Which Half is Better

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.

If you read the definition and examples in the link I posted then maybe you'll understand the difference better. To be exact, the OP presented a scenario where he does three 20 minute intervals at 96% of his absolute best-day, max effort, 1hr power (scenario A). You then disagreed with the silly notion of someone doing sixteen (or even twelve) 20 minute intervals rather than just riding 4 hours at a steady power (scenario B). IOW, you presented a different scenario that was much easier to refute (ie, a strawman) and then attempted to attribute it to the OP as if he'd said it. That's the very definition of the logical fallacy commonly referred to as a strawman argument.

Now, if we'd like to discuss ideas on their own merits instead of trying to twist things around to make others look foolish, then I'd be all up for that.
It was I that posted the points about 16 (then 12 following some silly math) 20 minute efforts rather than a straight 4 hour ride to expand upon my earlier comments about doing 3x20minute intervals at below 100%. Why? Because I believe that if you can ride for a given period of time, be it one hour or four hours, then spliting that up into intervals and then still riding that at or below the level you can sustain for the duration of the ride in a single interval is (a) adding extra time for no extra gain and (b) not providing the same level of muscular endurance.

Sure riding for 3x20 at 90something% of your FTP will be aerobically advantagous but it isn't going to get you used to that feeling of pending doom when you've done 50 minutes straight at that level and your pedalling starts to become less than smooth (see point b) - and that's why I said that if you're going to ride for an hour at below your best effort but still throw in some 2 or 3 minute efforts at 110+% FTP to make things hurt then you might as well just ride hard and steady cause its gonna hurt anyway.

Now if we were talking about increasing the effort to 5% or 10% and splitting the time period into intervals or maybe even taking your best 1 hour pace and doing 3x25 minute efforts then I'd say that would be worthwhile - but doing intervals at a lower power than is possible for the entire duration of the session for the sake of comfort... the no, just no.

Because I believe that if you can ride for a given period of time, be it one hour or four hours, then spliting that up into intervals and then still riding that at or below the level you can sustain for the duration of the ride in a single interval is (a) adding extra time for no extra gain and (b) not providing the same level of muscular endurance.
1 hour and 4 hours are two entirely different cases. As Dave has pointed out before, I can't imagine anyone advocating doing intervals at "4-hr intensity." No one does that, would do that, or has done that because it just wouldn't make sense -- that's why it's a strawman. Now, for higher intensity levels people/riders/coaches typically *do* suggest an interval approach, so the difference between 1hr and 4hrs is apples and oranges.

Now, for the case at hand: he's not doing his intervals at 96% of what he could do for the same duration, he's doing them at 96% of his best-day, highest motivation, well-rested, single-effort power and he's probably doing them a couple times a week in and around his other riding. You can try to argue that he should nail it everyday or die trying, but that's not the way it works and that's not the most effective way to train. It's not intended to be an all-out workout, it's intended to be a solid, hard workout which contributes to the bigger training plan.

As for the little bursts at the end, maybe they're for fun or to see what he has left at the end of the sub-maximal interval. I think the general comments he's gotten are that they're unlikely to be of significant benefit, so we're probably on the same page with those.

1 hour and 4 hours are two entirely different cases. As Dave has pointed out before, I can't imagine anyone advocating doing intervals at "4-hr intensity." No one does that, would do that, or has done that because it just wouldn't make sense -- that's why it's a strawman. Now, for higher intensity levels people/riders/coaches typically *do* suggest an interval approach, so the difference between 1hr and 4hrs is apples and oranges.

Now, for the case at hand: he's not doing his intervals at 96% of what he could do for the same duration, he's doing them at 96% of his best-day, highest motivation, well-rested, single-effort power and he's probably doing them a couple times a week in and around his other riding. You can try to argue that he should nail it everyday or die trying, but that's not the way it works and that's not the most effective way to train. It's not intended to be an all-out workout, it's intended to be a solid, hard workout which contributes to the bigger training plan.

As for the little bursts at the end, maybe they're for fun or to see what he has left at the end of the sub-maximal interval. I think the general comments he's gotten are that they're unlikely to be of significant benefit, so we're probably on the same page with those.Basically, what my responses boil down to is that if you can do the total amount of work in one session, in this case 3x20, in one steady effort at the same power level then I don't see it as being as effective a session as it could be. Other than comfort, why do it?

