[email hidden] wrote: > I am working on a training plan for this season.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Step 1: get an unambitious part-time job. Step 2: make the acquaintance of several good, but attractive, woman riders. Step 3: no more time for alibis; motive and opportunity say you will now ride for 2.5h/day, 6d/week. No max efforts, just 2 abreast (har) or them in your wheel and you pacing yourself. Step 4: three months into the program, it's late spring now, dump your girlfriends but not your girlfriend (she'll be buying you new wheels later on) and tack on to the fastest group you can find. Step 5: do two training rides a week all through the summer. Don't get dropped until you puke, then hold on for another mile. Don't try, do! Use other days for recovery rides by yourself, 2 short (1.5-2h), 3 long (3h). This time, you won't need slower riders to hold you back... Call in sick at work once a week to get extra bed rest. Step 6: from early autumn, enter two races a week, both on the weekend.. Each week, pick one beforehand that you will target, where you want to win. The other one, finish. ALWAYS finish. Step 7: when the road racing ends, with your new-found rhythm, survive the winter on an mtb or cx bike. LiveDRUNK often but not regularly. Do some spin classes to scout new talent for the spring rides.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Next January, email our offices for the second year program.
Of course, I don't know what your training volume is now. But the old conventional wisdom is that you raise your LT by doing those damned intervals. Does recent research refute that?
Dumbass, In the Carmichael tradition that should read DamnedIntervals(tm).
Do they mean anaerobic threshold by "threshold power"?
Not exactly. AT or LT or or OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation) or a host of other similar terms usually refer to a physiological measurement. Functional threshold power (I think the "functional" is important) is more of an output-focused measure: it's the power you can maintain for maybe an hour.
Do they mean anaerobic threshold by "threshold power"?
Not exactly. AT or LT or or OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation) or a host of other similar terms usually refer to a physiological measurement. Functional threshold power (I think the "functional" is important) is more of an output-focused measure: it's the power you can maintain for maybe an hour.
Thanks--that's clearer not. Some of these technical terms seem a bit more plastic to me than when I was in school. You've probably heard of the study that showed higher death rates from lung cancer for patients who got screening chest x-rays. This apparently contradicted the previously "definitive" study that showed increased average life expectancy for patients getting screened. (I'm not sure I've gotten that right). That led to a discussion of using survival time vs. death rate as a criteria for whether screening was a good idea. The discussion left me totally confused.
On Mar 4, 9:23 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Do they mean anaerobic threshold by "threshold power"?
Quoted message said:
Not exactly. AT or LT or or OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation) or a host of other similar terms usually refer to a physiological measurement. Functional threshold power (I think the "functional" is important) is more of an output-focused measure: it's the power you can maintain for maybe an hour.
Thanks--that's clearer not.
Then the simple answer is they're not the same but they go up and down together (mostly).
Quoted message said:
Some of these technical terms seem a bit more plastic to me than when I was in school. You've probably heard of the study that showed higher death rates from lung cancer for patients who got screening chest x-rays. This apparently contradicted the previously "definitive" study that showed increased average life expectancy for patients getting screened. (I'm not sure I've gotten that right). That led to a discussion of using survival time vs. death rate as a criteria for whether screening was a good idea. The discussion left me totally confused.
I hadn't heard of that but I'll look it up and see whether I can use that example next time I talk about survival models and hazard rates.
On Mar 4, 9:23 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Do they mean anaerobic threshold by "threshold power"?
Quoted message said:
Not exactly. AT or LT or or OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation) or a host of other similar terms usually refer to a physiological measurement. Functional threshold power (I think the "functional" is important) is more of an output-focused measure: it's the power you can maintain for maybe an hour.
Thanks--that's clearer not. Some of these technical terms seem a bit more plastic to me than when I was in school. You've probably heard of the study that showed higher death rates from lung cancer for patients who got screening chest x-rays. This apparently contradicted the previously "definitive" study that showed increased average life expectancy for patients getting screened. (I'm not sure I've gotten that right). That led to a discussion of using survival time vs. death rate as a criteria for whether screening was a good idea. The discussion left me totally confused.
Steve
I think a key is that it is an achievable, maintainable, for the most part aerobic output for any non-short length of time. It could be 15 minutes, it could be 2 hours. The actual output levels will be different, and shorter efforts will be over the OBLA, but I think of it as whatever is the maximum sustainable effort level for the chosen distance/time.
Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
Quoted message said:
In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops capillaries and mitochondria.
Quoted message said:
In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15 hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can count on having time for.
Any suggestions on how to convert those 7 zones to PE or HR? I know you're not a fan of HR due to all the variation, but as a guide since I still haven't scammed a power meter yet it will give me a reasonable starting point.
On Mar 4, 9:23 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email hidden]> wrote: > Do they mean anaerobic threshold by "threshold power"? Not exactly. AT or LT or or OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation) or a host of other similar terms usually refer to a physiological measurement. Functional threshold power (I think the "functional" is important) is more of an output-focused measure: it's the power you can maintain for maybe an hour.
Thanks--that's clearer not.
Then the simple answer is they're not the same but they go up and down together (mostly).
