final week repeating week 1 but only doing 1 interval each session (so they are nice and short) you will in reasonable shape. This assumes you are constrained to 6 hours per week.If you can manage more then doing some long rides on the weekends 3-6 weeks out will help. These should include some long efforts at the time and intensity you plan to be doing the climbs during Trois Ballons. The other good training for events like these are time trials, especially longer ones (25/50 miles). There should be a club nearby that runs these and taking part in these would help though it may be difficult given your limited schedule.

PS
- The other main focus for training to do events like Trois Ballons is your weight. This is always the case but even more so if training time is limited (since it's one way you can get better outside of your training). Target is straightforward. Your BMI should be at least be in "normal" range, ideally close to the middle. If it's higher then right now getting it down to a lower weight that you can maintain should be number 1 priority.

Thank you for that extensive reply!!

I'll stick to the TCC book then. If I understand it correctly it's basically a program you can do all year around with a week of rest after every 12 weeks to test your fitness. It's a good thing to aim for, although I doubt I will manage...

Last winter was the first year I biked throughout the winter, after being relatively fit in the summer before. I went only once a week between October and March for maybe 2-3 hours but I had the feeling I had lost almost all the fitness from the year before. That's why I want to do more now so it's good to go by the TCC plans.

Usually from March on I spend more time on the bike, doing 3-4 hour rides on weekends and one or two 1.5 hour rides during the week. (Now that I'm writing this I realize this is actually 6 hours...) I used to do almost everything at around 80% of MHR but I'll make the trainings more intense. Last spring I also trained on an indoor trainer with virtual mountains, I guess these can be compared to TT because I'd train at around LT for 1.5 hours. I don't think I'll do that again but I can do outdoor TTs.

raymond82

bahzob wrote:

Question 2. The answer is straight forward. Take a week or so's rest, re-test and do another 12 weeks. The re-test should show your improvement compared with your first result and the next 12 weeks should improve this even more. So long as you are showing improvement then keep repeating.

I did the field test today as described in the book and realized that having a powermeter is necessary to be able to compare today's effort to one after finishing the program as the conditions will be very different. I doubt my HR will be any higher after training as it was 188 already today, I actually had to force myself to do the 2nd 8 minute test because I knew I wasn't going to have a much higher HR (which I didn't). So the test is useful to set the training zones but for testing I'll have to rely on something else. It's a bit of a shame but I'm still going to follow the program cause I'm sure I'll notice when going uphill in the summer.

bahzob

raymond82 wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Question 2. The answer is straight forward. Take a week or so's rest, re-test and do another 12 weeks. The re-test should show your improvement compared with your first result and the next 12 weeks should improve this even more. So long as you are showing improvement then keep repeating.

I did the field test today as described in the book and realized that having a powermeter is necessary to be able to compare today's effort to one after finishing the program as the conditions will be very different. I doubt my HR will be any higher after training as it was 188 already today, I actually had to force myself to do the 2nd 8 minute test because I knew I wasn't going to have a much higher HR (which I didn't). So the test is useful to set the training zones but for testing I'll have to rely on something else. It's a bit of a shame but I'm still going to follow the program cause I'm sure I'll notice when going uphill in the summer.

I'm afraid this will be true for most any training program. A powermeter is a great aid when training for exactly this reason.

In the absence of having one then its useful to use other references. The two most useful are speed and perceived effort. The other, once they start, is enter some time trials.

Speed: Ideally your test should be done on a turbo or outside on flat circular course which will minimise the effect of external variables such as weather. (Which to use depends on how you will be doing most training. Or you can do both) Another option for outside is do the test on a long flat road and ride 8 minutes one direction, recover then ride 8 minutes the other direction. This way the total distance for the two sets of 8 minutes will be a useful guide for progress. If you find conditions are really very variable you can always repeat the test instead of doing a session. Measuring this way can be quite motivating, you will have 3 "personal bests": distance covered first run, distance covered second run and combined distance. As you get better you will (hopefully) notice all 3 improve. It's good to push yourself to do the second 8 minutes as even if it gives no higher HR it is a useful measure in terms of ability to recover which is very relevant to doing an event like Trois Ballons. (Note: as you get fitter you should notice that you cover more distance for a given HR. You may also notice that distance goes up and MHR comes down, this is quite normal so don't be phased if it happens. One effect of training is to increase the volume of blood the heart pumps each stroke.)

