Do I need a coach

Roboleeds

Despite training hard over the past year I sometimes wonder if I'm making progress with my cycling.i am therefore considering employing the services of a coach.i find myself struggling to structure a training plan that will Improve me as a cyclist,and therefore feel a coach would be beneficial.Can anybody advise me on the cost and any trainers they would recommend,I am based in Staffordshire,thanks.

BenderRodriguez

Have you ever stopped to think that (like most of us) you just might not be very talented? Coaches will, naturally, be very happy to sell you their services, but the limits to your performance almost certainly have little to do with what training plan you follow.

Of course, if you can find a coach that will give you a money back guarantee that, if you follow their guidelines, you will achieve a certain percentage level of improvement (and the cost /benefit ratio is worthwhile in your eyes), go for it. If you find someone willing to back up their marketing spiel in this way, let me know, I might sign up with them as well!

kamil1891

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Have you ever stopped to think that (like most of us) you just might not be very talented? Coaches will, naturally, be very happy to sell you their services, but the limits to your performance almost certainly have little to do with what training plan you follow.

Amen.

imposter2.0

Bit harsh, no?

A coach might not turn you into a world champ, but there is a good chance that they will get you training more effectivly than you might be currently - regardless of how well you think you are currently doing.

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

Bit harsh, no?

A coach might not turn you into a world champ, but there is a good chance that they will get you training more effectivly than you might be currently - regardless of how well you think you are currently doing.

I was not intending to be 'harsh', just realistic. If the OP has been genuinely 'training hard' doing aerobic training for over a year, their VO2 max is probably in excess of 95% of what it ever will be, almost irrespective of how that training was structured. Similarly, if they feel they have not progressed, perhaps they just fall on the wrong side of the distribution curve and are a 'low responder'.

OK, so a coach (at a non-marginal cost) might point the way to some 'marginal gains', or help ensure that the OP does not waste time doing things that are not effective for them. However, like most of us what the OP probably would like to see is them being transformed, and that probably ain't going to happen.

This desire to become 'transformed' isn't just something that helps to keep coaches in work, much the same desire underlies the classic 'winter warrior' syndrome, with people thinking that if they start hammering out the miles in September, by the next season they will turn themselves from a third cat into a first cat. Sorry, but for the vast majority you are what you are, and what you are is usually evident pretty quickly!

ozzzyosborn206

I would say get a coach, give it a try for a year and see how you go/improve/enjoy the training. If you don't you will just ask yourself this question over and over

xscreamsuk

What are your goals?

Roboleeds

I take on board all comments but my point is that if I'm training hard,but doing the wrong type of training surely my performance will not improve.my goals are simple,ride quicker and become a better climber.

BenderRodriguez

Roboleeds wrote:

my point is that if I'm training hard,but doing the wrong type of training surely my performance will not improve.

I would argue that there is no such thing as 'the wrong type of training', unless perhaps you are an aspiring sprinter who does nothing but steady miles, or and aspiring tester or road racer who only makes does 20 second flat-out efforts.

Long 'endurance' miles, tempo, 'sweetspot', '2 x 20s', long intervals, hill climbing, chaingangs, racing... All of these will raise your aerobic capacity as long as you match intensity to duration. In essence if your sessions involve extended aerobic exercise and leave you feeling tired and in need of recovery, you are probably training pretty effectively. Also, remember that gaining 10% on top of where you are now is probably as much as you could ever gain. (And don't look to the pros for inspiration, as the benefits to be had from doping vastly outweigh most anything else you could do to make you faster.)

Take a look on the FTP thread as see what Michael Hutchinson has to say about training. He talks a lot of sense.

P.s you talk about climbing better. Is your body fat percentage below 10%? If not just look to making yourself leaner!

BenderRodriguez

P.s. Another important point to remember is that everyone is different in the way they respond to training, and if anyone is best placed to find out what is optimal for you, it is yourself! In comparison a coach will only be able to give you a programme that is based around the most general of principles, principles that you can easily learn for yourself with a bit of reading around.

