Yearly progress

Pedro2014

After only getting into cycling a year ago I've just been comparing my progress and I'm not sure if its good or not

About a year ago I rode 30.9 miles 2hrs 13 mins 06 seconds 13.9 mph

Yesterday I rode 31.2 miles 1 hr 49 mins 23 seconds 17.1 mph

Both around 900 feet of climbing so relativly flat.

Distance isn't a problem I've done several 100 + mile rides, I completed coast to Coast recently 186 miles 16000 feet of climbing over 2 days.

Any training tips to increase my average mph or is it just a case of time.

imposter2.0

Performance is a direct consequence of the amount of riding you do, and the intensities you ride at. Difficult to know what else to add, really...

MiddleRinger

Push harder on the pedals.....

ai_1

That's an unanswerable question. Or rather any answer proporting to directly address your query will almost certainly be rubbish.
Average speed is a poor indicator of performance unless solo on the same route with the same traffic, same equipment, dead calm conditions. Your diffetemce is very large so you've almost certainly improved significantly but it can't really be usefully quantified beyond that.

drlodge

Time over a 10 mile time trail would be a better frame of reference.

dwanes

MiddleRinger wrote:

Push harder on the pedals.....

This might sound sarcastic to some but, I also have to say, is the best honest answer.
If you don't push harder you aren't going to improve.

drlodge

dwanes wrote:

MiddleRinger wrote:

Push harder on the pedals.....

This might sound sarcastic to some but, I also have to say, is the best honest answer.
If you don't push harder you aren't going to improve.

No need to push harder, could just pedal quicker (ala the Lance Armstrong approach).

Calpol

Ai_1 wrote:

That's an unanswerable question. Or rather any answer proporting to directly address your query will almost certainly be rubbish.
Average speed is a poor indicator of performance unless solo on the same route with the same traffic, same equipment, dead calm conditions. Your diffetemce is very large so you've almost certainly improved significantly but it can't really be usefully quantified beyond that.

I understand where you are coming from with this but I don't agree. Average speed is the most readily available data for most recreational cyclists and I think it is a good indicator of improving/deteriorating fitness. Used in isolation its not unreasonable as a measure if aggregated over a number of rides. Of course the more data you can gather then the better judgements you can make. It sounds like the OP is doing well and enjoying riding. My advice would be continue as is but consider getting a HRM to learn a bit more about how the body is working and what can be sustained as a performance/effort level over time. I also find that occasional turbo sessions and Sufferfest videos are quite useful for interval training and high quality work outs in a short time period. Finally, there is nothing quite like trying to hang with a rider that is a level higher than you. It really pushes you beyond the comfort zone that we all slip into when riding solo.

sloppyschleckonds

drlodge wrote:

dwanes wrote:

MiddleRinger wrote:

Push harder on the pedals.....

This might sound sarcastic to some but, I also have to say, is the best honest answer.
If you don't push harder you aren't going to improve.

No need to push harder, could just pedal quicker (ala the Lance Armstrong approach).

There is no smiley winky thing after that comment

dwanes

Calpol wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

That's an unanswerable question. Or rather any answer proporting to directly address your query will almost certainly be rubbish.
Average speed is a poor indicator of performance unless solo on the same route with the same traffic, same equipment, dead calm conditions. Your diffetemce is very large so you've almost certainly improved significantly but it can't really be usefully quantified beyond that.

I understand where you are coming from with this but I don't agree. Average speed is the most readily available data for most recreational cyclists and I think it is a good indicator of improving/deteriorating fitness. Used in isolation its not unreasonable as a measure if aggregated over a number of rides. Of course the more data you can gather then the better judgements you can make. It sounds like the OP is doing well and enjoying riding. My advice would be continue as is but consider getting a HRM to learn a bit more about how the body is working and what can be sustained as a performance/effort level over time. I also find that occasional turbo sessions and Sufferfest videos are quite useful for interval training and high quality work outs in a short time period. Finally, there is nothing quite like trying to hang with a rider that is a level higher than you. It really pushes you beyond the comfort zone that we all slip into when riding solo.

Boring!! There's always one that starts going on about 'HRM', 'turbo sessions' and 'intervals'. Thats enough to bore anyone. Forget 'HRM', 'turbo sessions' and 'intervals'.

Just go out on your normal rides/ routes, but work harder. When you get home you should feel knackered! If you don't feel knackered and your legs aren't hurting you haven't worked hard enough and you aren't going to improve very much.

sloppyschleckonds

dwanes wrote:

Calpol wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

That's an unanswerable question. Or rather any answer proporting to directly address your query will almost certainly be rubbish.
Average speed is a poor indicator of performance unless solo on the same route with the same traffic, same equipment, dead calm conditions. Your diffetemce is very large so you've almost certainly improved significantly but it can't really be usefully quantified beyond that.

I understand where you are coming from with this but I don't agree. Average speed is the most readily available data for most recreational cyclists and I think it is a good indicator of improving/deteriorating fitness. Used in isolation its not unreasonable as a measure if aggregated over a number of rides. Of course the more data you can gather then the better judgements you can make. It sounds like the OP is doing well and enjoying riding. My advice would be continue as is but consider getting a HRM to learn a bit more about how the body is working and what can be sustained as a performance/effort level over time. I also find that occasional turbo sessions and Sufferfest videos are quite useful for interval training and high quality work outs in a short time period. Finally, there is nothing quite like trying to hang with a rider that is a level higher than you. It really pushes you beyond the comfort zone that we all slip into when riding solo.

