Level 2 revisited

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

How many P12 races did you win and what were the fields like? (competitive like CA or CO?)

Being a poor sprinter, I didn't win very many mass start races in my youth (masters has been a different story). Even so, back in the day I "stole", or nearly stole, the district road championships in a number of states while following a minimalist training program (e.g., ~1 h/d M-S and ~2 h on Sunday). My competition in these races included current/recent elite national champions, Olympians, the winner of the Pan Am games, the winner of Paris-Brest-Paris, the winner of the Milk Race, etc.

By extension, do you think it is a waste of time to train longer than 2 hrs?

No. (Although interestingly, Greg Lemond told me on Monday that he thought it was a waste of time to train longer than about 4 h...)

No. (Although interestingly, Greg Lemond told me on Monday that he thought it was a waste of time to train longer than about 4 h...)

He told me the exact same thing in Tucson a couple years ago. He said that the only reason to do rides of 5-6 hours is to condition your mind, and butt, and that physiologically they do nothing that a 3-4 hour ride won't do....and that the only ones that should even attempt them, for racing reasons, are grand tour riders. He said that they used to go for 6 hour rides in the mountains in Europe but only got in 3-4 hours of quality.

What does that translate into for indoor training >2hrs is a waste of time?


No. (Although interestingly, Greg Lemond told me on Monday that he thought it was a waste of time to train longer than about 4 h...)

What does that translate into for indoor training >2hrs is a waste of time?

You'd have to ask Greg.

He told me the exact same thing in Tucson a couple years ago. He said that the only reason to do rides of 5-6 hours is to condition your mind, and butt, and that physiologically they do nothing that a 3-4 hour ride won't do....and that the only ones that should even attempt them, for racing reasons, are grand tour riders. He said that they used to go for 6 hour rides in the mountains in Europe but only got in 3-4 hours of quality.

That's a bit more detailed than his somewhat off-hand comment on Monday, but certainly is consistent (esp. the mention of how long rides in the mountains involved a lot of coasting/soft-pedaling).

FWIW, my impression from our conversation was that he has an extremely good understanding of exercise physiology, how to best train, etc. So much so, in fact, that I now want to go read his book...

That's a bit more detailed than his somewhat off-hand comment on Monday, but certainly is consistent (esp. the mention of how long rides in the mountains involved a lot of coasting/soft-pedaling).

FWIW, my impression from our conversation was that he has an extremely good understanding of exercise physiology, how to best train, etc. So much so, in fact, that I now want to go read his book...


Yes he does have a good understanding. He kind of rambles when he talks, and goes off on related "tangents", but I think he has so much info in his brain, that he wants to get out, that he suffers from a "flight of ideas". I really enjoyed talking to him. He is a super guy as I am sure you noticed.

As a side...when I met Armstrong in the mountains near Calgary Canada he wouldn't give me the time of day, and I thought he was a prick....but George Hincapie was super as was Phil Liggett.

....I'll dig up a very interesting quote from Lemond...stay tuned.

What book are you talking about? The book I read "Greg Lemond's Complete Book of Bicycling" 1990 seemed a bit outdated.

That's a bit more detailed than his somewhat off-hand comment on Monday, but certainly is consistent (esp. the mention of how long rides in the mountains involved a lot of coasting/soft-pedaling).


FWIW, my impression from our conversation was that he has an extremely good understanding of exercise physiology, how to best train, etc. So much so, in fact, that I now want to go read his book...

What book are you talking about? The book I read "Greg Lemond's Complete Book of Bicycling" 1990 seemed a bit outdated.

That was the one I had in mind. Dated or not, I would assume that any training recommendations that it contains reflect Lemond's thinking, or at least his thinking at the time.

Yes he does have a good understanding. He kind of rambles when he talks, and goes off on related "tangents", but I think he has so much info in his brain, that he wants to get out, that he suffers from a "flight of ideas". I really enjoyed talking to him. He is a super guy as I am sure you noticed.

I agree with everything you said.

Lemond quotes on training.

Referring to Cramichael's training approach for top riders Lemond says this....

"He (Chris Carmichael) would say, "I am doing a lot of quantity and quality". But you can't do both without drugs. You can't be doing 30 hours a week and still ride hard." I can tell you that I rarely did 30 hours a week, and this is what they are doing regularly." Mountain Bike Action




Here are a few quotes I recorded from a seminar I attended. Dug up my tape.

"You should train for 2-3 days of quality training in a row and then take 1-2 days off for rest and recovery, and some may need more time off"

"I almost always took one day off the bike, usually Monday, and one day at a very easy spin per week, usually Fridays, as a pro, so most of you with a real job and other life stressors should take at least this much. Many of you will need more recovery time each week."

"If a guy is taking only one day off a week he is not training properly, and he will eventually over train unless he takes drugs. You need at least one day off the bike and one day of very easy spinning per week year round".

"There are so many myths and traditions in cycling and so many riders, and even coaches, are misinformed. Great cycling fitness and performance is a byproduct of an incredible VO2 max, big stroke volume, and well honed lactate threshold. To increase these you need quality training."..... Now he raised his voice a bit and said......"This cannot be done with low level endurance riding! You need to do a lot of lactate threshold training, some tempo, and then latter on, and a few weeks before your early races, start doing VO2 max intervals as well."