Why not use this year to experiment so that you know how you respond to different types of training, how much recovery you need etc. etc? Once you know yourself better you will have a better as idea as to how to maximise your abilities.

napoleond

I'm going for some testing on Friday (VO2 max etc), I seem to be at best a VERY slow responder. Worried that I don't respond at all. I aim to find out once and for all over the next few months.

imposter2.0

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm going for some testing on Friday (VO2 max etc), I seem to be at best a VERY slow responder. Worried that I don't respond at all. I aim to find out once and for all over the next few months.

Do you mean that effectively, training has made no difference to your fitness? - that would be very unusual...

cougie

I would say that there can be the wrong type of training - overtraining is a bugger.

Roboleeds - have you tried something like the trainerroad ? You test yourself to set your levels and they offer you training plans based on your power or virtual power levels and for whichever plan you want to follow.

You can see your fitness progressing with time.

How are you measuring fitness at the moment ? " I sometimes wonder if I'm making progress with my cycling" seems to suggest you aren't tracking it at all ?

Its only a couple of quid per month and they offer a money back guarantee anyway.

Team4Luke

Roboleeds wrote:

I take on board all comments but my point is that if I'm training hard,but doing the wrong type of training surely my performance will not improve.my goals are simple,ride quicker and become a better climber.

You do not require a coach unless you race in proper racing events, road racing or Time Trialling, MTB........

imposter2.0

Team4Luke wrote:

Roboleeds wrote:

I take on board all comments but my point is that if I'm training hard,but doing the wrong type of training surely my performance will not improve.my goals are simple,ride quicker and become a better climber.

You do not require a coach unless you race in proper racing events, road racing or Time Trialling, MTB........

Sorry, that's rubbish. Anyone who wants to improve their cycling performance - for any reason - could potentially benefit from a coach. But they should check with you first, obviously....

okgo

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Bit harsh, no?

A coach might not turn you into a world champ, but there is a good chance that they will get you training more effectivly than you might be currently - regardless of how well you think you are currently doing.

I was not intending to be 'harsh', just realistic. If the OP has been genuinely 'training hard' doing aerobic training for over a year, their VO2 max is probably in excess of 95% of what it ever will be, almost irrespective of how that training was structured. Similarly, if they feel they have not progressed, perhaps that just fall on the wrong side of the distribution curve and are a 'low responder'.

OK, so a coach (at a non-marginal cost) might point the way to some 'marginal gains', or help ensure that the OP does not waste time doing things that are not effective for them. However, like most of us what the OP probably would like to see is them being transformed, and that probably ain't going to happen.

This desire to become 'transformed' isn't just something that helps to keep coaches in work, much the same desire underlies the classic 'winter warrior' syndrome, with people thinking that if they start hammering out the miles in September, by the next season they will turn themselves from a third cat into a first cat. Sorry, but for the vast majority you are what you are, and what you are is usually evident pretty quickly!

There are many very talented riders who reached a plateau that they then broke with the services of a good coach. What you're saying may have some truth to it, but to think this chap is operating at his natural potential purely because he isn't getting any better is a massive conclusion to jump to.

Imposter - I think Team4luke is a troll account, its the only conclusion I can come to given the magnitude of garbage it comes out with.

napoleond

Imposter wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm going for some testing on Friday (VO2 max etc), I seem to be at best a VERY slow responder. Worried that I don't respond at all. I aim to find out once and for all over the next few months.

Do you mean that effectively, training has made no difference to your fitness? - that would be very unusual...

It seems to be declining, if anything.

ai_1

Imposter wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm going for some testing on Friday (VO2 max etc), I seem to be at best a VERY slow responder. Worried that I don't respond at all. I aim to find out once and for all over the next few months.

Do you mean that effectively, training has made no difference to your fitness? - that would be very unusual...

