Working towards 20mph

pinno

I do not think you can compare golf with cycling.

Right. Deep breath. I am not going to this amount of trouble if you aren't prepared to take some of it in.

One is highly technical requiring a little bit of fitness (unless you are John Daly), the other requires good CV fitness.
So, on a serious note and one which may contradict the goal but will serve a better purpose.

Let's just assume that you do have this 'trail' that is conducive to speed and potentially doing 20mph for 3 hours.

Gym work does have it's benefits but can only serve as a base for strength.

1. Core stability is a component that can be worked on. Cyclists build natural abdominal strength but sometimes the lower back can be out of balance so working on back strength is helpful.



(That was Marco Pantani in the gym following his leg break.)
2. Leg strength via leg press/squat machine/leg curl has it's benefits right in the beginning. However, ANY leg work in the gym A: does not replicate the pedal stroke and B: shortens the muscle so that leg speed and flexibility is compromised. I spent lots of time in the gym after hip replacement No3. Once I had achieved the basic muscle mass, it was time to swap the gym for pedalling.
Note: The leg press for example, without weights was an approx. weight (they kept it well lubricated) of 35kg's. That's quite a high resistance in pedalling terms.
3. There is always a trade off between power and endurance. The greater the power (Chris Hoy), the lower the endurance and vice versa (Chris Froome). Two extremes at the end of each spectrum. Replicating Chris Hoy on a minor scale is not going to help you achieve your (no offence) impractical goal.
4. The hearts and lungs' ability to provide the muscle with glycogen and oxygen over a length of time is critical. The ability of the muscle to quickly get rid of lactic acid is equally critical. Extra muscle mass requires extra oxygen and glycogen, lower muscle mass requires less - again the trade off.
5. Emphasise on the slow twitch muscle group (cycling) rather than fast twitch muscle group (gym):

Fast twitch muscles are good for rapid movements like jumping to catch a ball or sprinting for the bus. They contract quickly, but get tired fast, as they consume lots of energy. Most of your muscles are made up of a mixture of both slow and fast twitch muscle fibres.
Slow twitch muscle fibres are good for endurance activities like long distance running or cycling. They can work for a long time without getting tired.

Sustaining even and high energy output requires condition. Condition is a combination of the following:

A. Fitness
B. Stamina (I know a guy in his late 70's that has been cycling for over 50 years and he has built up so much stamina, he can twaddle along at 16 to 17 mph all day long). They say for a base level of stamina for racing, you need 3 continuous years of cycling and for a higher level, 5 years. There's no short track to that end. You can get fit pretty quickly with the right diet and training but real stamina takes time.
C. Strength
D. The ability to recover whilst riding and the ability to recover quickly after a bike ride.
E. Endurance (not always physical).

Back to the impractical goal. Your first concern is CV fitness, it comes first. Your second is building endurance. You could achieve your goal but it may be a compromise. If you intend to do triathlon, to be reasonably good, 50% will be diet and 50% will be training. Go on the Tri web pages and have a look at diets. They spend a lot of time discussing diet.
To sustain cycling, running and swimming in equal measure, concentrating on diet, fitness and training will take a lot of effort. If you do not plan to do it at a competitive level, it will compromise your goal of 20mph over 3 hours. Therefore, you should just aim to cycle and not run or swim.

If the bottom line is Triathlons, then the priority of CV fitness and endurance is way above some average speed that has little basis or purpose. Even in Triathlons, you can get in a group of riders and move along at a pace over 20 mph. I have been riding for 30+ years and I know that in a big enough group, I can tag along at 20mph but solo - that's a different matter. Even on a day with little or no breeze and temperatures above 20 deg, for 3 hours - no way Jose and no point. But I can draught a tractor at 35mph, only until the road goes uphill. (it's almost like sitting behind John Dagenkolb ). That proves that my point that despite being reasonably fit and having half decent stamina, riding at 20 mph serves so little purpose and will be difficult.
Ask yourself:
Why you want to do 20mph for 3 hours.
Will you achieve practical CV fitness, strength and stamina in the process of achieving this goal.
Why don't you join that 'bunch of guys' who you pass?
Once you have achieved it, what next?!

Move the goalposts. Aim for a different target. Aim for a short Tri time of x hours and minutes and build on it. Aim for a 50m TT in under 2 hours 15 mins. Aim for a beginner road race. A bike race changes quickly and your ability to accelerate and respond to changing pace, conditions and terrain is far more important than a given average over a given time.

fenix

Why quote golf stuff?

