Building Base



TeleVizedPayne

New Member
Sep 11, 2005
20
0
0
63
How long does it take to build a base for a newbie? I've been riding 9 months and have been increasing time, distance and speed and feel I have plateaued and now need to have some specific goals for my training. I am starting to work on intervals and tempo rides. Is 9 months enough to establish a mileage base? I am currently riding about 125 miles a week.
 
TeleVizedPayne said:
How long does it take to build a base for a newbie? I've been riding 9 months and have been increasing time, distance and speed and feel I have plateaued and now need to have some specific goals for my training. I am starting to work on intervals and tempo rides. Is 9 months enough to establish a mileage base? I am currently riding about 125 miles a week.
Whether "9 months" is enough depends on initial fitness level (e.g., if you're bringing in some fitness from a sport that makes related demands), the volume of training accomplished during those 9 mos, and most importantly, the rider. At one extreme, Mike Engleman was beating real, live pros in races after not much more than 9 months on the bike. At another extreme, there's, uhh, me :eek:. Different people respond to training stimuli differently; anybody who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something.

As a general principle, though, if a training intervention that used to result in gains no longer results in gains, you're done improving, and it's time to change something. That something might be increasing volume or intensity, to get the overload response going again, or recovering more, or moving on to a different energy system entirely for a while.

There's a semi-mystical power attributed to "base" in a lot of popular cycling training literature. Especially in internet cycling forums, people often imply that even if "base" riding isn't improving your measurable fitness, you're somehow "banking" fitness that can be "cashed in" with more intense training later. This idea is even implicit in calling long, endurance-paced rides "base" rides; people using this terminology are usually imagining a pyramid-shaped distribution of training effort, and say things like, "the broader the base, the higher the peak." This is true when building physical, brick-and-mortar pyramids. But your mitochondria, muscle enzymes, hormone balance, blood volume, heart stroke volume, muscle fiber types, etc., aren't pyramids. They're complicated biological systems; while they all respond and interact in different ways, almost all of them respond best, and most consistently, to overload.

I think the tendency for pop training plans to overemphasise "base" stems from a desire to build a plan that's easy for newer riders to stick with than from an impulse to efficiently and effectively improve fitness. The nice thing about "base"-oriented plans is that you can express them in terms of miles or hours, so no need for a HRM or ad hoc exercise physiology, there's little chance of burnout or overuse injury, and this riding intensity is easy enough that there's a rich chance to enjoy some of the basic pleasures of cycling as an activity: seeing sights, conversing with fellow riders, etc. That's great, and for many, probably most cyclists, that pretty much covers all the "training" you'll ever be likely to need. However, when it comes to fitness, there's nothing special or magical about "base" intensities (or any other intensities, for that matter). In my somewhat painful experience, you can waste years doing this base stuff without getting any faster. Your legs don't have hidden odometers; nothing magical will happen when you hit 1000 (or 3000 or 5000 or 10000) miles.

So, go ride hard, have fun, don't get hurt too bad, take a break every once in a while. The "base police" won't arrest you :).

You mention goal-setting as an aside. Goals are an incredibly important part of effective training; after all, how do you know whether your training is working, unless you have a yardstick against which to measure it? Unfortunately, other people can't tell you what a good goal is, because the goal has to be meaningful to you personally. Otherwise, you won't be able to fully commit to realizing it. A lot of people set a goal of completing a century in their first season, and it takes a good deal of fitness (in comparison to sedentary folks) to accomplish that. Perhaps there's a local hill or loop you'd like to knock some time off of, or a group ride that you've never managed to finish without getting dropped, or perhaps you'd even like to start racing, which will bring with it a whole universe of challenging goals. Pick something that speaks to you, realistically evaluate how your current fitness stacks up against that goal's requirements, and start planning...
 
Thank you for the most detailed and helpful reply. I have several goals in mind and need to pick one and start working towards it. As I said, I've started working on intervals this month and am trying to improve my fitness, LT and speed by doing so. I really enjoy the speed aspect of the sport and am looking at some goals involving speed and routes.

I've been studying the most effective types of intervals, tempo rides and recovery and am planning a program to get started. If you are a numbers geek (I am) and like to measure and weigh all that you are doing then you could really get into the 'science' end of the sport and your progress. I think that is as much fun for me as the riding.

Again, thanks for the helpful reply.:)
 
TeleVizedPayne said:
I've been studying the most effective types of intervals, tempo rides and recovery and am planning a program to get started. If you are a numbers geek (I am) and like to measure and weigh all that you are doing then you could really get into the 'science' end of the sport and your progress. I think that is as much fun for me as the riding.
Me too. If you really want to blow your geeky little mind, save up for a powermeter and a license for CyclingPeaks software. You'll be a rolling exercise laboratory.
 
kmavm said:
That's about the most useful piece I've seen on this site - WD

CTS suggests about 4 months / 16 weeks base building in his test book - they call it foundation phases I think.

The OP probably needs to take stock or do some testing to assess where they are at and what changes they can implement to progress. The broad objectives and time ( days/weeks) to target events will play a big part on training from now forward.

CTS also talks about peaking at the right time for planned events and not extending yourself day after day for hours. So ride hard ( right intensity) for the right amount of time and recover hard also.

I like the sports science / gadgets aspect of cycling. While I do feel like a lab rat to an extent, it gives purpose and structure to training sessions you could otherwise just spin through.
 
I've been doing intervals today. I did a 10 minute warm up, 20 minutes with a heart rate of 128-135 then a 10 minute low intensity ride and another 20 minutes with my heart rate at 145-150. I then cooled down for 10 minutes.

I tried some shorter intervals last week and when my heart rate would hit 150 I will be struggling and had a strong burn going. I did the 20 minute thing and had no problems keeping my heart rate up there with no burn. What is the difference physiologically in my muscles when I 'sneak' up on the 150 rate compared to the blast and burn that I get with sprints and not much difference in heart rate?
 
Squint said:
What units would you measure base in anyway?
When progress slows down. That's when it's time for an adjustment in training as you've pretty much milked that particular routine for what it's worth. It's just not something one can use a calendar or mileage to determine.

If one is an entry level cyclist, err on the side of more rather than less. This is to give the tendons and ligaments a chance to adapt and is more for injury prevention.

Base mileage to an advanced rider is going to have a completely different meaning. They're going to tackle it differently.