I'm not sure that we have the same understanding of FTP. Being out of the game for a number of years and seeing "training levels" jump from Peter Keen's 4 to 6 or more based on whose training schemes you follow... my understanding of FTP is based upon this rather neat diagram that I think Alex put together.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd226/ASimmons/TrainingZonesComparison-2.jpg

If that IS what FTP really is then I can see 100% FTP being darned tough for 1 hour straight but 96% being doable. I'm not the guy in question so I can't speak for him but if his FTP is around 300watts then taking of 4% is almost 15watts, that's a nice chunk.

As for "I can't imagine anyone advocating doing intervals at "4-hr intensity." - I just see "an interval" as a period of total work that split into smaller periods of higher quality work or several periods of work done for a combined longer period of time that can be accomplished at that power level. Time frame can be anything.

As for the longer training, that comment was sparked from doc's post:

"it's used so that the work periods can have a higher ave. power than they can from doing a single long effort... or so that the intervals can be done more comfortably at the same power that they could be done in one long effort."

... to which I questioned the "comfort" aspect. OK, maybe I went a little further than that and it came across as "belittling" the comfort aspect which maybe was a little out of order...

I recall years ago that some of the Belgian pros, I think Walter Planckaert was the center of the article, said that back in the day they'd ride for several hours in a loop near their home, rest at home for 20 minutes or so and then go out again. Why? Something to do with being a bit cold and wanting something warm but mainly it was being able to extend the amount of time they could train for and allow them to ride a bit faster too. The 'intervals' in question were rather long but they done at a higher quality. I believe that Andy Wilkinson did something similar in his training for his 12 and 24 records but the 'rest' between was longer. Again, long intervals. I wasn't making this up... I'm not always that clever you know and I'll be the first to admit it.

In both situations, long and short intervals, I was questioning why you'd want to do them at a lower level than you could achieve at race pace. Time frames are irrelevant, IMHO. If you think that's a strawman arguement then so be it...

snippet In both situations, long and short intervals, I was questioning why you'd want to do them at a lower level than you could achieve at race pace. Time frames are irrelevant, IMHO. If you think that's a strawman arguement then so be it...

FTP typically established on outdoor results and on race-prep results as you rightly mention. Many people (at least on here) are training indoors from fall until ~April. Many people cannot duplicate outdoor power for a full 60-min effort indoors. Part of that has been attributed to motivation, part due to inadequate cooling.
Breaking them up into ~20min chunks helps with those (shorter effort to concentrate on, modest cooldown between efforts).
Other Mental factors. For instance, I personally train threshold four times weekly. There is no *way* I could handle four hour-long sessions right at FTP w/o a break! Variety.
Day-to-day biological variation in performance. From lab studies etc, IIRC this is around 4-5%. That alone is enough of a reason to avoid multiple full FTP sessions per week. it's a recipe for failure.
Anyhow, I have no endurance for long posts or long arguments. I'm a proponent of consistent training with 'sufficient' volume and 'effective' average intensity. The details of the sessions don't interest so much any longer versus the bigger picture.

If you've ridden 60 minutes "on the rivet" how do you have anything left? At 50 minutes you should be about ready to sell your soul to the Devil and yack whatever you ate a couple of hours ago all over the pavement.

I used to think this way about 40 km TTs as well. Then I started using a powermeter to analyze my pacing and realized that I could go faster and not hurt quite so much.

I kind of had a feeling this was where you were going all the time with your argument. It comes down to the definition of FTP. For me FTP is something I can only hit on rare occassions when as they say "all the planets are aligned". Once I begin to notice that my FTP seems to be something I can repeat than my FTP should go up.

How about overtraining? Lets look at you...what is your FTP? How often when you were training for a race and not just trying to loose weight did you do 1 hour efforts at your FTP? If you were not riding at your best 1 hour effort all the time, what other type of riding did you do? What were your results?

I am not trying to put you on the spot, I would like to know if what you say worked based upon your own personal experience.

