Forum home Road cycling forum Training, fitness and health

Winter Training - Endurance rides v Intervals?

2»

Posts

  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    Ok' thanks, forgot to say this would be for an hour climbing

    Should still be achievable. Obviously weight does become a factor on a climb but if you have good aerobic fitness you should be able to a given power output over an extended period on a climb. If you are towards the lighter end you may even be able to hold a higher power on a climb, my 5, 20 and 60 minute power numbers are higher on a climb than on the flat.
    ok, thanks for the input, i'm pretty much as near as i think i can go on weight, maybe a kilo would be achievable relatively easily, but two at most then i think i might start to have a problem with recovery ie lack of food , but weight is one option if i'm short on the numbers, thanks
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    VamP wrote:
    reacher wrote:
    VamP wrote:
    As for my FTP, I have been cycling/racing for a fair bit longer than you, so perhaps you haven't yet reached your potential. I fear I have exhausted mine :-)
    There's always room for improvement.
    Question on training, is it possible for an older rider, say around the 60 year mark without any particular natural talent, to reach 3.5 watts per kilo by training hard, obviously it's possible as all things are, but is that an unrealistic goal for an average rider ?

    I wouldn't pick age as being the most important limiter here. I know a 70 year old with 5 w/kg.

    For some it will be easy to reach 3.5 w/kg, for others impossible. It's impossible to say from your data points how close your (hypothetical?) average rider is already to their natural limits, or even how hard they train.

    If this is an 'asking for a friend' kind of question, what's your current FTP in w/kg, how hard do you train, and how long have you been training at this intensity.

    I.e. if you're at 2.5w/kg, have been at between 80 and 100 CTL for the last 4 years then I'd say you're very unlikely to make 3.5 Unless youhave a lot of weight to lose.

    cheers for the input, its very helpful, i need to go and think about it, i have a feeling i'm getting close to the limit with the current training, but still maybe 20 watts or so short of where i need to be, so i think the answer lies somewhere in the training, doesn't sound a lot but that ftp certainly takes some work to move it upwards, thanks
  • reacher wrote:
    VamP wrote:
    As for my FTP, I have been cycling/racing for a fair bit longer than you, so perhaps you haven't yet reached your potential. I fear I have exhausted mine :-)
    There's always room for improvement.
    Question on training, is it possible for an older rider, say around the 60 year mark without any particular natural talent, to reach 3.5 watts per kilo by training hard, obviously it's possible as all things are, but is that an unrealistic goal for an average rider ?
    It depends. For a rider that kept training most of their adult life and was healthy and managed to keep the weight off, it's possible but perhaps at the lower end of probable.

    If you are picking up the sport late in life, then I'd not expect someone with average physiology to attain that level of power, they'd need to have some well above average inherit talent in order to attain that level of performance.

    A well trained (i.e. fairly lean) young adult (in their 20s) male cyclist with average physiology, and by that I mean someone with average VO2max, average trained fractional utlisation of VO2max at threshold, and average gross efficiency would be capable of attaining ~3.9W/kg.

    VO2max declines by ~5% per decade in those that continue to train consistently so that suggests by age 60 someone with average capacities as a young adult would be capable of ~ 3.9 x (0.95)^3.5 = 3.3W/kg. Weight management is likely a problem that would push that number down.

    But if you do not keep training, the rate of VO2max decline is much greater. Given the way life pans out for many in today's society, I'd say consistently training from young adult right through to retirement age would be unusual.

    But keep in mind that by improve, I don't just mean through increasing FTP W/kg. There are many ways to improve one's performance.
  • VamPVamP Posts: 674
    joe2008 wrote:
    okgo wrote:
    FTP is often around 75% of MAP give or take. So he's certainly doing some solid stuff.

    My MAP is probably give or take about the same as my 5 minute power. So doing 20 mins just below that would be tough.

    No according to Cycling Weekly:

    "3.5hr ride with long intervals
    On the second day, the work on the bike becomes a little more specific. This is not a simple endurance ride or a steady-pace one. Instead, over a 3.5-hour ride, Peter will do four to six repetitions of 10 minutes at 85 per cent of his maximum aerobic power — not his FTP but rather his aerobic threshold (FTP indicates the anaerobic one). This aerobic power equates to around 60 to 70 per cent of his FTP."

    http://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/tr ... V6jy4jq.99

    I think CW have got themselves confused here. MAP is a standard test, not the definition they give. Unless they have their own special definition - but even then it makes no sense. It would be a 3.5 hour ride in zone 1 with 4-6 10 minute intervals in zone 2??? WTF?

