Faster Please

Bottom briquettes

Shirley Basso wrote:

one skipped red light.
.

Okay, That’s proved what I figured.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Jempi wrote:

To be honest I'm quite disapointed.
When I explained my goals set I recieved a reaction of ten that it's stupid or impossible to achieve a goal set on average speed.
When I translate my goals in to your guys hipstertalk, talking power instead of average speed (what's to me the same, higher power = higher speed = higher average) cause the world tour peloton all have a powermeter I get 1 advise, go to a personal coach.

Speed is a function of two things:
i. power output
ii. resistance forces

So yes, increasing power on average will result in increasing speed, however if the resistance forces are also increased it's entirely possible you will still be slower. It's also possible to go faster with less power.

Increasing power on any given ride means you need to:
- improving fitness to be able to ride harder
- ride harder
- reduce periods of low or zero power, such as stoppages
- improve pacing of effort (this enables one to increase overall average power)

Reducing resistance forces means:
- improving aerodynamics through bike position, equipment and clothing choices
- careful route selection to get favourable conditions
- reducing weight, which can be yourself or your equipment
- reducing rolling resistance by choosing quality tyres, using appropriate tyre pressures

Many resistance force factors are outside of your control, e.g. wind and air density (due to variances with air pressure and temperature), and road surface quality.

On flattish routes, air resistance represents 85%+ of the total energy demand and since wind and air density are quite variable and neither is in your control it means the speed you can attain for the same power can be quite variable. This is why speed per se is a very low resolution indicator of performance, and it's often misleading.

OnTheRopes

Jempi wrote:

That's true, you did gave me this advice before, thank you for that.
What I find odd, is that you build down instead of up. Most plans / schemes work up.
You go from long 10 min. blocks to 5 min. blocks where I mostly see people start with 1min. to 5 min. blocks and work up to 10 min. blocks. What is the reason?

Love those ladder intervals, I saw the extremer version the tabata (10sec. sprint / 20sec. rest / 10sec. sprint / ...) what's yours opinion about that?

the good books... some favorites?

Jempi.

Sorry for the delay, this is not building down, this is building intensity up, not duration.
Before you can run you must walk, it is important to build aerobic endurance and develop your cardio vascular system before you build speed.
You really need muscular endurance before you can do high intensity short intervals,

I did not want to patronise you but as you didn't seem to want to consider heart rate monitor (worthwhile getting even at this level to understand what is going on) or a power meter (not worth getting at this level imo) I was trying to keep it simple.

I am assuming you have aerobic endurance sufficient for your target distance.

If you try and do the whole distance as fast as you can you will not get faster, so we need to reduce the distance to allow you to go faster.
10 minutes as fast as you can and then recover, repeat, recover, repeat, ride easy to work will be muscular endurance work and will make you faster, maybe do this twice a week for a few weeks.
Then reduce to 5 minutes and go even harder then recover, repeat 6 times on your way to work and ride easy for the first and last 5 minutes, do this twice a week for a few weeks.
The do the ladder intervals, actually you probably don't really need these as they are for road racing type efforts where you need to be able to jump and recover for bridging to breaks etc. they are as hard as it gets really.

This is a very simple training schedule but should help you get faster over your target distance. If you want to get more into it then buy a heart rate monitor and a good book on the subject

jempi

I made this plan for myself:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AW-ye82ApGYv2_2_eG7DYZxZVt-HkX_i

I guess the answer at getting faster is like everything in life verry simple:
I just need to ride bigger gears at the same cadance or higher cadances at the same gears.
Or even better, ride bigger gears at higher cadances :twisted:
So that's what i'm trying to do here...
The scheme is a combination of the cycling weekly getting faster block training and the info I did get here, adjusted to my commute.
I just completed week 1 (first 8 rides) and damned my legs hurt
No I have 3 days rest.
Monday week 2

one "rit" = one ride or 18km, I know I lack long rides but it is what it is. Maybe in hollidays or long weekends or so I can make longer rides but for the coming weeks it will just be this.
Underlined parts are the goal of the training, they increase every week by 5%.
This is block 1, if it goes well i make more blocks with the same increase of 5%

I know that the km/h goal at the intervals is a bit stupid but it's more a direction than a real goal. So are the MHR indications.
I do wear a heart sensor but it's a tomtom wrist model that I bought when I was still running. Love the gps but the optical sensor is not so good. I never realy followed heart rate schemes precisely, do things more on the feeling.
I can be riding relaxed at a HR of 160 and then I don't drop tempo, and sometimes I feel like i'm dying at a HR 130. Then I won't force things. To me HR is a good indicator but not everything. What is holy to me is the cadance and the time of the efforts. I realy stick to those.