-js


Basically, what my responses boil down to is that if you can do the total amount of work in one session, in this case 3x20, in one steady effort at the same power level then I don't see it as being as effective a session as it could be. Other than comfort, why do it?

I'm not sure that we have the same understanding of FTP. Being out of the game for a number of years and seeing "training levels" jump from Peter Keen's 4 to 6 or more based on whose training schemes you follow... my understanding of FTP is based upon this rather neat diagram that I think Alex put together.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd226/ASimmons/TrainingZonesComparison-2.jpg

If that IS what FTP really is then I can see 100% FTP being darned tough for 1 hour straight but 96% being doable. I'm not the guy in question so I can't speak for him but if his FTP is around 300watts then taking of 4% is almost 15watts, that's a nice chunk.

As for "I can't imagine anyone advocating doing intervals at "4-hr intensity." - I just see "an interval" as a period of total work that split into smaller periods of higher quality work or several periods of work done for a combined longer period of time that can be accomplished at that power level. Time frame can be anything.

As for the longer training, that comment was sparked from doc's post:

"it's used so that the work periods can have a higher ave. power than they can from doing a single long effort... or so that the intervals can be done more comfortably at the same power that they could be done in one long effort."

... to which I questioned the "comfort" aspect. OK, maybe I went a little further than that and it came across as "belittling" the comfort aspect which maybe was a little out of order...

I recall years ago that some of the Belgian pros, I think Walter Planckaert was the center of the article, said that back in the day they'd ride for several hours in a loop near their home, rest at home for 20 minutes or so and then go out again. Why? Something to do with being a bit cold and wanting something warm but mainly it was being able to extend the amount of time they could train for and allow them to ride a bit faster too. The 'intervals' in question were rather long but they done at a higher quality. I believe that Andy Wilkinson did something similar in his training for his 12 and 24 records but the 'rest' between was longer. Again, long intervals. I wasn't making this up... I'm not always that clever you know and I'll be the first to admit it.

In both situations, long and short intervals, I was questioning why you'd want to do them at a lower level than you could achieve at race pace. Time frames are irrelevant, IMHO. If you think that's a strawman arguement then so be it...

Basically, what my responses boil down to is that if you can do the total amount of work in one session, in this case 3x20, in one steady effort at the same power level then I don't see it as being as effective a session as it could be.
That's the problem. If he were to try to ride at 100% FTP a couple times a week, in and around his other training days, he wouldn't be able to hold it for 60 minutes straight -- he'd probably fail 95% of the time.

Other than comfort, why do it?
So one have a successful workout and still live to ride the next day, and the next after that. Yakking-up lunch 50 minutes into a 60 minute workout kinda saps the will to go back and do it again week after week.

I have to agree with Andy's comment. This is a much more difficult conversation to have with someone who hasn't ridden a power meter. Once you have a number to shoot for, it becomes a lot easier to dial-in those sub-nausea workout efforts.

snippet In both situations, long and short intervals, I was questioning why you'd want to do them at a lower level than you could achieve at race pace. Time frames are irrelevant, IMHO. If you think that's a strawman arguement then so be it...
FTP typically established on outdoor results and on race-prep results as you rightly mention. Many people (at least on here) are training indoors from fall until ~April. Many people cannot duplicate outdoor power for a full 60-min effort indoors. Part of that has been attributed to motivation, part due to inadequate cooling.

Breaking them up into ~20min chunks helps with those (shorter effort to concentrate on, modest cooldown between efforts).
Other Mental factors. For instance, I personally train threshold four times weekly. There is no *way* I could handle four hour-long sessions right at FTP w/o a break! Variety.
Day-to-day biological variation in performance. From lab studies etc, IIRC this is around 4-5%. That alone is enough of a reason to avoid multiple full FTP sessions per week. it's a recipe for failure.
Anyhow, I have no endurance for long posts or long arguments. I'm a proponent of consistent training with 'sufficient' volume and 'effective' average intensity. The details of the sessions don't interest so much any longer versus the bigger picture.When I raced in England and the weather was cold with slush on the road, I trained in a detached garage. Well, not really a garage as there was only a single door and the think wasn't big enough for a car.... but it was a little too big to be called a shed.