    Then I thought they just switched FTP and MAP around, and that would be a tough week! But now I'm inclined to think it's just a hotchpotch bullshit article written by someone who just doesn't understand training.
  • joe2008joe2008 Posts: 1,919
    VamP wrote:

    I think CW have got themselves confused here. MAP is a standard test, not the definition they give. Unless they have their own special definition - but even then it makes no sense. It would be a 3.5 hour ride in zone 1 with 4-6 10 minute intervals in zone 2??? WTF?

    Then I thought they just switched FTP and MAP around, and that would be a tough week! But now I'm inclined to think it's just a hotchpotch bullshit article written by someone who just doesn't understand training.

    I do agree with you; it's also in the print edition, so it's pretty poor if it's a 'hotchpotch bullshit article.'

    Could they have confused it with Maximum Aerobic Function?

    https://philmaffetone.com/maf-test/
  • average VO2max, average trained fractional utlisation of VO2max at threshold, and average gross efficiency would be capable of attaining ~3.9W/kg.

    Alex, out of interest, what kind of ballpark figures would you class as average and when would you start to consider someone as elite?
  • FatTedFatTed Posts: 1,214
    When people talk of FTP do they mean a 20 min test and then a K factor to make it an hour? My FTP of 255 (3.4ish W/Kg) calculated from a trainer road 20 min test, is much more than i have actually achieved for one hour which would be around 235. I'm 58
  • okgookgo Posts: 4,368
    Yes, that is generally what they mean. 95% of 20 mins may or may not be accurate for most people, unlikely to be higher, quite likely to be lower.

    CW have little idea what day it is, let alone anything more complex.

    @midlands grimpeur have a look for Coggans power chart, its not too bad for letting you know how good/bad you are.
    Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com
  • harry-sharry-s Posts: 266
    My experience agrees with Alex's summary.
    I've trained all my life, well, since about 14, and am in my sixties now. This year I just about managed 3.5 W/kg, but every year means more training just to maintain a status quo. I'd say the last two years or so have seen a decrease in W/kg despite more focussed training, and also, maintaining muscle mass becomes a problem. A 70 year old with 5 W/kg is right, right out there, I've never come across anyone like that.
    Working on endurance seems to be about the only option, with little or no payback as far as power training goes. Sadly, most training plans are too generic, and don't take age into account.
    Any article in Cycling Weekly titled along the lines of 'Don't Let Age Hold You Back', or similar, needs to be read with a huge pinch of salt. And a portion of cod and chips.
  • VamPVamP Posts: 674
    harry-s wrote:
    . A 70 year old with 5 W/kg is right, right out there, I've never come across anyone like that.


    Yeah he's an outlier alright. Multiple World Champion outlier.
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    harry-s wrote:
    My experience agrees with Alex's summary.
    I've trained all my life, well, since about 14, and am in my sixties now. This year I just about managed 3.5 W/kg, but every year means more training just to maintain a status quo. I'd say the last two years or so have seen a decrease in W/kg despite more focussed training, and also, maintaining muscle mass becomes a problem. A 70 year old with 5 W/kg is right, right out there, I've never come across anyone like that.
    Working on endurance seems to be about the only option, with little or no payback as far as power training goes. Sadly, most training plans are too generic, and don't take age into account.
    Any article in Cycling Weekly titled along the lines of 'Don't Let Age Hold You Back', or similar, needs to be read with a huge pinch of salt. And a portion of cod and chips.

    Out of interest was that 3.5 w/kg for an hour ?
    I would have to agree that age is much more of a factor in training the body than most people or articles seem to say it is, cycling seems to be reasonably forgiving compared to some other sports though. It's improvement is the biggest problem as you age, your right, just halting the decline is hard enough without trying to improve.
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    reacher wrote:
    VamP wrote:
    As for my FTP, I have been cycling/racing for a fair bit longer than you, so perhaps you haven't yet reached your potential. I fear I have exhausted mine :-)
    There's always room for improvement.
    Question on training, is it possible for an older rider, say around the 60 year mark without any particular natural talent, to reach 3.5 watts per kilo by training hard, obviously it's possible as all things are, but is that an unrealistic goal for an average rider ?
    It depends. For a rider that kept training most of their adult life and was healthy and managed to keep the weight off, it's possible but perhaps at the lower end of probable.