With your logic I'm surprised you're not on golf weekly asking them how to train.

You asked. We told you. You disagreed. Fine. Go off and do it your way and we look forward to you coming back and telling us how it went. Maybe this is the great break through that cycling has been waiting for...

ManiaMuse

You say you get passed by riders wearing matching club kit? Well why don't you find out the name of the cycling club and enquire about their rides, chances are they'll let you tag along for a couple of rides without any obligation to join the club. Also they might show you other good routes for cycling, make you more confident riding in a group and on the roads with traffic and also you might meet other cyclists who have similar goals.

Tiger Woods does gym work because being able to hit a ball with an explosive swing every 5 minutes requires a fair bit of strength. Phelps does gym work because swimming is a high resistance sport that rewards strength and freakish dolphin bodies. Look at professional swimmers, they are generally all ripped with huge shoulders and torsos, completely different to the likes of skinny legs Froome and co in the pro peloton. Also swimming is a weird sport in that the same swimmer can be competitive in a wide range of distances, Ledecky won gold in the 200m free as well as 1500m free last year, the equivalent wouldn't happen in running, and there is a far greater emphasis on power and optimum technique over pure endurance.

But anyway, I don't think you're being particularly logical nor really listening to the advice given here. If you want to get good at cycling (unless you are specifically doing track sprinting but that is really the only exception) then the answer is to do more cycling. Every day, further and further, harder and harder, and preferably up hills which is why I think only cycling on a flat trail isn't the best idea. Nothing makes your heart work harder than cycling hard up a steep hill. But if you won't listen then go on and make yourself a gym plan etc and stick to us and let us know how you get on.

Pro cyclists cyle every day, even on 'rest' days and then eat just enough to cover the calories that they have used that day (even an argument to say some are being pushed to not eat enough). It's as simple as that. Same for middle-long distance runners, they run, perhaps do hard intervals over shorter distances, but their main training is running more (sprinters do do bit of gym work but they would get wrecked by long distance runners over anything much more than 400m because they carry too much oxygen hungry and bulky muscle, even Mo Farah would probably beat Usain Bolt over 400m or at least it would be close).

Just to reiterate, cycling is nothing like golf, there is no comparison to the technical skills and consistency required in golf! The only sort of cycling that bares any resemblance to golf might be freestyle BMX if you're trying to perfect a trick, you just do it over and over again, but otherwise to get good at cycling you cycle more and further and harder.

Ste_S

burnthesheep wrote:

I just find it hard to believe that a participant in any sport will only do one exact activity to improve in the sport, the sport itself.

I've done a couple of half marathons (at 1h45m) and raced bikes on road and track reaching the dizzy heights of 3rd cat ( ) after doing well in track league one year and getting a top 10 in a road race.
Not stellar, but I know what training is involved.

For amateurs, running needs cross training. Cross training helps build up cardio without running every day and trashing your legs. Gym work helps to build your core to reduce injury risk.

For road endurance cycling it really is as simple as riding your bike more, with intervals aimed at your goal. Cycling is zero impact and cardio based, you don't need to anything other than ride your bike*
Your body also needs to get used to riding your bike for 3+ hours... which you do by riding your bike more.
*Gym work to improve your core if you have back problems excepted.

Your initial schedule seems more suited to track cycling. Track sprinting is hugely strength based (google Forstemann's legs), and most track sprinters spend as much time in the gym (perhaps more time) as they do cycling.

imposter2.0

Ste_S wrote:

Your initial schedule seems more suited to track cycling. Track sprinting is hugely strength based (google Forstemann's legs), and most track sprinters spend as much time in the gym (perhaps more time) as they do cycling.

Agree with all of that. Just on the above though, Forstermann is a pretty extreme example. Jason Kenny might be a better google topic, as the new sprint world champ. Ironically, there is nothing particularly freakish about his legs at all. I think there is a recognition that even for an event like the sprint, the reliance is still mostly aerobic, rather than anaerobic.

chrisaonabike

Power required to overcome drag is proportional to the cube of the velocity.

A speed increase from 17 to 20 mph is a 17.65% increase. This therefore requires a power increase of 1.1765 cubed, which is 1.628.

So to increase your average speed from 17 to 20 mph means that you have to develop 63% more power.

jgsi

So you are taking enough effort to convince us Brits that you are right..???
Mate, I commute thru nasty urban traffic 4 times a day Mon -Fri..
If you cant handle traffic.. bollx to your ridiculous assumption , that it is death out there...

work on your bike skills .. learn how to pedal harder and for longer and spare us the golf crap.
yours truly
one cynical British bastard who has seen and heard it ALL before. .. the excuses I mean.

pinno

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

Power required to overcome drag is proportional to the cube of the velocity.