Feedback more than welcome !
Jempi.

chris_bass

your master plan is to pedal faster?

To be slightly more serious, there are too many external factors that impact speed, traffic, traffic lights, wind, temperature, rain, etc etc

carry on doing what you are doing and save up for a power meter.

darkhairedlord

faster longer harder

jempi

Chris Bass wrote:

your master plan is to pedal faster?

To be slightly more serious, there are too many external factors that impact speed, traffic, traffic lights, wind, temperature, rain, etc etc

carry on doing what you are doing and save up for a power meter.

My master plan is to pedal a little bit faster on bigger gears
I can buy a powermeter, but i can't see the point. That would cost me about 3000 euro (I have two bikes) to do the same thing...
Then I would see my poweroutput, take an average, and say I have to raise my power output by ...watt to achieve my goal.
To raise my power output I should have to do exactly the same training as I do now.
Sometimes I feel like some people think the power meter was invented before the bike

I don't deny the external factors that impact the speed, but I have plenty of miles on my commute where the road is free. I have maximum 5 intersections where I lose time.
If I can raise my speed/power-output on those sections my average times will increase.
I never said my goal is easy, but setting an easy goal would be a bit laim, not?

2 years ago there was a plan released to put a bike-highway on the road I take, and they wan to turn that road also in a car highway so if things go well those intersectons will disappear, how cool is that! They had to start this year but it's allready delayed with a year. If the plan would be executed I would only have 1 intersection where I would have to stop !!

jempi

Craigus89 wrote:

You could also afford to lose 10 kg or more, that would absolutely be the best thing to make you faster.

I lost 6kg in the last weeks. Before my holliday I was 88kg, after it 93kg :P
( had 5 weeks off and I had commited myself to eat every day an ice cream)
Now I'm at exactly 87, my goal is 85 but maybe I go for even less cause things are going verry well for the moment.

darkhairedlord

You need to get another 20 off, minimum. Work harder.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Jempi wrote:

Sometimes I feel like some people think the power meter was invented before the bike

There's not much in it.

The first force measurement pedals on a bicycle were invented and used in the 1890s as were the first power measurement ergometers. The first safety bicycles (i.e. a bike with a crank and chain driving rear wheel) appeared in the 1880s, about a decade earlier.

Direct measurement of cycling power output has been around for about as long as bicycles have.

jempi

darkhairedlord wrote:

You need to get another 20 off, minimum. Work harder.

I just commute dude, keep in mind I have a verry fysical job and I have a heavy and strong upper body.
I could be wrong but I don't think that Froomsie loads trailers with av-equipement or build stages inbetween training.
Also nature has provided me with a more Greipelish body than a Froomsie stature so about 75 kg would be ideal I believe.
It reminds me off something flandrien Peter Van Peteghem once said in a interview: if I would like to live like a monk, I would go the monastry

chris_bass

Jempi wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

your master plan is to pedal faster?

To be slightly more serious, there are too many external factors that impact speed, traffic, traffic lights, wind, temperature, rain, etc etc

carry on doing what you are doing and save up for a power meter.

My master plan is to pedal a little bit faster on bigger gears
I can buy a powermeter, but i can't see the point. That would cost me about 3000 euro (I have two bikes) to do the same thing...
Then I would see my poweroutput, take an average, and say I have to raise my power output by ...watt to achieve my goal.
To raise my power output I should have to do exactly the same training as I do now.
Sometimes I feel like some people think the power meter was invented before the bike

I don't deny the external factors that impact the speed, but I have plenty of miles on my commute where the road is free. I have maximum 5 intersections where I lose time.
If I can raise my speed/power-output on those sections my average times will increase.
I never said my goal is easy, but setting an easy goal would be a bit laim, not?

2 years ago there was a plan released to put a bike-highway on the road I take, and they wan to turn that road also in a car highway so if things go well those intersectons will disappear, how cool is that! They had to start this year but it's allready delayed with a year. If the plan would be executed I would only have 1 intersection where I would have to stop !!

I'm guessing English isn't your first language and you don't live in England but you can get powermeters that can easily be swapped between bikes and you would not have to spend anywhere near 3000 euros.

I'm guessing you will ignore this as you seem to ignore everything else but what the hell, someone else might read it.
If you do this:
"Then I would see my poweroutput, take an average, and say I have to raise my power output by ...watt to achieve my goal."

then you are just using a powermeter wrong, I can't really be bothered to explain but the internet will probably help with how to use one properly if you want to improve your power output/speed/

jempi

Chris Bass wrote:

I'm guessing English isn't your first language and you don't live in England

I live in Ghent, in Belgium. My first language is flemish. My apologies for my English. I realy do my best but writing it a bit of a struggle I have to admit.

jempi

Chris Bass wrote:

Jempi wrote:

I'm guessing English isn't your first language and you don't live in England but you can get powermeters that can easily be swapped between bikes and you would not have to spend anywhere near 3000 euros.