"Most riders don't have a clue when it comes to structure in their training. I would sooner have a guy say that he trains only three days a week because he trains so hard that he needs the other days to recover rather then I ride six days a week."


Then after the seminar he hung around for like an hour while guys bombarded him with questions.


Cool eh

Ti

That was the one I had in mind. Dated or not, I would assume that any training recommendations that it contains reflect Lemond's thinking, or at least his thinking at the time.I'm pretty amazed that you haven't already read it!

The funny thing is, he makes the same statement in his book (which I'd quote, but I lost the book long ago...) regarding long rides. He says something to the effect that the only reason to do 6 hour rides was to get to/from/between the big passes, and that the climbs themselves where the only part that mattered.

I think you'll find the training section of the book really interesting. Reading that book, btw, is what convinced me to buy a bike!

What book are you talking about? The book I read "Greg Lemond's Complete Book of Bicycling" 1990 seemed a bit outdated.


..... but only because it has no power based training. It's still the best single book on the market for training in general. It has a lot of detail that you will not find any training book, except for Hunter/Coggan's. ie" Friel's Bible is WAY too vague IMHO.
If you get this book, David Morris's book on block training and the Hunter Coggan book then you'll have all the info you will ever need to reach Cat 1.
....but Lemond has learned much more since then and especially in regards to training by power.

Wiredued, there really is "nothing new under the Sun" in training except for the power meter. We may know the "WHY's" better nowadays but as far as new methodology...nope. They were even doing classic block training 40 years ago.

The only thing "new" is O2 carrying(building) drugs and thats why riders are better now than "back then".

We must have our books mixed up as I recall Greg advocated alot of endurance hours per week and a very traditional approach....I have to find that book now.

..... but only because it has no power based training. It's still the best single book on the market for training. It has a lot of detail that you will not find any training book, except for Hunter/Coggan's. ie" Friel's Bible is WAY too vague IMHO.
....but Lemond has learned much more since then and especially in regards to training by power.

Wiredued, there really is "nothing new under the Sun" in training except for the power meter. We may know the "WHY's" better nowadays but as far as new methodology...nope. They were even doing classic block training 40 years ago.

The only thing "new" is O2 carrying(building) drugs and thats why riders are better now than "back then".

We must have our books mixed up as I recall Greg advocated alot of endurance hours per week and a very traditional approach....I have to find that book now.


Yes, in the book there is a lot of "hours"...but notice that he recommends threshold training and sprint training year round...and even going above threshold at times in the winter.
The hours are relatively low in the winter...add them up from his own personal training...... and then build to a high amount before the first races..... and 20-25 hours per week for the "in season" for a top amateur rider and 22-26 for a pro.

Lemond did mention this in his seminar and said that he has since learned that you don't need to do that many hours to reach a very high level.

This is NOT what is currently "the rage" in modern cycling. The current rage is old fashioned Russian style(pre 1980) periodization, which died relatively quickly with runners and nordic skiiers. This old style of periodization was taught by Matveyev in Russia. It was quickly replaced by Zatsiorsky who included all factors of training (Peter Coe, Seb Coe's dad, called it multi tier training) but most Western CYCLING coaches adopted the old format of training.

Lemond, Hinualt, Fignon and their coahes Guimard, Paul koechli never bought into this old style Matveyev, Carmichael/Friel approach.

Guys like Carmichael who recommends NO threshold work this time of year and even promotes what he calls "foundation miles" for months on end in the Fall and winter. These foundation miles are very low level L2. Friel is very similar in his approach and guys follow his advice to the T.
Carmichael approach is very popular because it is easy and because he said Lance used it. He is really "pushing" CTS now for the big $$$.

Lemond has learned much more since then and especially in regards to training by power.

Especially after Monday. ;)

I'm pretty amazed that you haven't already read it!

I never read any of the popular books on training until just a couple of years ago. I then bought 5 or 6, read them in a weekend, and sold them all except one: Better Training for Distance Runners, by Martin and Coe.

Especially after Monday. ;)

he he.....I hope you invited him to join the forum....if any top ex pro would it would be him....he loves to talk....and to teach.
God would that be a blast.
Then this forum would out put the "Carmichael Training Centers" out of business.
:D

I never read any of the popular books on training until just a couple of years ago. I then bought 5 or 6, read them in a weekend, and sold them all except one: Better Training for Distance Runners, by Martin and Coe.


HA!.....like me too! Too weird! I threw them all away including Friels, except for Lemonds book, "Better training for Distance runners", and now the Hunter/Coggan book.
There is one other really good book out there Andy...get it....it called
"Road Racing for Serious Runners"
http://www.humankinetics.com/products/showproduct.cfm?isbn=0880118180

HA!.....like me too! Too weird! I threw them all away including Friels, except for Lemonds book, "Better training for Distance runners", and now the Hunter/Coggan book.
There is one other really good book out there Andy...get it....it called
"Road Racing for Serious Runners"
http://www.humankinetics.com/products/showproduct.cfm?isbn=0880118180

That does look like a good one - thanks for the suggestion.

FWIW, if I ever got around to writing a book on training (vs. powermeter use), it would probably be rather similar to these two running books. (I even have a tentative working title: The Physiology and Biomechanics of Cycling.)

"Better training for Distance runners", and now the Hunter/Coggan book.Me too. Does this mean I will become as fast as you guys are/were?http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Thank you for all the interesting reading on the forum as well!
/J