Rollers or Turbo?

supermurph09

Hi

My winter training will consist of some long runs on the turbo (3 hours plus) as I try to improve my LT and whilst I did that on my turbo last week I wondered whether rollers would be better for these longer zone 1 sessions?

I wondered if people had both and what they used for which sessions? Obviously all out efforts are better on a turbo but given the fact I'd like to have a film or box set on in my bike shed whilst doing the long efforts would rollers also be quieter?

Thanks

imposter2.0

The mantra round here is 'turbo for training - rollers for warming up, trackside' - but anyway I would question how you would expect a three hour level 1 session will improve your LT?

cougie

Three hours on rollers would be madness.

Get a book on indoor training before you splash out.

And if you're twiddling away watching TV - i doubt you'll get much benefit.

(turbo for me)

diamonddog

+1 for turbo

Monty Dog

I'd rather have someone wire my nuts to the mains than spend three hours on a turbo....you'll get more training benefit from a 1 hour structured training session on rollers / turbo that 3 hours of meaningless twiddling.

SarJo125

I would go Rollers

supermurph09

Thanks for the replies.

In regards to the LT, I have a number of shorter sessions but the advice I have been given is that 3-4 hour rides in zone 1 which for me is below 142BPM is the best way to improve LT and MAP. At the moment I can't venture too far from home and it's impossible given where I live to have 95% of my ride below 142.

Cheers

imposter2.0

Supermurph09 wrote:

In regards to the LT, I have a number of shorter sessions but the advice I have been given is that 3-4 hour rides in zone 1 which for me is below 142BPM is the best way to improve LT and MAP.

Good luck with whatever you buy, but I don't understand why you think that long rides in zone 1 will increase your LT?

supermurph09

Fully agree with the numb nether regions, and I wasn't recommended to do that on the turbo, if I can't do the long rides then shorter sessions can have the same effect. Here is the advice.

ric/rstsport

Supermurph09 wrote:

Thanks for the replies.

In regards to the LT, I have a number of shorter sessions but the advice I have been given is that 3-4 hour rides in zone 1 which for me is below 142BPM is the best way to improve LT and MAP. At the moment I can't venture too far from home and it's impossible given where I live to have 95% of my ride below 142.

Cheers

i'd politely suggest, unless there's something really important you've failed to tell us (e.g. you've only just started riding a bike) that whoever told you that 3 hours at zone 1 is the "best way to improve LT and MAP" is *bonkers*. because it isn't.

if you live in a hilly area i wouldn't worry that you have to ride harder than zone 1.

Ric

supermurph09

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

Supermurph09 wrote:

Thanks for the replies.

In regards to the LT, I have a number of shorter sessions but the advice I have been given is that 3-4 hour rides in zone 1 which for me is below 142BPM is the best way to improve LT and MAP. At the moment I can't venture too far from home and it's impossible given where I live to have 95% of my ride below 142.

Cheers

i'd politely suggest, unless there's something really important you've failed to tell us (e.g. you've only just started riding a bike) that whoever told you that 3 hours at zone 1 is the "best way to improve LT and MAP" is *bonkers*. because it isn't.

if you live in a hilly area i wouldn't worry that you have to ride harder than zone 1.

Ric

You may have been typing that response before I posted the pic above. Have I misinterpreted the info I was given? Or do you think its rubbish?

ric/rstsport

i must have replied prior to you posting. don't think you've misinterpreted it. i just think it's pretty rubbish.

however, i think this is key "traditionally long steady endurance work.... .... is the best way to improve LT and MAP". Traditionally it was. Some people still think it. and while there *is* some truth to it (it will improve LT & MAP) it can hardly be thought of as the best way to improve them.

Training exists on a continuum, that is, if you do sufficient work at say zone 1 it'd help improve your LT (or MAP). It's not that training at zone 1 wouldn't improve it. It's just not the best way of improving it (or even the most time efficient). this is because you'd have to do stacks and stacks and stacks of training at this intensity to cause sufficient fatigue in your motor units to continually recruit more and more of them (not the average say 10 hrs a week training that people on a forum such as this may do).

(un)surprisingly, the best way of improving LT and MAP is by training at intensities very close to these or at them exactly or just a bit above. This can be seen in this link http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... oggan.aspx

furthermore, there's nothing wrong with high intensity work during an endurance session (other than e.g. you'll burn through your glycogen at a faster rate). there used to be a school of thought that doing such high intensity work would "burst" your capillaries that you'd built up from doing steady endurance work. however, this is complete and utter tosh.

ric