    If you are picking up the sport late in life, then I'd not expect someone with average physiology to attain that level of power, they'd need to have some well above average inherit talent in order to attain that level of performance.

    A well trained (i.e. fairly lean) young adult (in their 20s) male cyclist with average physiology, and by that I mean someone with average VO2max, average trained fractional utlisation of VO2max at threshold, and average gross efficiency would be capable of attaining ~3.9W/kg.

    VO2max declines by ~5% per decade in those that continue to train consistently so that suggests by age 60 someone with average capacities as a young adult would be capable of ~ 3.9 x (0.95)^3.5 = 3.3W/kg. Weight management is likely a problem that would push that number down.

    But if you do not keep training, the rate of VO2max decline is much greater. Given the way life pans out for many in today's society, I'd say consistently training from young adult right through to retirement age would be unusual.

    But keep in mind that by improve, I don't just mean through increasing FTP W/kg. There are many ways to improve one's performance.

    Thanks Alex, some interesting comments as always, pretty accurate summary I would say with those numbers, is it possible theoretically then to gain that last jump from 3.3 to 3.5 by training or is vo2 a limiter ?
  • JesseDJesseD Posts: 1,961
    Been reading through this with some interest (although we have digressed a bit :D).

    My question is how do i accurately map my power to weight (watts per KG), is it as simple as dividing my max average power over a 20 min period and dividing by my body weight?

    Looking back over the last 6 months, my max average power over 20 mins (according to my stats on Garmin Connect) was 372w, my weight at that point was 86.6kg, so am i right in thinking my Watts per KG is 4.29w?

    That seems high to me or am i wrong or is more likely that the power reading is wildly wrong from my power meter (stages at the time)?
    Obsessed is a word used by the lazy to describe the dedicated!
  • joey54321joey54321 Posts: 1,297
    JesseD wrote:
    Been reading through this with some interest (although we have digressed a bit :D).

    My question is how do i accurately map my power to weight (watts per KG), is it as simple as dividing my max average power over a 20 min period and dividing by my body weight?

    Looking back over the last 6 months, my max average power over 20 mins (according to my stats on Garmin Connect) was 372w, my weight at that point was 86.6kg, so am i right in thinking my Watts per KG is 4.29w?

    That seems high to me or am i wrong or is more likely that the power reading is wildly wrong from my power meter (stages at the time)?

    That is your power to weight for 20 mins. Most people quote power to weight their FTP though which is ~60min power value. Some people just use 95% of their 20 min power but there is always going to be inaccuracies with calculated VS measured power numbers (i.e. how much of the 20min power average was due to anaerobic contribution, I think).

    There is also the potential for your powermeter to be 'out'. Stages are notorious as, if you have a leg strength difference, it will manifest itself as a higher or lower number (depending on which leg is stronger). There is also the accuracy windows which for most powermeteres is +/- 2% which can account for quite a lot of watts when comparing to someone else.
  • JesseDJesseD Posts: 1,961
    joey54321 wrote:
    JesseD wrote:
    Been reading through this with some interest (although we have digressed a bit :D).

    My question is how do i accurately map my power to weight (watts per KG), is it as simple as dividing my max average power over a 20 min period and dividing by my body weight?

    Looking back over the last 6 months, my max average power over 20 mins (according to my stats on Garmin Connect) was 372w, my weight at that point was 86.6kg, so am i right in thinking my Watts per KG is 4.29w?

    That seems high to me or am i wrong or is more likely that the power reading is wildly wrong from my power meter (stages at the time)?

    That is your power to weight for 20 mins. Most people quote power to weight their FTP though which is ~60min power value. Some people just use 95% of their 20 min power but there is always going to be inaccuracies with calculated VS measured power numbers (i.e. how much of the 20min power average was due to anaerobic contribution, I think).

    There is also the potential for your powermeter to be 'out'. Stages are notorious as, if you have a leg strength difference, it will manifest itself as a higher or lower number (depending on which leg is stronger). There is also the accuracy windows which for most powermeteres is +/- 2% which can account for quite a lot of watts when comparing to someone else.