Perceived effort: This can be useful even with a powermeter. I find monitoring breathing is best indicator. During the 8 minute test you should notice your breathing change so that at the beginning you are sucking in big breaths through the mouth that feel controlled, towards the end you are sucking in every breath as if it were your last. One sign of getting fitter is that you will go faster for the same effort e.g. breathing. It can be helpful to associate an effort with a breathing pattern, this helps with setting zones and pacing in real events. In events like the Trois Ballons the climbs should ideally be done a couple of notches down from the breathing pattern at the start of the first 8 minute test. I have a powermeter but still use this method, I set a rhythm where I breathe deeply through the mouth, do a couple of pedal revs, exhale and repeat. I find this is a great way to establish a steady/fast tempo that I can maintain from the bottom of the climb to the top. (Big fail of many is to start the bottom of the climb at far too high a pace, equivalent to the 8 minute one, which is fine if the climb is only 8 minutes long, not if it is 80.)

Time trials: There should be a local club nearby that runs these. They are a great way to combine training with a performance test. Not only do you have an absolute time but, if conditions are variable, you can monitor progress by where you finish in the field. There won't be many, if any running atm, they will start in earnest in spring. I would strongly recommend doing these, apart from the training benefits they are great fun. Just couple of words of caution:
-they will be tough so should replace a hard day in the training plan
-trying to go faster can be addictive and in TTs the easiest way to do this is get more aero. Don't get seduced into buying go faster equipment for this purpose. Ride the bike you plan to use in the Trois Ballons on the drops or hoods. Apart from making you fitter this is also a good test to check the bike for comfort at high effort levels.

On a related topic, if you have not already had a bike fit I would suggest getting one. It's the single best investment in terms of money v benefit that most folk can make. The fitter should be good ideally via personal recommendation (local cycle club). Thing to make sure is that they don't just measure your leg but put you on a turbo and watch you while you are pedalling.

raymond82

Thanks for another very informative reply!

I'm afraid this will be true for most any training program. A powermeter is a great aid when training for exactly this reason.

I'm after a powermeter already, I'm hoping I can get my hands on a second hand one next spring or so.

I like the idea of doing the two 8 minute rides in opposite directions. It crossed my mind yesterday but instead I did the same direction twice as is advised in the book. For testing I might try it, although I always had the feeling that headwind slows you down more than tailwind helps you. That would mean that different directions don't cancel each other out and that stronger wind will lower average speed more than less strong wind. Of course if I do this under similar wind conditions it should give me an indication. I thought of another option too, which is to visit the hills of Limburg (the Amstel Gold race region) regularly, then I can use the times on climbs as an indicator. However the goal is to get a powermeter.

Using the performance relative to others in a time trial is also a very clever idea to test progress, I had a quick look but I could only find one organized time trial in the neighbourhood. It does sound like fun, also to be able to compare myself in real time other than using Strava. I'll look for more though as there are also a couple of closed tracks around that might organize something.

The perceived effort is something I'm trying to get acquainted with when biking in the gym (after your recommendation in a previous thread). It's not always easy but I think I'm getting a hold of it. I have to say I have some experience riding up mountains, I've been to the Alps and the Vosges for cycling holidays for 5 years in a row and rode the Marmotte this year. I used to go as fast as I could and then have to stop once or twice halfway the climb. Ever since I use a HR monitor this doesn't happen any more, I know that when I keep my HR at around 175-180 I can keep going. I will start combining this with perceived effort as I've also noticed that under some conditions I can push at a HR a bit higher to be a bit more on the edge.