A speed increase from 17 to 20 mph is a 17.65% increase. This therefore requires a power increase of 1.1765 cubed, which is 1.628.

So to increase your average speed from 17 to 20 mph means that you have to develop 63% more power.

Ouch.! Bloody physics.

pinno

:shock:



Better:

ravey1981

Strikes me this guy is having us all on... If you're so confident in you're gym based no bike riding method of getting faster on a bike then just go away and try it. Come back in a few months and let us know why you failed. Thanks.

AK_jnr

If you wanted to roughly try and compare running to cycling like you did in your first post. I can do a 20mph 60 mile ride but it would have to be on a perfect day. I can also do an 18 minute 5k which is under 6 min miles so I would say you are miles away, no offence.

bflk

I can see why the OP is aiming for what is simply a round number of mph, the main problem I find is that so much depends on wind speed and direction plus position on bike that its hard to compare one ride with another. Are you always going to sit in the same position? Or tuck down on the big effort days (easily gaining several mph more)? I tend to sit fairly upright when I ride and prefer to do that and put in the extra work rather than go into a tucked position just to get more 'impressive' data out of the ride. Except when I reach our local TT course naturally ;-)

In town traffic is a big problem for me in a large city, depending on which way I go it takes 15-25 min of actual pedal time to escape traffic lights and get the average speed going nicely, again I tend to just suck it up. There are some nice long Strava segments like Carron valley where you can ride freely for an hour or so without stopping if I want, to make up for it.

svetty

There's nothing wrong with his aim of being able to average 20mph - having a reasonable, defined goal is fine. However there's everything wrong with his gym focussed training proposal......

markhewitt1978

Svetty wrote:

There's nothing wrong with his aim of being able to average 20mph - having a reasonable, defined goal is fine. However there's everything wrong with his gym focussed training proposal......

It's simply ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with gym work per-se but he seems to have forgotten the idea of going out and riding at a hard pace for 60-80 miles at least twice, preferably three times per week. Considering 60miles at 20mph is basically semi-pro pace it needs a *lot* more training than a couple of hours in the gym per day.

Alex99

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Svetty wrote:

There's nothing wrong with his aim of being able to average 20mph - having a reasonable, defined goal is fine. However there's everything wrong with his gym focussed training proposal......

It's simply ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with gym work per-se but he seems to have forgotten the idea of going out and riding at a hard pace for 60-80 miles at least twice, preferably three times per week. Considering 60miles at 20mph is basically semi-pro pace it needs a *lot* more training than a couple of hours in the gym per day.

Semi-pro pace!!! I really think not.

I think hitting an nice even 20 mph average is a decent target and can be a good motivator. Aim for half an hour, then an hour first. Take the advice here and do more riding.

singleton

How does the gym prepare you to be comfortable on a bike for 3 hours?
How does it prepare your backside for 3 hours on a saddle?
How does it prepare you for the dozens of other little things such as having a drink and putting your bottle back in it's cage without losing speed?

Alex99

Singleton wrote:

How does the gym prepare you to be comfortable on a bike for 3 hours?
How does it prepare your backside for 3 hours on a saddle?
How does it prepare you for the dozens of other little things such as having a drink and putting your bottle back in it's cage without losing speed?

Unfotunately, looking 'buff' and endurance cycling are mutually exclusive. Years ago, I used to go climbing twice or three times a week and developed 'some' uppper body muscle. I re-discovered cycling and weight the same, but the muscle has moved. I can't say that it bothers me that my other half takes the pee out of my increasing twiggy arms.

markhewitt1978

Alex99 wrote:

Unfotunately, looking 'buff' and endurance cycling are mutually exclusive. Years ago, I used to go climbing twice or three times a week and developed 'some' uppper body muscle. I re-discovered cycling and weight the same, but the muscle has moved. I can't say that it bothers me that my other half takes the pee out of my increasing twiggy arms.

I get the impression that a lot of people have strange ideas of what 'fit' actually looks like. Which usually involves weights and big muscles. Not skinny as a twig cyclists (if only)

Alex99

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Unfotunately, looking 'buff' and endurance cycling are mutually exclusive. Years ago, I used to go climbing twice or three times a week and developed 'some' uppper body muscle. I re-discovered cycling and weight the same, but the muscle has moved. I can't say that it bothers me that my other half takes the pee out of my increasing twiggy arms.