    Thanks Joey, thought that seemed very high for my average ability.

    If I wanted to calculate this properly what test would I need to do?

    I have access to a wattbike at the gym I am a member of which I presume will be pretty accurate, and I also have an FSA Powerbox PM on my racebike which I can use, it measures both legs and is meant to be pretty accurate as it calibrates itself constantly (apparently every 3 seconds according to FSA).

    Be interesting to find out where I am now and then measure progress against this baseline every month or so. I am recovering/returning from a bad crash so after 7 weeks off I have piled on a bit of weight and have lost a lot of fitness, so it will be good to compare me now to me in say 6 months time at closer to race weight.
    Obsessed is a word used by the lazy to describe the dedicated!
  • harry-sharry-s Posts: 266
    Out of interest was that 3.5 w/kg for an hour ?

    Lactate Threshold Power.
  • joey54321joey54321 Posts: 1,297
    JesseD wrote:
    joey54321 wrote:
    JesseD wrote:
    Been reading through this with some interest (although we have digressed a bit :D).

    My question is how do i accurately map my power to weight (watts per KG), is it as simple as dividing my max average power over a 20 min period and dividing by my body weight?

    Looking back over the last 6 months, my max average power over 20 mins (according to my stats on Garmin Connect) was 372w, my weight at that point was 86.6kg, so am i right in thinking my Watts per KG is 4.29w?

    That seems high to me or am i wrong or is more likely that the power reading is wildly wrong from my power meter (stages at the time)?

    That is your power to weight for 20 mins. Most people quote power to weight their FTP though which is ~60min power value. Some people just use 95% of their 20 min power but there is always going to be inaccuracies with calculated VS measured power numbers (i.e. how much of the 20min power average was due to anaerobic contribution, I think).

    There is also the potential for your powermeter to be 'out'. Stages are notorious as, if you have a leg strength difference, it will manifest itself as a higher or lower number (depending on which leg is stronger). There is also the accuracy windows which for most powermeteres is +/- 2% which can account for quite a lot of watts when comparing to someone else.

    Thanks Joey, thought that seemed very high for my average ability.

    If I wanted to calculate this properly what test would I need to do?

    I have access to a wattbike at the gym I am a member of which I presume will be pretty accurate, and I also have an FSA Powerbox PM on my racebike which I can use, it measures both legs and is meant to be pretty accurate as it calibrates itself constantly (apparently every 3 seconds according to FSA).

    Be interesting to find out where I am now and then measure progress against this baseline every month or so. I am recovering/returning from a bad crash so after 7 weeks off I have piled on a bit of weight and have lost a lot of fitness, so it will be good to compare me now to me in say 6 months time at closer to race weight.

    One of the biggest benefits of having a PM for me is to evaluate, test and motivate. Testing regularly gives me something 100% in my control to aim for regardless of the time of year, etc...

    I should say, my comment above wasn't to say you aren't at 4.29w! That is entirely possible (it's pretty high for an average amateur, I have no idea what 'level' you're at).

    Regarding the point about powermeters I'd say the number one thing is to be consistent. Comparing powermeters to other people gets you nowhere, what is important is how good are you compared to how good you were, how good has your training been, etc...and how to set 'zones' for training. For this consistency, rather than accuracy, is king. Pick and powermeter and a test methodology and stick with it. If it were me id use the FSA powermeter for testing every 4-8 weeks as required/appropriate. I have my race bike set up on the turbo and do all my tests using it in summer/winter...its as controlled as I can get but the temperature swings probably have some sort of an impact.

    As for the test itself I think it depends. Many coaches and articles will say test this way or that way. I think the gold standard is lactate testing but you need a lab etc... there so not very practical. Short of that there are numberous tests, 2 x 8 min, 20 min, 60 min, ramp test. Just choose your poison. I prefer ramp tests as they are shorter, self pacing, and I find them mentally much easier to do regularly, they're good enough for me (though I believe many coaches combine this with a longer, steady power test to try and isolate different 'components' of fitness).


