Structured training - trust in doing less to progress more

Escher303

I'm looking for some words of wisdom wrt following a structured training plan which seems like it doesn't involve enough work. Although some of it is hard I feel like the gaps between sessions are making me lazy!

The plan I'm following involves an FTP development turbo session (2 x20), VO2 max turbo interval session, a couple of short steady/recovery rides and a steady, tempo 60 miler at the weekend, with each building week on week (the road riding gets harder but is still a bit less than what I would do regularly). In the summer I normally ride 250-300 miles a week and do a hilly century up to 135 miles with 100 feet per mile at a reasonable speed every few weeks. So Im used to putting miles in and working quite hard and riding most days. Admittedly in the winter it's not so easy to get the miles in but I normally manage 200 a week and a ride most days.

I'm surprised to find I don't mind the turbo much at all, quite enjoy nasty intervals in a strange way and am happy to follow a structured plan but my heart says it won't work even though my brain trusts the science. I just feel I should be giving myself more of a beating! Conversely doing less miles is helping with some pre-race season weight loss, as despite not burning as many calories, I don't feel the need to eat as well/much as when I'm out riding all the time.

So do I need to just suck it up and keep with it and understand that quality rest, despite there being quite a bit if it is the way to go? Is this sort of thing that a lot of people do during the winter? Or are there people who can take more hard intervals per week or is that smelting everyone thinks!?

Any words of wisdom gratefully received.

Tom Dean

How do you feel? (edit) - in terms of fatigue, not guilt about not riding every day.

If you can routinely do 250 miles a week I would guess you could handle a higher workload. It depends on intensity of course. My feeling is if it feels too easy, it probably is. But, be careful not too increase too much too soon.

Was your plan put together with your background in mind?

Escher303

Pretty fresh really, although I haven't been on my bike when I'm not supposed to be to see if my legs are definitely ok.

It's an off the peg plan, not designed for me. I was going by the fact that regardless of how strong you are you will put your max into each turbo session so it kind of caters for most.

Do you think, as an experiment I could throw in an extra turbo session or perhaps a steady road ride to see if I can cope with the training stress? Is it usual for some to do three interval sessions a week? Cheers for your input.

Tom Dean

That's what I would do - switch one of the easy rides for another 2x20 maybe or a tempo session on the road. Then see how you feel.

Escher303

Thanks Tom, I'll do just that.

ozzzyosborn206

If I were you rather than do an extra interval session i would just move forward a few weeks on the plan, you mentioned that it progresses so it may be that you can cope with the training set out for a months time now. Rest is important and i think doing say Solid Tuesday and Thursday turbo sets with good rest Wed and Fri would improve push you more than just doing 3 sets that don't push you so far. It is a bit more of the 'less is more approach'

phreak

If you're doing 200 miles a week, how many of those miles are of the recovery variety? This is just a rule of thumb of course, but if you're doing 25 miles for your two one hour turbo sessions, plus the 60 miles at the weekend, that leaves 90 miles of recovery riding?

Sorry if I've misunderstood. For what it's worth, I agree with Tom though, you should be able to do three interval sessions per week and a longer ride at the weekend (time allowing of course).

liter

The optimal training intensity for endurance adaptation is about 200W (for a male of average height).

When that level seems easy, you should increase the volume rather than the intensity. Training at a higher power will not cause more adaptation (than training for the same amount of time at 200W) although it will increase fatigue.

A very small amount of very high intensity will be beneficial (eg 5x1 minute at a genuine 100% effort once a week).

chrisw12

^ Where the ...did you pull 200w from? :?

In fact, what are you on about? :? :?

liter

chrisw12 wrote:

^ Where the ...did you pull 200w from? :?

In fact, what are you on about? :? :?

The figure of 200W is an approximation for a male of average height/lean body mass, say 1m77 tall. At 1m85 that would become 220W. For someone at 1m65 that would be about 170W.

xavierdisley

Sorry but that's completely wrong. You can't determine someone's training zones/intensities based on height. Saying this:

"Training at a higher power will not cause more adaptation (than training for the same amount of time at 200W) although it will increase fatigue."

Is incorrect also. Higher power (at submaximal intensities) will result in greater metabolic adaptations. Otherwise everyone would ride around at 200w all day and never higher? For strong 1.85m riders 220w is very low and will detrain an athlete unless the intensity is increased.

Xav

chrisw12

In reply to liter above.

Ok I get it, thanks for the explanation. Are British cycling aware of this correlation you've found between height and power output?

I'm a bit worried now though is there any point in me carrying on training since I can't increase my height I wont be able to increase my power.

liter

xavierdisley wrote:

Higher power (at submaximal intensities) will result in greater metabolic adaptations.