There's a bell curve as to how different people respond to aerobic excercise.
A small proportion of the population improve very quickly and dramatically when they start training. At the other end of the spectrum a small proportion do not improve significantly regardless of training. The majority lie somewhere in between and they improve with training by varying amounts.
This is one reason why it's highly unfair to say someone who's finding it hard to reach a goal they've set themselves just isn't trying hard enough... for a small proportion of people it may make no difference how hard they try.

imposter2.0

Ai_1 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm going for some testing on Friday (VO2 max etc), I seem to be at best a VERY slow responder. Worried that I don't respond at all. I aim to find out once and for all over the next few months.

Do you mean that effectively, training has made no difference to your fitness? - that would be very unusual...

There's a bell curve as to how different people respond to aerobic excercise.
A small proportion of the population improve very quickly and dramatically when they start training. At the other end of the spectrum a small proportion do not improve significantly regardless of training. The majority lie somewhere in between and they improve with training by varying amounts.
This is one reason why it's highly unfair to say someone who's finding it hard to reach a goal they've set themselves just isn't trying hard enough... for a small proportion of people it may make no difference how hard they try.

I agree with you, no problem. It wasn't actually me who said that people weren't trying hard enough..

From NapoleonD's pov though, I was going to suggest that there might be an underlying issue which is affecting his ability to adapt...

BenderRodriguez

NapoleonD wrote:

I'm going for some testing on Friday (VO2 max etc), I seem to be at best a VERY slow responder. Worried that I don't respond at all. I aim to find out once and for all over the next few months.

If you did show progress for a while you may actually be quite a good responder, but have now just got close to your natural performance ceiling. No one can continue to improve significantly for ever!

Another thing to look at is the type of training you do. If you have 'maxed out' the gains to be had from, '2 x 20s', 'sweetspot' work or whatever, there are plenty of other things to try. Alternatively, perhaps the sort of training you have been doing just isn't optimal for you and, for example, you might naturally respond better to long miles than threshold work, or indeed vice versa. Everyone is different.

BenderRodriguez

NapoleonD wrote:

It seems to be declining, if anything.

The effects of getting older?

Fatigue from continually doing the more in the (probably vain) hope of maintaining never-ending improvement?

napoleond

I'm really poor at the moment! I was quite ill last year with glandular fever with liver complications, it knocked me for 6.
I don't have time to do longer rides (longest I can manage is a 2 hr one once a week unless I'm lucky) this may be the cause - not enough training and very tird from work (60-72hrs a week on shifts).

Having said that having been to the track and doing a few SQTs the coach (ex GB sprinter) noted I 'have a good turn of speed' and urged me to concentrate on that so I've been training for track sprinting. Noting any improvement has been difficult and the truth will out when the track is open again early April.

SO a combination of:
Specific training to (very) short events/efforts meaning endurance is suffering
Tired from work
The lack of time spent training

I hope to address this triumvirate of doom forthwith.

cougie

BenderRodriguez wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

It seems to be declining, if anything.

The effects of getting older?

Fatigue from continually doing the more in the (probably vain) hope of maintaining never-ending improvement?

People will decline with age - but I figure - if you havent been world class at an early age - you should be able to keep improving until a fairly decent age. It seeems to be working for me - mid 40s.

markhewitt1978

Then it seems you improve even more once you're retired, the older guys on our club, I think they're cyborgs.

BenderRodriguez

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Then it seems you improve even more once you're retired, the older guys on our club, I think they're cyborgs.

Of course older riders are capable of going faster than when they were younger if they now have more time for training, are less tired and have more time for recovery due to a reduction in the pressures of work and so forth. However, whatever level a 50 year old might reach, it is an inescapable physiological fact that had they trained and rested as much when they were younger, they would have gone faster still.