During the week I trained, again on the trainer, but at my coaches house. He had the luxury of wallpaper on the walls (rather than pre-fab concrete) and a King Cycle trainer that showed power on a IBM PC - standard kit in the early 90's for the BCF.

I used to think this way about 40 km TTs as well. Then I started using a powermeter to analyze my pacing and realized that I could go faster and not hurt quite so much.I trained on a trainer that measured power (King Cycle) a couple of times a week, so pacing was learned from that. We'd also done some testing in many early season events using different strategies that involved how fast to ramp up heart rate at the start of the event. Do you get to race pace in 30 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes etc...

I was one of those that started out too quick and died a thousand deaths in the last five miles but after testing that was changed to a much more gradual start (in comparison to the near Kilo start I did) and basically dialed in a gradually increasing level of discomfort during the event based upon previous tests on the trainer.

Unfortunately, this discomfort was often compounded in many a time trial ridden as a training event (time trials are much more common that they are here in the US, especially here in NorCal) as we'd try slightly different bar positions every month or so. But hey, all part of 'the fun', no?

I kind of had a feeling this was where you were going all the time with your argument. It comes down to the definition of FTP. For me FTP is something I can only hit on rare occassions when as they say "all the planets are aligned". Once I begin to notice that my FTP seems to be something I can repeat than my FTP should go up.

How about overtraining? Lets look at you...what is your FTP? How often when you were training for a race and not just trying to loose weight did you do 1 hour efforts at your FTP? If you were not riding at your best 1 hour effort all the time, what other type of riding did you do? What were your results?

I am not trying to put you on the spot, I would like to know if what you say worked based upon your own personal experience.

-js
As I understand, and I could well be wrong, FTP is almost your best 25 mile effort. When I was racing this was ~340watts, as measured at the lab at what was Crewe and Alsager College (now taken over by Manchester University) at 6mmol/l blood lactate.

Most of my training before my final year of racing was basically two hours at just below my best 50 mile effort. I'd ride a 50 mile TT at around 175bpm +/- 5bpm mostly dependant on time of day (we Brits tend to have a liking for starting events stupidly early in the morning so it was mostly a "-"). Best 50mile time was 1hr 56minutes with Campag Shamals, descente 'team USA' "batman" skinsuit and aerohat. Training on the same bike with training wheels averaged around 25 / 25.5mph for the most part. This was done mostly four times a week (tue, thur, sat, sun) but towards the end of winter/begining of spring it'd be done twice on the weekends with interval training at the coaches house mid week - see session below.

It hurt. I disliked it and too be honest it was rather boring and had to change my route when I did it outdoors so that the last few miles were mostly slightly uphill. But my coach said it'd do me good and I had faith in the guy, so I did it. I started to see results after a month or two so that provided all the motivation that I needed.

An equivalent effort on a power measuring King Cycle showed around 290 to 300 watts - something that I thought was a little high for only 25mph in time trial position - but maybe the old Specialized Airforce 2 and layers of winter thermals didnt help the cause of speed.

When done in the garage, it was done on a cheap tacx trainer, metallica, pantera and machine head on the walkman and a sign on the floor that had a comical phrase to put things in perspective in bold letters - "it could be worse, you could be working in the Siberian salt mines"... Sadly, a new job midway through the year which brought the end to nearly all my training time and a good portion of my racing time too....

.... and thus began the 75lb weight gain to 220lbs. :eek:

Aside from the grim two hour sessions during late fall, winter and early spring, everything else was interval training.

This was about as bad as it got.

10 min ride at approx 90 pedal rev/min
2min rest (pedalling slowly)
6 x 2min at approx 100 pedal rev/min with 30sec rest between each
5min rest (pedalling slowly)
12 x 1min at approx 110 pedal rev/min with 30sec rest between each
2min rest (pedalling slowly);
15 x 30sec at approx 125 pedal rev/min with 30sec rest between each

This was done at the coaches house, with an IBM PC being used as a timer displaying when to work, rest and a countdown for each. Sessions done earlier in the year had fewer reps and a 5 minute interval at the start rather than the 10.