Sorry Robert--you'll have to believe me when I say I was TRYING to type "that's clearer NOW". Really. ;-)
Fraudian slip? ;-)
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Some of these technical terms seem a bit more plastic to me than when I was in school. You've probably heard of the study that showed higher death rates from lung cancer for patients who got screening chest x-rays. This apparently contradicted the previously "definitive" study that showed increased average life expectancy for patients getting screened. (I'm not sure I've gotten that right). That led to a discussion of using survival time vs. death rate as a criteria for whether screening was a good idea. The discussion left me totally confused.
I hadn't heard of that but I'll look it up and see whether I can use that example next time I talk about survival models and hazard rates.
Any suggestions on how to convert those 7 zones to PE or HR? I know you're not a fan of HR due to all the variation, but as a guide since I still haven't scammed a power meter yet it will give me a reasonable starting point.
From Allen & Coggan's book "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" (which I would like to recommend even if you don't have a power meter (yet)):
1: 68% of anaerobic threshold HR or less, PE <2 (on a scale from 0 to 10) 2: 69-83%, PE 2-3 3: 84-94%, PE 3-4 4: 95-105%, PE 4-5 5: 106% or more, PE 6-7 6 and 7: HR not applicable, PE >7
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Hi All,
Quoted message said:
I am working on a training plan for this season. I'm not into following a detailed plan, so I'm more working on a training guide.
Quoted message said:
I'm losing weight and before any of this year's events I'll be down to about 92kg. That will put my VO2max at around 64 ml/kg/min which I have no reason to think can be greatly improved upon and I have (for current needs) more than enough sprint and short burst stomping power. Even now, up short hills I cannot be dropped by anyone I race with.
Quoted message said:
The problems come of course when the effort is sustained. When over threshold, I of course build up lactate and get dropped.
Quoted message said:
This suggests to me that what I need to improve my results is to grow more capillaries, and more mitochondria to up my LT. So I should be concentrating on long rides, and not worrying about tiny marginal improvements from interval and other intense training which come at the expense of more recovery time and thus less time spent building better local muscular O2 delivery.
Quoted message said:
Does that make sense?
Your biggest opportunity for improvement is to get you weight down below 180 lb.
Phil H
Fortunately I don't suffer from BIID. So 195 or so is absolute minimum.
Good, but you are at a distinct disadvantage on climbs over 1 mile. Most big riders can gut it out up till then but .......well, I'm sure you know the rest. I'm 6' 2" and raced at 170 and on long climbs could hang fairly well with the front bunch.
Ah, excellent, thanks. Sort of similar to the prostate cancer screening tests, and possibly similar to the breast cancer stage of detection results. Unfortunately, neoplasms are heterogeneous in both their lethality and their "detectability."
<[email hidden]> wrote: > [email hidden] wrote: > > I am working on a training plan for this season.
Quoted message said:
> Step 1: get an unambitious part-time job. > Step 2: make the acquaintance of several good, but attractive, woman > riders. > Step 3: no more time for alibis; motive and opportunity say you will > now > ride for 2.5h/day, 6d/week. No max efforts, just 2 abreast (har) or > them > in your wheel and you pacing yourself. > Step 4: three months into the program, it's late spring now, dump your > girlfriends but not your girlfriend (she'll be buying you new wheels > later on) and tack on to the fastest group you can find. > Step 5: do two training rides a week all through the summer. Don't get > dropped until you puke, then hold on for another mile. Don't try, do! > Use other days for recovery rides by yourself, 2 short (1.5-2h), 3 long > (3h). This time, you won't need slower riders to hold you back... Call > in sick at work once a week to get extra bed rest. > Step 6: from early autumn, enter two races a week, both on the weekend. > Each week, pick one beforehand that you will target, where you want to > win. The other one, finish. ALWAYS finish. > Step 7: when the road racing ends, with your new-found rhythm, survive > the winter on an mtb or cx bike. LiveDRUNK often but not regularly. Do > some spin classes to scout new talent for the spring rides.
Quoted message said:
> Next January, email our offices for the second year program.
Quoted message said:
But I'm gay.
Then replace girlfriend with "liberal."
Then I'd waste all my time arguing!
Joseph
I'm starting to seriously question your commitment to your cycling performance. Start small: meet a nice girl, tell her you just prefer cuddling. They love that sort of stuff.
For the purposes of the above program, that's about as straight as you need to be.
Results demand sacrifices,
-- Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/ "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls." "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
So I should be concentrating on long rides, and not worrying about tiny marginal improvements from interval and other intense training which come at the expense of more recovery time
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Does that make sense?
Quoted message said:
Sounds like you're looking for a sweet spot where you can raise your threshold without incurring excessive recovery.
In a way, yes. I am concerned that intense training types will necessitate recovery time that precludes training which develops capillaries and mitochondria.
In other words, given that my VO2max is probably peaked, will 10-15 hours per week of easy riding help my performance more than 6-8 hours with a larger portion being intense? I have 3-4 rides per week I can count on having time for.
Mitochondria, shmitochondria.
If you want to get better at riding somewhere near lactate threshold power, the way to do that is to ride somewhere near lactate threshol power. It all depends on what you consider "intervals" and what you consider "easy," but I don't think riding at a moderately relaxed pace is going to do much for that. 20-30 minute intervals or the equivalent - that is, long enough that you are spending most of the time near threshold, not spiking above it and then spending most of the ride recovering - are more likely to help.