I get the impression that a lot of people have strange ideas of what 'fit' actually looks like. Which usually involves weights and big muscles. Not skinny as a twig cyclists (if only)

It's true. Skinny, slightly emaciated, kind of tired looking and groans when sitting down. It's something to aim for.

Bobbinogs

Not forgetting the strange chimp sounds to be emitted when trundling down stairs..."ooh ohh, ehh eeh, ooh"

pinno

...or the grunting sounds when reaching for the shoe fastenings after a long hilly ride...or the 'oh, f*ck, bollox' noises when you get to the cafe eagerly anticipating cake and coffee but realise you left your cash next to the bread bin...or the pinch puncture expletives when your sailing down a hill in your element only for the fun to be curtailed...or that moment when cornering only to find gravel... or an off and the only thing you can think of is the costs of a new pair of bib shorts...

It's a hard life being a cyclist.

briantrumpet

markhewitt1978 wrote:

I get the impression that a lot of people have strange ideas of what 'fit' actually looks like. Which usually involves weights and big muscles. Not skinny as a twig cyclists (if only)

I think that men are just as subject to 'idealised' body image as propagated by fashion and sexualised imagery as women, and though the outcomes are different for those following those 'ideals' (overly skinny for women, overly muscular for men), the outcomes of people chasing unrealistic body shapes, and being generally dissatisfied with their 'natural' body are the same.

Mind you, talking of cyclists I'm not sure that Frank Schleck's is an entirely 'natural' look either, though I guess he was 'fit' under some definitions...

pinno

What are you doing at a hotel/motel party for ageing/decrepit cyclists ?!

Alex99

briantrumpet wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

I get the impression that a lot of people have strange ideas of what 'fit' actually looks like. Which usually involves weights and big muscles. Not skinny as a twig cyclists (if only)

I think that men are just as subject to 'idealised' body image as propagated by fashion and sexualised imagery as women, and though the outcomes are different for those following those 'ideals' (overly skinny for women, overly muscular for men), the outcomes of people chasing unrealistic body shapes, and being generally dissatisfied with their 'natural' body are the same.

Mind you, talking of cyclists I'm not sure that Frank Schleck's is an entirely 'natural' look either, though I guess he was 'fit' under some definitions...

Regarding Frank, sure he's skinny, but is the main reason for that being challenged as maybe not being 'natural' or 'fit' by some definitions, due to the idealised body image i.e big muscles? Lack of bulk aside, he looks very bright eyed and presumably bushy tailed (but can't see from that angle).

pinno

What a load of rubbish this image thing is. Extra bulk up top just because it gives you a more balanced look is not going to help you up the biggest hill in your area.
Conversely, I remember a guy who was a bouncer. Big, fat, cumbersome rugby player lookalike who went like the clappers in a TT.

It's horses for courses. Flat and track riding requires a good power to drag ratio. For climbing; a good power to weight ratio. Natural physiology is going to dictate what you are most (likely) capable of doing better at. I am sure that despite Boonen's appearance, I bet he's not short of a shag.

Alex99

Pinno wrote:

What a load of rubbish this image thing is. Extra bulk up top just because it gives you a more balanced look is not going to help you up the biggest hill in your area.
Conversely, I remember a guy who was a bouncer. Big, fat, cumbersome rugby player lookalike who went like the clappers in a TT.

It's horses for courses. Flat and track riding requires a good power to drag ratio. For climbing; a good power to weight ratio. Natural physiology is going to dictate what you are most (likely) capable of doing better at. I am sure that despite Boonen's appearance, I bet he's not short of a shag.

Finally, someone got to the nub of the matter.

noodleman

I run 3 hour marathons and generally 6:15-6:30 m/m long runs. I reckon your'e pretty far off in assuming 20mph average on a bike is equivalent to 8 m/m pace. 8 m/m is pretty easy going for a half decent runner and probably more like warm down pace. 20mph for three hours would generally be a fairly huge achievement unless you can find a motorway that'll let you cycle down. As others have said, forget the gym work. If you hate running then the only way you'll get anywhere near that 20mph average target is to ride, ride and then ride some more. Good luck but unless you find a flat road with only hills that go downwards i think you'll have your work cut out.

fenix

You could probably do 30miles at 20mph fairly easily if you choose a day with a good tailwind. But to do it both ways - that's going to be a long term mission.

mrb123

What would a pro expect to average, riding solo for 3 hours on a fairly flat route?

simon_masterson

MrB123 wrote:

What would a pro expect to average, riding solo for 3 hours on a fairly flat route?

25mph+