I found that training great for crits and short road races but I never saw the same benefits as some did for steady state riding such as time trials, which is why my period for "winter training" went on for longer than most of the other riders that I trained with. Maybe I just needed a bigger base of the two hour rides to get more benefit from it. I don't know - and maybe I never will....

Now I tootle around the lumpy roads at 22, 23mph riding on the tops for a couple of hours - or ride up my favorite hill. All starts well until the familar hip flexor/aductor pain sets in just before the never before used hamstrings start to ache and everyone around Vacaville can mentally hear some English twit cursing his Power Cranks. But at least my quads are happy that they're not taking the brunt of things like they did a decade ago.

I can ride on the drops only for about 20 minutes due to said cranks and aerobically I feel taxed at 24.5 / 25 mph but not to the point where I'd fail to keep it going. HR is normally around 175 to 180. I know from the climbs around here than 180 is sustainable for at least 45 minutes. That'd put a guestimate 1 hour power at somewhere in the 280/300 range (5ft 11, 178lbs "unaerodynamic" guy). I'd be happy with 270... Given the gut squish and complete inability to ride in that position for an hour I'll wait until I a get rid of a sizeable chunk of the 30lb I have left to lose. That's my biggest 'goal' and a weighty challenge! Ho ho. Ironically, I'm losing body fat but not that much weight as my legs are filling out more than they've ever done - and getting bigger at a rather fast rate. The wife likes - but I'll endup with Leipheimer-esque muscle stumps if it keeps going!! I'm getting defined muscles on the inside of my thighs - what's up with that? LOL

As for a power meter.... I have a CS600 and read that the newer power kits are better than the originals but the fact they're not that great on the trainer puts me off a little.

The PowerTap is out because I like my American Classic 420's with Sapim spokes - maybe if I ding them I won't feel as guilty about replacing them... and I just aint buying the Power Crank with SRM unit (powercrank squared?) - as that couple of grand could be used on some good race shocks for the miata, or a fuel injection system for the old 502 Camaro.....

Most of my training before my final year of racing was basically two hours at just below my best 50 mile effort. I'd ride a 50 mile TT at around 175bpm +/- 5bpm mostly dependant on time of day (we Brits tend to have a liking for starting events stupidly early in the morning so it was mostly a "-"). Best 50mile time was 1hr 56minutes with Campag Shamals, descente 'team USA' "batman" skinsuit and aerohat. Training on the same bike with training wheels averaged around 25 / 25.5mph for the most part. This was done mostly four times a week (tue, thur, sat, sun) but towards the end of winter/begining of spring it'd be done twice on the weekends with interval training at the coaches house mid week.Based upon your description, particularly the frequency by which you were doing this workout (4x/week?) and the duration, I'd say that that this was what we would call "tempo" or L3. Maybe some lower L4 at times. Definitely falls under the rubrique of Sweet-Spot Training (SST).
An equivalent effort on a power measuring King Cycle showed around 290 to 300 watts - something that I thought was a little high for only 25mph in time trial position - but maybe the old Specialized Airforce 2 and layers of winter thermals didnt help the cause of speed. No, 290-300 w sounds about right. If your best 1-hour effort was around 340 as you say it was, that would make those two-hour efforts around 290-300 very SST-ish.

Where is the L5 in that description?

Based upon your description, particularly the frequency by which you were doing this workout (4x/week?) and the duration, I'd say that that this was what we would call "tempo" or L3. Maybe some lower L4 at times. Definitely falls under the rubrique of Sweet-Spot Training (SST).
No, 290-300 w sounds about right. If your best 1-hour effort was around 340 as you say it was, that would make those two-hour efforts around 290-300 very SST-ish.
I should have clarrified that my best 1 hour effort prior to the period of two hour training was around 310 - 315watts (depending on what that was measured on). The lab equipment and King Cycle measured a little differently.

The 340watts was measured towards the end of the several months of training.

This is a very interesting read. Sometimes when I talk to the local europros and we talk about power training, they find it outdated as the pros now would never tell you how they really train now and it has been around forever. Based upon your post I would like to have seen that setup with the old IBM PC. Also I would have never pinned you for a metallica, pantera kind of guy based upon your posts...a camaro?? I remember when I had an old Z28....the memories.