I had a bikefit this year after having a lot of back pain but I'm afraid it wasn't a very good one. It was dynamic in the sense that I was biking on a special bike that the fitter could change the dimensions of but only three things were measured: the drop, the angle of the leg and the distance between the seat and the bar. I ended up having a shorter stem (which I do like) but the back pain was still there. Now I've fiddled a bit more myself and the back pain is mostly gone and I'm working on getting rid of some foot pain using wedges. I might do another fit next year that is a little more elaborated and that includes cleat position etc.

GGBiker

I followed tcc new competitor programme last spring, agree about feeling tired all the time with it. I stuck to it as best I could. It was mainly a feeling of leg stiffness which never fully recovered between sessions, my legs never felt fresh when I got on the bike.

I took a week off then felt really great and racing performance improved significantly, took 1.5 mins off a 5 mile tt time vs start of season and placed in a few club races. The fitness lasted all summer until a variety of work/family issues had we doing minimal riding for about 4-6 weeks, I have lost about 10% off ftp and am planning to hit the programme again after Chrstmas to get it back and hopefully more.

Definitely works if you bust yourself at it and can live with the effects of hard training.

bahzob

GGBiker wrote:

I followed tcc new competitor programme last spring, agree about feeling tired all the time with it. I stuck to it as best I could. It was mainly a feeling of leg stiffness which never fully recovered between sessions, my legs never felt fresh when I got on the bike.

Leg stiffness the day after is fine. Its's DOMS "delayed onset muscle soreness" and one of the best indicators that you your training is having an effect. (It's different from the acute soreness that stops you during exercise in that it comes on after the session is finished as part of the process by which the body adapts to the stresses it had undergone iow making you fitter)

Feeling this is a good sign, its one of the best indicators that you are training in the right zone and this training is having an effect. In fact you only need to worry if you don't feel DOMS. This probably means you are not training hard enough.

If you feel a bit sore it's still fine to do a training session. After a warm up the soreness will pass and you will get a training benefit. A plan like the TCC will schedule in rest days so there should be no risk of over-training.

Indeed I think the risks of over-training are overstated for most amateurs. It's very difficult in practice to over-train if you are not super dedicated and can only spend limited (<15hours a week) time on your bike. A far bigger risk IMO in this circumstance is not training hard enough to get the most out of your sessions, which is why the TCC works.

bahzob

raymond82 wrote:

I like the idea of doing the two 8 minute rides in opposite directions. It crossed my mind yesterday but instead I did the same direction twice as is advised in the book. For testing I might try it, although I always had the feeling that headwind slows you down more than tailwind helps you. That would mean that different directions don't cancel each other out and that stronger wind will lower average speed more than less strong wind. Of course if I do this under similar wind conditions it should give me an indication. I thought of another option too, which is to visit the hills of Limburg (the Amstel Gold race region) regularly, then I can use the times on climbs as an indicator. However the goal is to get a powermeter.

Yes headwind slows you more than a tailwind helps but for this test that doesn't really matter since the key output is HR. Speed is interesting but you can just record it for your own benefit/motivation, maybe having different PBs for "windy" vs "calm" conditions. That said if you can find a hill that takes 8+minutes to climb then doing tests on that is perfect. Not only do conditions have less of an effect but it is measured in the same conditions as the event being trained for.

raymond82 wrote:

Using the performance relative to others in a time trial is also a very clever idea to test progress, I had a quick look but I could only find one organized time trial in the neighbourhood. It does sound like fun, also to be able to compare myself in real time other than using Strava. I'll look for more though as there are also a couple of closed tracks around that might organize something.

Time trials dont usually start until later in the year. Track may organise something but they are likely to be short intense efforts which are less useful in training for an event like Trois Ballons

raymond82 wrote:

I had a bikefit this year after having a lot of back pain but I'm afraid it wasn't a very good one. It was dynamic in the sense that I was biking on a special bike that the fitter could change the dimensions of but only three things were measured: the drop, the angle of the leg and the distance between the seat and the bar. I ended up having a shorter stem (which I do like) but the back pain was still there. Now I've fiddled a bit more myself and the back pain is mostly gone and I'm working on getting rid of some foot pain using wedges. I might do another fit next year that is a little more elaborated and that includes cleat position etc.