Studies show that just about the only way to minimise this decline with age is to train yourself to close to the limits of your ability when young, and then maintain a high work load right throughout life. Just training 'for fitness' is not enough, you really need to continually maintain competition levels of fitness. Even here VO2 max can be expected to decline by around 9% over 20 years. For 'fitness trained' athletes the figure is around 17%, not much different to those who become sedentary, who will decline by 18%. However, the 'fitness trained' will maintain a higher V02 Max than sedentary individuals in relation to body weight as they will tend to stay leaner. (Aging among Elite Distance Runners: A 22-yr Longitudinal Study, by SW Trappe, DL Costill, MD Vukovich, J Jones, & T Melham.)

Roboleeds

I find it difficult to gauge what progress I'm making although I do feel that because I have incorporated a weight training programme with my cycling I am becoming a stronger rider.That said I went out yesterday and completed 48.50 miles averaging only 16.4 miles per hour but felt good and strong throughout the ride.in my favour there was a few decent climbs on the ride,and the weather was very windy.i know this time of year it's all about getting the miles in (base training),but should I be going quicker?

BenderRodriguez

Can you go quicker and still recover enough day to day to train 5 days out of 7. If so, go quicker!

Three hour rides are plenty long enough to 'build base', and building base does not mean going slowly, just doing a lot of below-threshold miles. Endurance rides, 'tempo', 'sweet spot', even just sub-threshold work, can all be regarded as 'aerobic base building'. Generally, the less time you have available for a particular session, the faster you need to make it in order to get an effective training load. That said, if you have the time available there may be some benefits from doing some longer, steadier rides, especially if your goal is to ride 'sportives' and so on that will take many hours to complete.

You are very probably wasting your time with the weight training, unless you enjoy it for its own sake.

As to monitoring your progress, once a week why not just ride as hard as you can maintain on the longest climb that is local to you, and see if, on average, your times for just that climb reduce as the weeks pass?

xavierdisley

Ai_1 wrote:

Do you mean that effectively, training has made no difference to your fitness? - that would be very unusual...

There's a bell curve as to how different people respond to aerobic excercise.
A small proportion of the population improve very quickly and dramatically when they start training. At the other end of the spectrum a small proportion do not improve significantly regardless of training. The majority lie somewhere in between and they improve with training by varying amounts.
This is one reason why it's highly unfair to say someone who's finding it hard to reach a goal they've set themselves just isn't trying hard enough... for a small proportion of people it may make no difference how hard they try.[/quote]

There will be a bell curve with an identical training plan, yes. But training clearly needs to be adjusted to the individual, and that's where the coach comes into it. You often see people suggesting on forums that they're at one end (or the other) and therefore give up, without exploring enough avenues of training. Even with one athlete there are different ways of reaching their goals, and it's always multifactorial and not just based upon hours spent training at x% level, life does get in the way and has to be factored in.

Not a single human being is non responsive to exercise from a sedentary state. As you move further up the scale things just become a little more complex!

Xav

ps. obviously disclaimer etc.

NUFCrichard

I think very few people really reach a plateau where they simply can't improve anymore. I would assume most reach a plateau where they are doing the same training, so getting the same results, over time obviously improvement will stop, but not as quickly as people seem to assume (years, not weeks/months).

I really reach your true peak, or even get nearer to it you will have to put in more work, either more intensity or more time. A coach will make it more organised, but maybe take some of the fun and spontaneity out of it, but you will probably improve.

markhewitt1978

NUFCrichard wrote:

I think very few people really reach a plateau where they simply can't improve anymore. .

Quite often even professional cyclists make that change and breakthrough from being ok to excellent; Wiggins comes to mind.

BenderRodriguez

markhewitt1978 wrote:

NUFCrichard wrote:

I think very few people really reach a plateau where they simply can't improve anymore. .

Quite often even professional cyclists make that change and breakthrough from being ok to excellent; Wiggins comes to mind.

As do Riis, Armstrong etc...

A rider's VO2 max is pretty much genetically determined, and will be maximised after a year's full-time training. The efficiency of the lactate shuttle system can be improved a little for perhaps another couple of seasons, and after that it is a case of marginal gains, largely though increases in efficiency. Someone who has been a pro for a few years will, physiologically speaking, really have no where to go. Unless...