It seems that you did have success with your training but I would like to know how often did you hit your number of riding at 2 hours at your 50 mile TT? There is logic in the idea of training at your max regularly and this will induce better training but I know in weight training you would need alot of rest time between sessions. I even did a little experiment of my own just the last three days.

Monday as a my rest day so did 90 minutes at 200 watts with no breaks than I tried Tueday at 240 watts for one hour with 30 minutes at 200 with no rest breaks and did not have much trouble but knew I would feel it tomorrow. Today I tried to repeat Tueday and came up a bit short at 235 watts and 30 minutes at 200. I have a feeling if I do it tomorrow I may come up a bit shorter until I put in a tempo or endurance ride to recover. Eventually I will overtrain...how long of a rest period did you give between your sessions? What was your defitnition of a rest session? meaning no ride or something else?

I just noticed when I re-read you gave yourself three days of rest....seems like alot but your weekends seem crazy long. With that type of rest did you hit your numbers regularly?

-js


As I understand, and I could well be wrong, FTP is almost your best 25 mile effort. When I was racing this was ~340watts, as measured at the lab at what was Crewe and Alsager College (now taken over by Manchester University) at 6mmol/l blood lactate.

Most of my training before my final year of racing was basically two hours at just below my best 50 mile effort. I'd ride a 50 mile TT at around 175bpm +/- 5bpm mostly dependant on time of day (we Brits tend to have a liking for starting events stupidly early in the morning so it was mostly a "-"). Best 50mile time was 1hr 56minutes with Campag Shamals, descente 'team USA' "batman" skinsuit and aerohat. Training on the same bike with training wheels averaged around 25 / 25.5mph for the most part. This was done mostly four times a week (tue, thur, sat, sun) but towards the end of winter/begining of spring it'd be done twice on the weekends with interval training at the coaches house mid week - see session below.

It hurt. I disliked it and too be honest it was rather boring and had to change my route when I did it outdoors so that the last few miles were mostly slightly uphill. But my coach said it'd do me good and I had faith in the guy, so I did it. I started to see results after a month or two so that provided all the motivation that I needed.

An equivalent effort on a power measuring King Cycle showed around 290 to 300 watts - something that I thought was a little high for only 25mph in time trial position - but maybe the old Specialized Airforce 2 and layers of winter thermals didnt help the cause of speed.

When done in the garage, it was done on a cheap tacx trainer, metallica, pantera and machine head on the walkman and a sign on the floor that had a comical phrase to put things in perspective in bold letters - "it could be worse, you could be working in the Siberian salt mines"... Sadly, a new job midway through the year which brought the end to nearly all my training time and a good portion of my racing time too....

.... and thus began the 75lb weight gain to 220lbs. :eek:

Aside from the grim two hour sessions during late fall, winter and early spring, everything else was interval training.

This was about as bad as it got.

10 min ride at approx 90 pedal rev/min
2min rest (pedalling slowly)
6 x 2min at approx 100 pedal rev/min with 30sec rest between each
5min rest (pedalling slowly)
12 x 1min at approx 110 pedal rev/min with 30sec rest between each
2min rest (pedalling slowly);
15 x 30sec at approx 125 pedal rev/min with 30sec rest between each

This was done at the coaches house, with an IBM PC being used as a timer displaying when to work, rest and a countdown for each. Sessions done earlier in the year had fewer reps and a 5 minute interval at the start rather than the 10.

I found that training great for crits and short road races but I never saw the same benefits as some did for steady state riding such as time trials, which is why my period for "winter training" went on for longer than most of the other riders that I trained with. Maybe I just needed a bigger base of the two hour rides to get more benefit from it. I don't know - and maybe I never will....

Now I tootle around the lumpy roads at 22, 23mph riding on the tops for a couple of hours - or ride up my favorite hill. All starts well until the familar hip flexor/aductor pain sets in just before the never before used hamstrings start to ache and everyone around Vacaville can mentally hear some English twit cursing his Power Cranks. But at least my quads are happy that they're not taking the brunt of things like they did a decade ago.