Hope you manage this, it's frustrating to train hard but then have to take it easy because your back/foot hurts.

raymond82

Yes headwind slows you more than a tailwind helps but for this test that doesn't really matter since the key output is HR. Speed is interesting but you can just record it for your own benefit/motivation, maybe having different PBs for "windy" vs "calm" conditions.

This I don't understand really, how is HR the key output? When I did the test my average HR was 188, I doubt it will go up with training and I also don't think it will go down, I will just go faster with the same HR right? So for establishing the HR zones speed is not important but for checking any progress I would say it is.

The bike fit I'm most likely going to need, I keep having pain on the side if my foot and my right knee keeps bending in. I thought I could solve this with cleat wedges, I mounted the maximum I could fit with the screws that came with and it helps but it doesn't solve it completely. It's true what you're saying, it really slows me down and takes some of the fun of training away.

bahzob

raymond82 wrote:

Yes headwind slows you more than a tailwind helps but for this test that doesn't really matter since the key output is HR. Speed is interesting but you can just record it for your own benefit/motivation, maybe having different PBs for "windy" vs "calm" conditions.

This I don't understand really, how is HR the key output? When I did the test my average HR was 188, I doubt it will go up with training and I also don't think it will go down, I will just go faster with the same HR right? So for establishing the HR zones speed is not important but for checking any progress I would say it is.

The bike fit I'm most likely going to need, I keep having pain on the side if my foot and my right knee keeps bending in. I thought I could solve this with cleat wedges, I mounted the maximum I could fit with the screws that came with and it helps but it doesn't solve it completely. It's true what you're saying, it really slows me down and takes some of the fun of training away.

From the POV of the TCC training plan, in the absence a power-meter of the key output of the field test is HR. This will be used to set the training zones. You are right, this will not change much, though it may alter a bit. So yes for checking progress speed is important but also from that POV it really doesn't matter much if you ride the same course twice in one direction or do it once up and once back (assuming course is pretty flat). If anything the second is best as it means the effect wind direction or other external variables will be reduced. (Club time trials will usually follow this format for this reason)

All this just illustrates one reason why a powermeter is such a good investment. Using one gives lots of benefits
- External conditions have a much lower impact so tests are more consistent
- The results can be used to give zones that are more reliable for training purposes (because HR will vary far more due to external factors and the difference between HR zones is fairly small especially at the top end)
- The results act as a very good measure of progress
(If you have a powermeter then, for the test, it makes more sense to ride the same course twice in the same direction. This is because it reacts far more quickly and accurately to changing conditions than HR, which in itself is another reason why they are so good for cyclists)

Re bike fit: I have the same issue on my right leg. On the left my knee shin and ankle all form a nice straight line through the centre of the pedal all the way round the stroke. On my right leg if my ankle and shin are in line my knee is inside, if I get the knee in line my foot is angled too much which leads to it hurting. I've had several fitters look at this but none can correct it fully and have said there is not much I can do, it's due to the way my bones are put together aggravated by football injuries. What they did say was that its best to have ankle/shin in line even if that means the knee is off.

One thing that did help with foot pain was to get fitting that included assessing the shoe. This should include checking the arches of your feet. Shoes come in standard sizes that assume you have perfect feet. Many people do not have perfect feet, e.g. I have one foot larger and wider than the other and my arches are high. Getting the correct fit in terms of size/width + the correct insoles for the size of my foot worked wonders.

While reluctant to suggest specific brands because feet are so different, I can mention a couple of Specialized products that I took a look at and helped. I was using the S-Works but found that was too narrow. The Pro Road was wider and turned out to be better. Even more so was S-Works LTD 74. This is a "retro" shoe with leather uppers and I found it far more comfortable than either of the above with no difference that I could see in terms of performance.

raymond82

I will for sure buy a power meter soon as I can, I would love to be able to better compare efforts throughout the year and to track progress. The problem here in Holland is that the wind is the single most important factor that affects speed and there are no hills around to test any progress (except in the south, where I go every now and then but it's a bit of a hassle). Until I have a power meter, I think the best I can do is do the same course back an forth and note the wind speed.