It sounds like it ought to, but I have not been able to find any evidence that it does, maybe you can show me.

xavierdisley wrote:

For strong 1.85m riders 220w is very low

Then they would need to increase the volume... 15-20 hours a week at 200-220W is not that easy even for your strong 1.85m rider!

What do you think about Laurens ten dam's rides:
http://www.strava.com/pros/186522

liter

chrisw12 wrote:

Ok I get it, thanks for the explanation. Are British cycling aware of this correlation you've found between height and power output?

I'm simply using height as a proxy for lean body mass with which it correlates well. I wanted to avoid using W/kg since so many people are overweight to varying degrees. The power level I am referring to could be better expressed if you prefer as 3.3W/kg of lean body mass. Eg a rider of 70kg with 15% body fat would have 60kg LBM x 3.3 = 200W. Or 3W/kg for a rider at 10% body fat.

LBM correlates with many physiological variables such as muscle mass, mitochondrial mass, lung capacity, blood volume etc

chrisw12

Ah ok, it's even clearer now. You're saying that the less I weigh the easier I should train since you've stated a relationship:-

lean body mass proportional to power

So if I loose weight, my lean body mass will go down and the power I need to train at will go down as well, brilliant, I can start to take it easy!

Some of your ideas are revolutionary I think, is it all your own work or have you had some help or read a book?

I've also done search on the net to see if I can find a way of reducing my height, you don't know of any links?

xavierdisley

liter wrote:

xavierdisley wrote:

Higher power (at submaximal intensities) will result in greater metabolic adaptations.

It sounds like it ought to, but I have not been able to find any evidence that it does, maybe you can show me.

Why do you recommend short intervals above?

xavierdisley wrote:

For strong 1.85m riders 220w is very low

Then they would need to increase the volume... 15-20 hours a week at 200-220W is not that easy even for your strong 1.85m rider!

Yes it is ... Even for <70kg pro riders

Xav

buckles

liter wrote:

The optimal training intensity for endurance adaptation is about 200W (for a male of average height).

When that level seems easy, you should increase the volume rather than the intensity. Training at a higher power will not cause more adaptation (than training for the same amount of time at 200W) although it will increase fatigue.

A very small amount of very high intensity will be beneficial (eg 5x1 minute at a genuine 100% effort once a week).

I'm of average height and 200w is (only just) in my 'recovery' zone (i.e. zone 1) - should I do hours of recovery rides then?

chrisw12

Buckles wrote:

liter wrote:

The optimal training intensity for endurance adaptation is about 200W (for a male of average height).

When that level seems easy, you should increase the volume rather than the intensity. Training at a higher power will not cause more adaptation (than training for the same amount of time at 200W) although it will increase fatigue.

A very small amount of very high intensity will be beneficial (eg 5x1 minute at a genuine 100% effort once a week).

I'm of average height and 200w is (only just) in my 'recovery' zone (i.e. zone 1) - should I do hours of recovery rides then?

I think there's your problem, you're only average height, if you could increase your height a bit then you could start training at 220w which will not be in your recovery zone anymore.

napoleond

Ive been ill and my threshold power has dropped from 300w to 250. All my jeans are far too long now as well lo and behold following my last test I see to have shrunk 12".

xavierdisley

Aside from the random stuff above ... what are your goals? Sportive riding? Racing?

Xav

Lightning

This topic is brilliant.

Escher303

Not sure what I started here!

@ozzzyosborn206 Moving on through the plan was exactly what the person who devised the plan suggested. That's certainly a good option, thanks.

@phreak The 200 miles a week refers to what I would be doing if I wasn't following this plan and just riding on the road most days. Maybe only 20 miles would be recovery if so. But the mileage is right down following the structured plan and it's that that is hard to adapt to.

@xavierdisley Racing, I'm going to have a crack at the fourth cats this year. I'd say I have reached a fairly good standard at sportive style riding, pretty quick times and high placings so stamina and ability to climb all day are where I'm quite good. I think my base is not bad and can ride a good pace for many hours. I think I would do well (or at least be able to make the selection to try and do well) if a race was very tough and 100 miles plus (the longer and harder the better for me, as when others start to fade I seem to find a second wind and start dropping stronger riders) but as they're not long enough in that categpory I need to improve my kick, sprint and ability to cope with accelarations through training without losing my base. That's essentially what I'm trying to do.

Thanks all.

xavierdisley

Escher303 wrote:

@xavierdisley Racing, I'm going to have a crack at the fourth cats this year. I'd say I have reached a fairly good standard at sportive style riding, pretty quick times and high placings so stamina and ability to climb all day are where I'm quite good. I think my base is not bad and can ride a good pace for many hours. I think I would do well (or at least be able to make the selection to try and do well) if a race was very tough and 100 miles plus (the longer and harder the better for me, as when others start to fade I seem to find a second wind and start dropping stronger riders) but as they're not long enough in that categpory I need to improve my kick, sprint and ability to cope with accelarations through training without losing my base. That's essentially what I'm trying to do.