I'm guessing you will ignore this as you seem to ignore everything else but what the hell, someone else might read it.
If you do this:
"Then I would see my poweroutput, take an average, and say I have to raise my power output by ...watt to achieve my goal."

then you are just using a powermeter wrong, I can't really be bothered to explain but the internet will probably help with how to use one properly if you want to improve your power output/speed/

I think we are both right.
Is a (good quality) power meter used wisely good for training? Offcourse, At the moment it's the probably the best way.
Are there other good training methods without power meters? Offcourse there are. And I'm more interested in those.
Maybe I'm just wrong, time will tell and then I will admit that to, But I still believe I can reach my goal with the scheme I made.

Why I don't want the power meter?
- It's expensive ( I heared about those cheaper pedal power meters but I was told the cheaper types lack precision. please correct me if I'm wrong. ) I would need to buy a new bike computer also. The cheapest set up with good quality devices would still be around 1000 to 1500 euro's. It's half of what I said, true but I rather spend them on other gear.
- I also have been told that to train wisely with a power meter it's best to take guidance from a coach cause it is realy difficult to take te right analysis of the data. Please correct me here to if thit is BS !

I compared my scheme with power meter based training scheme's and to me the basic principles look the same.
A variation of training types (interval, tresshold, high cadance, low cadance,...) combined in blocks with a 5 to 10% gain in the excercises. Only the goals are set by watts (or combined) instead off MHR, caddence, km/h,time,..

What I actually expected from this post was that sombebody had done the same silly thing in the past and wanted to tell me how... that 's all...

Jempi.

chris_bass

Jempi wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

I'm guessing English isn't your first language and you don't live in England

I live in Ghent, in Belgium. My first language is flemish. My apologies for my English. I realy do my best but writing it a bit of a struggle I have to admit.

I didn't mean it as a bad thing, I would not be able to write a single word in Flemish, just thought maybe some things you were saying may have been lost in translation and vice versa.

I have these https://www.powermeter24.com/uk/favero-assioma-duo-dual-power-1071 single sided ones are cheaper (450 euros) and you can always upgrade at a later date, you can pick up a reasonable computer for relatively cheap. And accuracy is very good with these (as far as I am aware at least!)

I admit it isn't needed but if you are serious about getting faster it might be worth the investment.

you don't need a coach, plenty of advice on how to use them can be found online for free, have a search on google or look on youtube.

cossyrush

Perhaps I can give you my experience.

I started road riding more seriously 1.5years ago.
Previous to that I rode MTB.
During the last 1.5 years I’ve substantially increased my mileage.
With this increased mileage my fitness and average speed has also increased.
My commute is between 20 and 25 miles each way and I do it around 2 times a week. Mostly they are strong efforts and I used to try to go as fast as possible.

So I’ve ridden the same route many times over that period.
Sure there are many variables, the biggest being the wind direction. But you soon get to know if you are going quicker.
Strava is a great way of checking progress.
As someone else mentioned pick some segments on each ride and ride them flat out. See how you progress up the leader board.
Or pick some corners and try taking them without breaking your pedalling or concentrate on a good line.

I set my self a stretch target to ride both ways with a certain average speed +2 to 3 mph than my initial average.
Some days it was easy in one direction, because of a tail wind, but the other way would be slow in comparison due to a headwind.
Anyway this summer after 1.5years I finally managed to do it.

So what I’m saying is by riding more your speed with increase. Enjoy the riding and you’ll want to ride more and the circle continues.

If you continue to enjoy it then later you can focus on more dedicated training.
That’s the stage I’m at now.

It’s also good to join a club, so you can get some longer rides in at the weekend. You’ll find your position in the club in terms of fitness and speed, so you’ll be able to judge your fitness and speed increases against others (although that assumes they remaining at the same level).

Now on my commute, some days I’m using it as a recovery ride and keeping my legs fresh for faster weekend club rides.

I hope this helps.

jempi

Chris Bass wrote:

I have these https://www.powermeter24.com/uk/favero-assioma-duo-dual-power-1071 single sided ones are cheaper (450 euros) and you can always upgrade at a later date, you can pick up a reasonable computer for relatively cheap. And accuracy is very good with these (as far as I am aware at least!)

I admit it isn't needed but if you are serious about getting faster it might be worth the investment.

Thank you for sharing. Price / quality looks indeed verry good at this model. If I fail with my masterplan I will consider it. Or maybe the day my computer dies would be a good moment ( I now have a 60 euro bryton rider 10). Then I can look for a bundle in discount or something like that.

jempi

cossyrush wrote:

Perhaps I can give you my experience.
...
I hope this helps.