    Finally, a quick note on powermeter calibration. I am certainly no expert but no powermeter is self calibrating. What it likely does is either account for temperature or 'zero' itself. I won't go in to too much detail as, truthfully, i don't know too much detail but the 'slope' of a powermeter is linear, i.e. if you put on more static weight to a pedal the torque registered increases linearly. This slope is set at the factory and, though often possible, it is not generally something a user should play around with. What zeroing does is tell the powermeter what 'zero'/neutral/no weight on the pedals feels like.
  • JesseDJesseD Posts: 1,961
    Thanks, I’ll do some research into the tests you have mentioned and pick one to do every 4-6 weeks to check on progress.

    With regards to consistency of readings, I am aiming to set up the race bike on the turbo over the winter and leave it set up, this should give me some pretty consistent readings to work from.

    With regards to my 4.29w per KG, I do think that is out by some margin and that the random number generator (Stages PM) was not great in that respect, it will be interesting to test in a week or two and see where I am now and where I end up in 6 months’ time. As for my level, I do not race on the mainland UK so we have different categories than you guys, standard wise I would say I would be top end of 3rd cat and very lower end 2nd cat based on last year’s performances, I did plan to come over and try to get my 3rd cat licence last year but circumstances put paid to that, maybe next year.
    Obsessed is a word used by the lazy to describe the dedicated!
  • joey54321joey54321 Posts: 1,297
    Depending on how you race (e.g. particularly aero, good sprint, etc...) I think you could well be a 2nd cat here on 4.29w/k for 20mins, especially if you raced enough.
  • average VO2max, average trained fractional utlisation of VO2max at threshold, and average gross efficiency would be capable of attaining ~3.9W/kg.

    Alex, out of interest, what kind of ballpark figures would you class as average and when would you start to consider someone as elite?
    For the use of term elite cyclist in scientific study, this might help:

    DOhtGtyVQAEBpBW.jpg:large

    from:
    http://www.jsams.org/article/S1440-2440(00)80008-0/pdf

    Note that those in the trained cyclist category are already at or above average VO2max for adult males.

    Wmax is the highest power in the final stage of an incremental test to exhaustion (3-5 min steps with intervals increasing at 25-50W). As such Wmax is similar to but below Maximal Aerobic Power (MAP). Think of it as power at VO2max, although that's a bit fuzzy since VO2max can be induced over a wide range of power outputs.

    In threshold (FTP) W/kg terms, we are talking >5.5W/kg.
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    I'm a bit fuzzy on the tests your useing, I understand the concept, but is their not a big differance between a 20 minute ride and a 60 minute ride to establish power levels, I know they take a percentage off the shorter test, but it seems to me riding for an hour flat out is vastly differant to riding for 20 minutes flat out, I'm not saying its wrong I just don't quite understand why it works that way
  • pastryboypastryboy Posts: 1,385
    The reason for a 20 minute test as opposed to 60 is it's easier in terms of pacing, concentration, finding a suitable environment to conduct the test and is more convenient to carry out regularly. Taking 95% of that power figure is the most common way of getting your FTP.

    It's a good benchmark for establishing where you are, working out zones and monitoring fatigue but doesn't necessarily mean you're a strong rider. I can pretty much guarantee you I had the highest FTP is most of the races I've done but it didn't count for much when taking into account my relatively poor output in the <1 minute range.
  • joey54321joey54321 Posts: 1,297
    pastryboy wrote:
    The reason for a 20 minute test as opposed to 60 is it's easier in terms of pacing, concentration, finding a suitable environment to conduct the test and is more convenient to carry out regularly. Taking 95% of that power figure is the most common way of getting your FTP.

    It's a good benchmark for establishing where you are, working out zones and monitoring fatigue but doesn't necessarily mean you're a strong rider. I can pretty much guarantee you I had the highest FTP is most of the races I've done but it didn't count for much when taking into account my relatively poor output in the <1 minute range.

    Just out of interest, how can you guarentee you had the highest FTP?
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    pastryboy wrote:
    The reason for a 20 minute test as opposed to 60 is it's easier in terms of pacing, concentration, finding a suitable environment to conduct the test and is more convenient to carry out regularly. Taking 95% of that power figure is the most common way of getting your FTP.

    It's a good benchmark for establishing where you are, working out zones and monitoring fatigue but doesn't necessarily mean you're a strong rider. I can pretty much guarantee you I had the highest FTP is most of the races I've done but it didn't count for much when taking into account my relatively poor output in the <1 minute range.