I can ride on the drops only for about 20 minutes due to said cranks and aerobically I feel taxed at 24.5 / 25 mph but not to the point where I'd fail to keep it going. HR is normally around 175 to 180. I know from the climbs around here than 180 is sustainable for at least 45 minutes. That'd put a guestimate 1 hour power at somewhere in the 280/300 range (5ft 11, 178lbs "unaerodynamic" guy). I'd be happy with 270... Given the gut squish and complete inability to ride in that position for an hour I'll wait until I a get rid of a sizeable chunk of the 30lb I have left to lose. That's my biggest 'goal' and a weighty challenge! Ho ho. Ironically, I'm losing body fat but not that much weight as my legs are filling out more than they've ever done - and getting bigger at a rather fast rate. The wife likes - but I'll endup with Leipheimer-esque muscle stumps if it keeps going!! I'm getting defined muscles on the inside of my thighs - what's up with that? LOL

As for a power meter.... I have a CS600 and read that the newer power kits are better than the originals but the fact they're not that great on the trainer puts me off a little.

The PowerTap is out because I like my American Classic 420's with Sapim spokes - maybe if I ding them I won't feel as guilty about replacing them... and I just aint buying the Power Crank with SRM unit (powercrank squared?) - as that couple of grand could be used on some good race shocks for the miata, or a fuel injection system for the old 502 Camaro.....

This is a very interesting read. Sometimes when I talk to the local europros and we talk about power training, they find it outdated as the pros now would never tell you how they really train now and it has been around forever. Based upon your post I would like to have seen that setup with the old IBM PC. Also I would have never pinned you for a metallica, pantera kind of guy based upon your posts...a camaro?? I remember when I had an old Z28....the memories.

It seems that you did have success with your training but I would like to know how often did you hit your number of riding at 2 hours at your 50 mile TT? There is logic in the idea of training at your max regularly and this will induce better training but I know in weight training you would need alot of rest time between sessions. I even did a little experiment of my own just the last three days.

Monday as a my rest day so did 90 minutes at 200 watts with no breaks than I tried Tueday at 240 watts for one hour with 30 minutes at 200 with no rest breaks and did not have much trouble but knew I would feel it tomorrow. Today I tried to repeat Tueday and came up a bit short at 235 watts and 30 minutes at 200. I have a feeling if I do it tomorrow I may come up a bit shorter until I put in a tempo or endurance ride to recover. Eventually I will overtrain...how long of a rest period did you give between your sessions? What was your defitnition of a rest session? meaning no ride or something else?

I just noticed when I re-read you gave yourself three days of rest....seems like alot but your weekends seem crazy long. With that type of rest did you hit your numbers regularly?

-jsHere's a rather old link to what the kingcycle's like.

http://www.abcc.co.uk/Articles/dailey1.html

Look on the right...

Heavy duty metal trainer, industrial bearings and roller/flywheel assembly, hooked upto a boat anchor of a PC from the Stonehenge era...

The training was done Tuesdays and Thursdays and nothing else midweek due to not being able to rest a whole bunch during the days. I tried doing a session on Wednesday too a couple of times but that was wasn't happening as three days straight and one day rest would leave my legs like jelly for Saturday. There were sometimes were I could train during the days but trying to do more during the week meant that the training that followed either seemed even more difficult or occaisonally the training the following week would suffer.... At the weekend I got a chance to put the ol' feet up and snooze for an hour or two after the ride on Saturday morning and that seemed to help some - but Sundays ride always felt more uncomfortable than the others.

I would have liked to have spent a little more time during the days off resting just spinning the legs in an easy gear

As for the numbers during training - all I had was my trusty Polar Sports Tester (Vantage XL in the US) and a bike computer to work off. Speed/Cadence/Gearing was normally about the same for all sessions. It was always wet and always windy which was typical for England. That HR monitor lasted from 91 to 2006 when the LCD did some weird stuff following a battery change...

Europros... :eek: Not I... nowhere near good enough for that although it was nice to have the word europro in a reply to one of my posts. LOL Maybe that will inspire me even more!

The Camaro - a '67 SS with one of the GM Performance Parts 502's stuffed under the hood...