Re bike fit: I have the same issue on my right leg. On the left my knee shin and ankle all form a nice straight line through the centre of the pedal all the way round the stroke. On my right leg if my ankle and shin are in line my knee is inside, if I get the knee in line my foot is angled too much which leads to it hurting. I've had several fitters look at this but none can correct it fully and have said there is not much I can do, it's due to the way my bones are put together aggravated by football injuries. What they did say was that its best to have ankle/shin in line even if that means the knee is off.

These are quite some interesting points, it's exactly the same thing I have. I'm went to see a physiotherapist because of the issue but she said that with exercises I might be able to reduce it by half and she's now teaching me core stability exercises. I have the feeling that for a physiotherapist anything can be fixed by working on your core but in this case I know it's also good for my position on the bike so I'm doing the exercises now. I find it interesting your bikefitter said it's better to have the ankle straight and the knee in, it's what I'm doing now and it does take the pain in the foot away, I'm just afraid it will cause knee problems in the long term. Besides, my knee is almost touching the top tube which is far from ideal.

I read on Steve Hogg's website that having proper arch support is also important in fixing the varus issue so I'm considering buying eSole insoles but they're pretty expensive too. I've been in touch with someone from cyclefit in the UK and he also advised me to get the insoles and you're basically saying the same so I might go for it, I just have to decide on whether to wait until I find a bikefitter here in Holland who can look at my feet (and the money to pay him) and having it done properly or just to keep trying myself with the insoles...

bahzob

"These are quite some interesting points, it's exactly the same thing I have. I'm went to see a physiotherapist because of the issue but she said that with exercises I might be able to reduce it by half and she's now teaching me core stability exercises. I have the feeling that for a physiotherapist anything can be fixed by working on your core but in this case I know it's also good for my position on the bike so I'm doing the exercises now. I find it interesting your bikefitter said it's better to have the ankle straight and the knee in, it's what I'm doing now and it does take the pain in the foot away, I'm just afraid it will cause knee problems in the long term. Besides, my knee is almost touching the top tube which is far from ideal.

I read on Steve Hogg's website that having proper arch support is also important in fixing the varus issue so I'm considering buying eSole insoles but they're pretty expensive too. I've been in touch with someone from cyclefit in the UK and he also advised me to get the insoles and you're basically saying the same so I might go for it, I just have to decide on whether to wait until I find a bikefitter here in Holland who can look at my feet (and the money to pay him) and having it done properly or just to keep trying myself with the insoles..."

Sounds very similar to what I had, including sometimes knocking the top tube with my right knee. The fix for me was in 2 parts:
- Use wedges to get the ankle/shin in line. I used Bike Fit System wedges and found that 2 (thick end on the inside of the foot) sorted out the the problem. Ideally you will get a fitter or someone else to check the alignment looking from the front. (If you happen to have one of these for DIY http://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Decker-BDL120-Manual-Laser/dp/B001BFOKBS/ref=sr_1_1?s=diy&ie=UTF8&qid=1387447043&sr=1-1&keywords=black+decker+laser+level they are helpful. Held from the front they will clearly show how the leg is aligned.)

- Sort out shoe. I had some Esoles fitted but a cheaper and perhaps easier to find alternative may be Specialized insoles,they come in 3 varieties and some Specialized stores have a footbed that you stand on to tell you which is the right one for you. (Other shoe suppliers may do the same sort of thing, but not tried them.) http://www.cyclesurgery.com/pws/UniqueProductKey.ice?ProductID=CSBC0824BB&gclid=CLSsmaeEvLsCFRSWtAodci4Aeg&gclsrc=aw.ds