    I'm sure your correct and that's why it's used, I just can't see how a 20 minute ride can be the same as a 60 minute ride, it's a massively differant distance when your riding hard outside, even worse indoors 20 minutes is nothing realy, 4 songs on a set of headphones it's over before it's got uncomfortable. 60 minutes on a turbo in comparison, it's a completely differant prospect to go hard as you can for that.
  • pastryboypastryboy Posts: 1,385
    As you said yourself:
    joey54321 wrote:
    Depending on how you race (e.g. particularly aero, good sprint, etc...) I think you could well be a 2nd cat here on 4.29w/k for 20mins, especially if you raced enough.

    I entered some 4th cat races with an FTP well above what you've alluded to. Obviously everyone is cat 4 at some point but it only takes two races to get out of so it's down to odds. Plus there was the experience of the races themselves.
  • joey54321joey54321 Posts: 1,297
    If you are 'well over' 4.3 watts/kg you can easily destroy a 4th cat field, you should almost just be able to ride away from them. I would suggest you check the calibration of your powermeter or put some hard work into either tactics or draughting as power to weight is definitely not your issue.

    I compete at a 2/3/4 level and enter (and normally/expect to finish) E/1/2/3 races on ~4w/kg as a comparison.



    It's surprising but when really going for it the difference between what you can hold for 20mins isn't too dissimilar to what you can do for 60 mins. I think, though could be wrong, it's basically due to how quickly the body tips away from homeostasis. You can sit just below a given threshold for a very long time but as soon as you nudge over it, it all goes downhill very quickly. Mentally (at least for me) 60 mins is far harder but in terms of power there has always been a very strong correlation and it is ~95% (or was, when I was riding more TTs at 10 and 25 miles I had some good, fairly regular ~20min Vs 60min comparisons).
  • pastryboypastryboy Posts: 1,385
    That's why I said FTP isn't necessarily a good indicator. My 20 minute power is "very good" on the power profile chart but my one minute power and 5 second power - probably the most important things for flat UK races - aren't great at all. Whilst I can and have ridden off the front in races holding off a bunch isn't easy.

    Also, and this is something I'm only just really taking a proper interest in and looking at, I was overtrained a lot, negative TSB all the time. Did one race with -34 and several others where I was outside recommended ranges, assuming -10 is a sensible cutoff.

    According to 'Training and racing with a power meter....' you can hit PBs for >5 mins (i.e. endurance gains) when in a negative TSB but you're unlikely to set any PBs for <5 mins in that scenario. So I was doubling up on my weakest area.

    So those two things, in a nutshell are why I can have a high FTP but manage to suck, relatively speaking, in terms of performance in races. And why I said a high FTP doesn't make you a 'strong' rider in itself. Tactics, drafting and/or power accuracy aren't my issue(s)!

    I agree with your second paragraph - I gas very fast as soon as I'm above my five minute max power.
  • Midlands Grimpeur wrote:
    average VO2max, average trained fractional utlisation of VO2max at threshold, and average gross efficiency would be capable of attaining ~3.9W/kg.


    Alex, out of interest, what kind of ballpark figures would you class as average and when would you start to consider someone as elite?

    For the use of term elite cyclist in scientific study, this might help:

    Image

    from:
    http://www.jsams.org/article/S1440-2440(00)80008-0/pdf

    Note that those in the trained cyclist category are already at or above average VO2max for adult males.

    Wmax is the highest power in the final stage of an incremental test to exhaustion (3-5 min steps with intervals increasing at 25-50W). As such Wmax is similar to but below Maximal Aerobic Power (MAP). Think of it as power at VO2max, although that's a bit fuzzy since VO2max can be induced over a wide range of power outputs.

    In threshold (FTP) W/kg terms, we are talking >5.5W/kg.

    Thanks, Alex. I had seen the study a while back and was trying to remember who had carried it out. I think the variables used are slightly more relevant to me as an indicator of performance/potential as I do not have huge power as a lighter rider, so power charts alone often underestimate my actual level.
  • In the winter I do a lot of gym based work. Fitness that is not cycling suck as swimming and body resistance weight work. When I ride I try and do outdoor sprints on both hills and flats once a week and the a longer endurance ride to keep the legs going onecs a week
Sign In or Register to comment.