Boring!! There's always one that starts going on about 'HRM', 'turbo sessions' and 'intervals'. Thats enough to bore anyone. Forget 'HRM', 'turbo sessions' and 'intervals'.

Just go out on your normal rides/ routes, but work harder. When you get home you should feel knackered! If you don't feel knackered and your legs aren't hurting you haven't worked hard enough and you aren't going to improve very much.

On the same token can't you just go out and ride to enjoy it, is there any real need to improve or progress?

homers_double

I generally use average speed as an indicator but on the last ride I was down a few KM/h overall but set a lot of PR's on strava.

Pushing harder may work but isn't a higher cadence always good to improve your fitness?

drlodge

homers double wrote:

Pushing harder may work but isn't a higher cadence always good to improve your fitness?

Yes, it worked for Lance :roll:

homers_double

:roll: pisses me off, you never know what it really means... Is it aimed at me or Lance... Drugs (alledgedly) improved his fitness.

drlodge

Sorry should have used a ;-) smiley winky thing. Sometimes there's just no pleasing some people. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

homers_double

That's the internet for you.

davep1

I did a 20 minute ftp test recently. The idea is you warm up for 20 mins, you then do three hard 1 min intervals with 1 min recovery to get the lactate started and then you do the 20 minute test. The proper test is for an hour and ideally you should ride uphill, pushing yourself all the way until the end you pretty much collapse and fall off the bike. After the warm up and intervals, I rode the first 5 mins at a pace a little over a long distance ride, I then did the next 12 mins as fast as I thought I could sustain for that time, and the last 3 were flat out. I picked a square course on quiet roads 3 and a half miles long, thinking doing it in both directions would negate any benefit from tailwinds and gradient would average out too. I know flat out I can do 20 mph for 20 mins, so the hope was I would do a loop one way of the course in around 10 mins and then loop back the other way.
I didn't quite get back to my start point; the first half was a lower average than the second half so I had too little time left for the second loop. The point is it is repeatable so when I do it next, hopefully I'll get that first half quicker and see some improvement.
Have a look at heart rate training, there are loads of different approaches to it and it can bring something different to your cycling. The more varied riding you do the bigger improvements you will see; if you just keep doing the same route your times will come down at first but after a while you'll see it is really hard to make a difference and it will come down to a freak tailwind one day.

homers_double

I think I'm suffering from the last paragraph...

dwanes

DaveP1 wrote:

I did a 20 minute ftp test recently. The idea is you warm up for 20 mins, you then do three hard 1 min intervals with 1 min recovery to get the lactate started and then you do the 20 minute test. The proper test is for an hour and ideally you should ride uphill, pushing yourself all the way until the end you pretty much collapse and fall off the bike. After the warm up and intervals, I rode the first 5 mins at a pace a little over a long distance ride, I then did the next 12 mins as fast as I thought I could sustain for that time, and the last 3 were flat out. I picked a square course on quiet roads 3 and a half miles long, thinking doing it in both directions would negate any benefit from tailwinds and gradient would average out too. I know flat out I can do 20 mph for 20 mins, so the hope was I would do a loop one way of the course in around 10 mins and then loop back the other way.
I didn't quite get back to my start point; the first half was a lower average than the second half so I had too little time left for the second loop. The point is it is repeatable so when I do it next, hopefully I'll get that first half quicker and see some improvement.
Have a look at heart rate training, there are loads of different approaches to it and it can bring something different to your cycling. The more varied riding you do the bigger improvements you will see; if you just keep doing the same route your times will come down at first but after a while you'll see it is really hard to make a difference and it will come down to a freak tailwind one day.

Wow! thats a conversation stopper.

dilatory

Well almost exactly a year ago now I was obese and lazy and started riding a mountain bike. A few months later I grinded out a 30 mile ride at something like 12 mph average.

Today I did the same 32 miles at 19.5mph average. Approx 1300 ft climbing. 3 days ago I did 50 miles of 3000ft at 18.5 mph av.

I started road cycling in February but have really ramped up over the last couple of months by noticing one thing. A lot of the time I am half-assing my rides. I go kinda fast and kinda hard but there's huge chunks where my heart rate drops right down again and I'm free-wheeling and I don't notice because I was going hard for a bit before. Paying extra attention to my HRM and keeping in the right zones and always pushing on the rides (don't forget how important recovery is!) has really taken me up another level. That and intervals.

davep1

madasahattersley wrote:

Since when has riding as fast for a certain period of time and measuring distance been a "repeatable FTP test"? DaveP1 - what you've described is a form of power test, and has absolutely no relevance at all if you're not measuring power while doing it. Especially if as you suggest, you go uphill. So if you include more hills and record a shorter distance you're less fit?

Dilatory said it better than me! Although I am finding the longer slower steadier rides as beneficial as the hard rides, albeit I'm only just in week 2 for myself.

I don't understand why it would have "absolutely no relevance if you're not measuring power"? I don't have a power meter (can't afford one) but have got an estimate of power from Ridewithgps. I'm not overly fussed with the power figure though, it is a repeatable test. I know exactly where I did it (quiet country roads with few junctions; I'm more likely to have to slow down for horses than cars!) and going round a square shaped course one way and then the other will cancel out any variation in wind speed or direction. So if/when I repeat it and if I go further in the same time, then surely I have got better? In the context of the thread title, that's progress. If I only go one metre further, then meh so what, but if I go 500m then yay for me. I suspect the second time I will go further; I have never done anything like that test before so it is new ground for me, and now I know what it feels like I think I will push harder.