- Other thing on shoe is cleat position. Again best to get a fitter to help sort out but couple of things I found
>> Sit on a high chair/table so your feet are free to swing. Look down and the natural position your feet are in will tell you how to set up cleat in terms of alignment. If both feet are parallel pointing nicely in line front>back then you can use a neutral position. If either or both feet are pointing in/out then the cleats should be aligned to correct.
>> Find the foot bones that push against your shoe the inside and outside (so the joints for biggest and smallest toes). Try checking the cleat so it is between these, if it isn't try moving forwards/backwards so it is.

raymond82

Sounds very similar to what I had, including sometimes knocking the top tube with my right knee. The fix for me was in 2 parts:
- Use wedges to get the ankle/shin in line. I used Bike Fit System wedges and found that 2 (thick end on the inside of the foot) sorted out the the problem. Ideally you will get a fitter or someone else to check the alignment looking from the front. (If you happen to have one of these for DIY http://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Decker-BD ... aser+level they are helpful. Held from the front they will clearly show how the leg is aligned.)

I purchased these, fitted three, wasn't satisfied and tried to fit another two only to find out that the longest screws weren't long enough... That made me realize that just stacking up the wedges isn't the way to go. I like the idea of using the laser to check the alignment, I'll look into that.

- Sort out shoe. I had some Esoles fitted but a cheaper and perhaps easier to find alternative may be Specialized insoles,they come in 3 varieties and some Specialized stores have a footbed that you stand on to tell you which is the right one for you. (Other shoe suppliers may do the same sort of thing, but not tried them.) http://www.cyclesurgery.com/pws/UniqueP ... lsrc=aw.ds

Most likely I'll go for the esoles. I actually had my feet measured once and was told my arch is medium high but both Steve Hogg (on his website) and the guy from cyclefit I emailed with said that the Specialized insoles don't provide enough arch support for higher arches. The esoles are very appealing as they come with different arch modules.

- Other thing on shoe is cleat position. Again best to get a fitter to help sort out but couple of things I found
>> Sit on a high chair/table so your feet are free to swing. Look down and the natural position your feet are in will tell you how to set up cleat in terms of alignment. If both feet are parallel pointing nicely in line front>back then you can use a neutral position. If either or both feet are pointing in/out then the cleats should be aligned to correct.
>> Find the foot bones that push against your shoe the inside and outside (so the joints for biggest and smallest toes). Try checking the cleat so it is between these, if it isn't try moving forwards/backwards so it is.

My feet used to point outwards a lot but after a couple of weeks of paying more attention to it and working with a physiotherapist they seemed to have improved quite a lot already. One thing the physiotherapist concluded is that my ankles are extremely flexible. I sat on the table and looked at my feet they point pretty much forward but the varus on my right food is much more pronounced than my left foot, the whole lower leg appears to be out of line with the rest of the leg. That made me realize that my arches might have appeared medium high on the specialized test but when standing with my feet pointed forward my knees bend inwards, pushing the soles of my feet lower than they should be. So while both feet appeared to have the same arch, the right varus in the right foot adds to the height of the arch. I guess that's the most important benefit of having the esoles, to be able to use different arch heights on the different feet.

The best news is that I realized that my health insurance might cover for a bike fit. I contacted a physiotherapist who uses the Retul system and I'm awaiting his response but I have good hope the insurance covers it. That would be awesome because then I can have the bike fit done asap, I think in the end that's something that needs to be done.

bahzob

Bloody hell that's a result. Can't imagine what my health insurers would say if I asked them to pay for a bike fit. Actually probably not a lot as they would have difficulty stopping laughing

Good news though as esoles probably the best option if you can get them

raymond82

bahzob wrote:

Bloody hell that's a result. Can't imagine what my health insurers would say if I asked them to pay for a bike fit. Actually probably not a lot as they would have difficulty stopping laughing

I'm not sure it will work, the bike fit is performed by a certified physiotherapist and when I have a cycling-related injury it could be covered under the budget for physiotherapy. However, I'm not sure yet if back pain and pain in the foot during cycling is considered a cycling-related injury, I'm hoping to hear from the physiotherapist soon. It would be absolutely great though if it worked!