Okay - you'll struggle to find some 100 mile 4th cat races so most will be shorter and sharper! You're correct in that improving the short efforts is important, and don't think that 1min is the shortest interval you need to complete. I'd recommend trying to join some club runs or reliability rides which take you out of your comfort zone, you can always take an easy week and then a hard club ride at a weekend to see how you get on. Crits would also be good to develop repeated sprint ability and also aerobic power, so maybe aim to try and finish one and see how you deal with the efforts.

Xav

liter

Buckles wrote:

liter wrote:

The optimal training intensity for endurance adaptation is about 200W (for a male of average height).

When that level seems easy, you should increase the volume rather than the intensity. Training at a higher power will not cause more adaptation (than training for the same amount of time at 200W) although it will increase fatigue.

A very small amount of very high intensity will be beneficial (eg 5x1 minute at a genuine 100% effort once a week).

I'm of average height and 200w is (only just) in my 'recovery' zone (i.e. zone 1) - should I do hours of recovery rides then?

"recovery zone", "recovery ride" is meaningless outside the context of the overall training load. You adjust the training volume according to your ability.

Eg if your ftp is 300w you should be riding 15-18hrs per week (at about 200w! ). If your ftp is 350w you would still ride at about 200w but 20-25 hrs per week. On the other hand someone with an ftp of 250w would only be at 8-10 hrs per week.

Effectively, as you improve, you increase the volume rather than the power, other than a small amount of very high intensity.

Most people don't have that amount of time to train, however you can't compensate for lack of volume by increasing the relative intensity of your endurance training; it won't do any harm either, and it might be more fun, but you will never reach the level that you would have done with the correct amount of volume.

xavierdisley

So no one can reach an FTP of 350w unless you ride >18hrs per week?

Your recommendations are at best misinformed, and at worse dangerous, especially in cold winter months where 20hrs plus on the road at no watts (for some) will just detrain you and make you ill.

Edit: actually I reckon you're on a wind-up so I'll leave it there.

Xav

okgo

Better get in touch with Matt Bottril litre, he's doing 8 hours a week, but he's pants, clearly.

buckles

liter wrote:

Buckles wrote:

liter wrote:

The optimal training intensity for endurance adaptation is about 200W (for a male of average height).

When that level seems easy, you should increase the volume rather than the intensity. Training at a higher power will not cause more adaptation (than training for the same amount of time at 200W) although it will increase fatigue.

A very small amount of very high intensity will be beneficial (eg 5x1 minute at a genuine 100% effort once a week).

I'm of average height and 200w is (only just) in my 'recovery' zone (i.e. zone 1) - should I do hours of recovery rides then?

"recovery zone", "recovery ride" is meaningless outside the context of the overall training load. You adjust the training volume according to your ability.

Eg if your ftp is 300w you should be riding 15-18hrs per week (at about 200w! ). If your ftp is 350w you would still ride at about 200w but 20-25 hrs per week. On the other hand someone with an ftp of 250w would only be at 8-10 hrs per week.

Effectively, as you improve, you increase the volume rather than the power, other than a small amount of very high intensity.

Most people don't have that amount of time to train, however you can't compensate for lack of volume by increasing the relative intensity of your endurance training; it won't do any harm either, and it might be more fun, but you will never reach the level that you would have done with the correct amount of volume.

Keep it coming, this is great stuff.

Tom Dean

okgo wrote:

Better get in touch with Matt Bottril litre, he's doing 8 hours a week, but he's pants, clearly.

He seems to get by without volume or intensity
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/news/article/my.week.in.training.matt.bottrill/17083/

liter

xavierdisley wrote:

So no one can reach an FTP of 350w unless you ride >18hrs per week?

Xav

I haven't said that the duration of training determines your ftp, on the contrary I said that your ftp determines your optimal duration of training.

Clearly someone talented could have an ftp of 350w on 5 hours a week. However that would not be optimal for his ability.

Similarly a person of below average ability might never exceed 220w ftp even if they could train 18hrs a week, and they would be wrong to attempt that.

liter

xavierdisley wrote:

Your recommendations are at best misinformed, and at worse dangerous, especially in cold winter months where 20hrs plus on the road at no watts (for some) will just detrain you and make you ill.

Xav

You haven't said what you think about Laurens ten Dam's recent training
http://www.strava.com/pros/186522

liter

okgo wrote:

Better get in touch with Matt Bottril litre, he's doing 8 hours a week, but he's pants, clearly.

As per my reply to xavier Mr Bottril is obviously very talented but that amount of training is not optimal for maximising his potential, although it may well be optimal for him personally in terms of his lifestyle and his enjoyment of the sport.