Thank you, this is realy helpful !
+ 2 á 3 mph on an average is f*** a lot, respect!

I will try strava. In my mind strava belonged to the facebook look-at-me attitude with a lot of FOMO drama, never saw it like a good training tool.

Longer rides, thats realy my weak point. In my scheme I made and in general. Especially due to lack of time. Same for club rides / riding in the weekends. And I know you (and the others that pointed this out) realy have a point here so I will have to find a way I guess.
How shorter the commute, how more difficult to improve the average I also feel. A good warm up is around 15 minutes, but then I'm allready half way. Its realy hard for me to improve my first miles.

What is " more dedicated training " for you?

jempi

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Jempi wrote:

Sometimes I feel like some people think the power meter was invented before the bike

There's not much in it.

The first force measurement pedals on a bicycle were invented and used in the 1890s as were the first power measurement ergometers. The first safety bicycles (i.e. a bike with a crank and chain driving rear wheel) appeared in the 1880s, about a decade earlier.

Direct measurement of cycling power output has been around for about as long as bicycles have.

Are you saying that cyclist are training with powermeters since 1890?
The oldest powermeter (that you can use outside, on the road ) I found is the 1985 SRM-Greg Lemond crank. This is off topic but very interesting I think, so please share if you have other information...
How did they actualy train before the computer era? Are there training schemes/methods availble from the 1970's or early 1980's. I would love to see some !

Alex_Simmons/RST

I was pointing out that measurement of cycling power is nearly as old as bicycles themselves to correct the suggestion it was not. I was not talking about how such information has or has not been used in training.

People have been training using various methods for many decades. Whatever method you choose, what matters most is keeping track of intensity of effort and duration. IOW all one needs is to have a perception of effort and a means of measuring time, which does not require a computer.

darkhairedlord

Find some longer routes for your commute.

OnTheRopes

darkhairedlord wrote:

Find some longer routes for your commute.

What will that achieve?

darkhairedlord

OnTheRopes wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Find some longer routes for your commute.

What will that achieve?

More than looking for a shorter route, which will likely be fruitless.

OnTheRopes

darkhairedlord wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Find some longer routes for your commute.

What will that achieve?

More than looking for a shorter route, which will likely be fruitless.

But who is looking for a shorter route?

darkhairedlord

OnTheRopes wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Find some longer routes for your commute.

What will that achieve?

More than looking for a shorter route, which will likely be fruitless.

But who is looking for a shorter route?

Exactly.

jempi

So I joined strava. I like the segment shizzle. A nice way to discover nice rides to. But to realy use it as a training tool I need a better bike computer I feel. The elemnt seems a good companion fotr strava I guess.
I have done bigger rides to, but still under 50km.
I do them late in the evening, a good thing cause I'm quite tired allready then, so I ride verry relaxed.
Without a gps it's a bit boring cause I end up doing the same tracks over and over.
So I guess I allready know what will be under the christmas tree for me this year

darkhairedlord

Jempi wrote:

So I joined strava. I like the segment shizzle. A nice way to discover nice rides to. But to realy use it as a training tool I need a better bike computer I feel. The elemnt seems a good companion fotr strava I guess.
I have done bigger rides to, but still under 50km.
I do them late in the evening, a good thing cause I'm quite tired allready then, so I ride verry relaxed.
Without a gps it's a bit boring cause I end up doing the same tracks over and over.
So I guess I allready know what will be under the christmas tree for me this year

Jiffy bag?

chris_bass

Jempi wrote:

So I joined strava. I like the segment shizzle. A nice way to discover nice rides to. But to realy use it as a training tool I need a better bike computer I feel. The elemnt seems a good companion fotr strava I guess.
I have done bigger rides to, but still under 50km.
I do them late in the evening, a good thing cause I'm quite tired allready then, so I ride verry relaxed.
Without a gps it's a bit boring cause I end up doing the same tracks over and over.
So I guess I allready know what will be under the christmas tree for me this year

i was reading some reviews of the garmin edge 130 and it seems pretty decent for the price and has strava live segment info (also power meter support! )

Tony Rymer

Always best to recognise the variables in what can be measured, time, speed, heart rate, distance etc and only change one at a time appreciating that when commuting there can many obstacles on the journey

jempi

Chris Bass wrote:

i was reading some reviews of the garmin edge 130 and it seems pretty decent for the price and has strava live segment info (also power meter support! )

A good option I think. What holds me back a bit here is the lack of ant+ and mapping. Think those are worth 100 euro on the longterm. Also I have terrible experiences with garmin car gps'es. I know its not fair to compare but the things that frustrated me there I recognise in the reviews of the bike gpseses...