Endurance rides and staying in proper training zones on rolling terrain

[rbarker76]

I live in an area with extreme rolling hills. You have to struggle to find anything remotely flat and when you do the length is usually less than a mile. When I say rolling hills I'm not talking about long slight gradients. Some of the hills are 9-15% average and about a mile long at the most extreme. Its not long mountain climbs or anything but nonstop rollers for miles. Anyway, I find it impossible to do any type of riding in the endurance power zone. I try by going as easy as possible on the climb but most still bring me around if not slighty over my threshold power. I try to recover on the descent by soft pedaling. Whenever terrain allows I hold my power in the endurance zone but that is not often. When I get home and look at the ride in cyclingpeaks with normalized power all of rides end up being long tempo workouts according to the IF number. My VI index averages around 1.3 on these so called endurance rides. Does anyone have any advice on dealing with this type of terrain and staying in the proper training zones? Even when I try to do 10min threshold intervals the terrain is so constantly rolling that most of the time it feels like I am doing Hill repeats, because when you think about it I guess I am. The reason I am so concerned is that I just recentely bought this power tap a few months ago to aid in my training. Last year I trained with heart rate alone. I believe I burned out and overtrained myself because the heart rate monitor was not giving me my true workload. Every ride was just hill repeat after hill repeat in and out of the anearobic power zone but the heart rate monitor never showed this because of its nature to lag behind effort. Now that I have the power meter I want to make sure this doesn't happen this training year. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Robert Barker

 

[Spunout]

Climb slower.

Try to average in the endurance zone over the ride, and cap your power output around FT while climbing. Stay out of anearobic zones. Rolling hills are great endurance rides, I wish I had your problem!

 

[acoggan]

I live in an area with extreme rolling hills. You have to struggle to find anything remotely flat and when you do the length is usually less than a mile. When I say rolling hills I'm not talking about long slight gradients. Some of the hills are 9-15% average and about a mile long at the most extreme. Its not long mountain climbs or anything but nonstop rollers for miles. Anyway, I find it impossible to do any type of riding in the endurance power zone. I try by going as easy as possible on the climb but most still bring me around if not slighty over my threshold power. I try to recover on the descent by soft pedaling. Whenever terrain allows I hold my power in the endurance zone but that is not often. When I get home and look at the ride in cyclingpeaks with normalized power all of rides end up being long tempo workouts according to the IF number. My VI index averages around 1.3 on these so called endurance rides. Does anyone have any advice on dealing with this type of terrain and staying in the proper training zones? Even when I try to do 10min threshold intervals the terrain is so constantly rolling that most of the time it feels like I am doing Hill repeats, because when you think about it I guess I am. The reason I am so concerned is that I just recentely bought this power tap a few months ago to aid in my training. Last year I trained with heart rate alone. I believe I burned out and overtrained myself because the heart rate monitor was not giving me my true workload. Every ride was just hill repeat after hill repeat in and out of the anearobic power zone but the heart rate monitor never showed this because of its nature to lag behind effort. Now that I have the power meter I want to make sure this doesn't happen this training year. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Robert Barker

My advice? Forget everything you've ever heard/read/been told about heart rate-based zone training, and recognize that you're now training with (not by) power. Training by heart rate and training with power are different beasts, really, and carrying over preconceived notions from one to the other (e.g., the idea that one must keep their power tightly constrained to a particular range to obtain specific benefits) can actually slow down, not speed up, the learning curve.

 

[wiredued]

If you have a triple crank a 24 tooth granny with a third eye chain watcher might help.

 

[wiredued]

That sounds like a contradiction your 7 zone chart seems to say training at around 91% FTP is the best way to raise FTP.

My advice? Forget everything you've ever heard/read/been told about heart rate-based zone training, and recognize that you're now training with (not by) power. Training by heart rate and training with power are different beasts, really, and carrying over preconceived notions from one to the other (e.g., the idea that one must keep their power tightly constrained to a particular range to obtain specific benefits) can actually slow down, not speed up, the learning curve.

 

[RapDaddyo]

The terrain you describe does make it more challenging to do certain types of traditional workouts, basically anything resembling a sustained duration at a constant power. The grades sound a bit unusual (steep) because such grades pose problems for trucks on both the ascents and descents. I have found that I can ride grades up to ~7% at 100W and still maintain control of my bike (~5mph). The reason I know this is that I plan routes for my club and some of those who go on the "B" rides can only manage ~100W on the climbs. So, I test ride all of the climbs at 100W to be sure those with the least power can maintain bike control. You might want to change your drivetrain to ride at your target power at your preferred cadence. I went to a compact crank last year for this reason.

You can target the same adaptations with a variable power ride. You might want to do some spreadsheet work with NP and work out a target power for the ascents and descents that result in your target NP. It would be nice to have such data on your computer, but at the moment you need to work it out manually.

 

[RapDaddyo]

That sounds like a contradiction your 7 zone chart seems to say training at around 91% FTP is the best way to raise FTP

But, you can attain 91%FTP in a variety of ways other than constant power.

 

[SolarEnergy]

In my opinion the best way to increase FTP is to use more than one way anyway.

 

[wiredued]

Is there a way to do it without sweating so much? Man do I stink after 3x20s.

 

[acoggan]

That sounds like a contradiction your 7 zone chart seems to say training at around 91% FTP is the best way to raise FTP.

Actually, it does not - what it says is that efforts specifically aimed at raising functional threshold power typically entail maintaining an average power of 91-105% of power. IOW, the levels (not zones) are really descriptive, not prescriptive, in nature, and are specifically called "levels" and not zones because there's no expectation or requirement that you constrain your power to remain within the stated range at all times. (In fact, doing so could very well prove counterproductive.)

 

[wiredued]

Thanks for clearing that up I feel like mixing it up a little on Wednesdays so I will try some other "levels" and durations.

Actually, it does not - what it says is that efforts specifically aimed at raising functional threshold power typically entail maintaining an average power of 91-105% of power. IOW, the levels (not zones) are really descriptive, not prescriptive, in nature, and are specifically called "levels" and not zones because there's no expectation or requirement that you constrain your power to remain within the stated range at all times. (In fact, doing so could very well prove counterproductive.)

 

[ric_stern/RST]

FWIW, i to do *not* suggest you stay tightly constrained within a narrow power range, but to ride harder on the hills and easier on the flats. (given that we have lots of climbs round here from 10 to 25+% i don't have any option to but to ride at ~ MAP just to get up some of them). would love some flat roads once in a while though!

BTW, i had no idea (when i developed my zones that there was a difference in meaning between levels and zones).

ric

p.s. does anyone know why it stops raining when either
a) i finish riding the trainer... grrr
b) about an hour after i finish riding in the rain... double grrr

 

[normZurawski]

p.s. does anyone know why it stops raining when either
a) i finish riding the trainer... grrr
b) about an hour after i finish riding in the rain... double grrr

I think if you put your trainer outside you'll be all set.

 

[acoggan]

BTW, i had no idea (when i developed my zones that there was a difference in meaning between levels and zones).

Well, there probably isn't, at least in most people's eyes. IOW, I'm trying to create a distinction where one doesn't/didn't already exist.

 

[rbarker76]

Actually, it does not - what it says is that efforts specifically aimed at raising functional threshold power typically entail maintaining an average power of 91-105% of power. IOW, the levels (not zones) are really descriptive, not prescriptive, in nature, and are specifically called "levels" and not zones because there's no expectation or requirement that you constrain your power to remain within the stated range at all times. (In fact, doing so could very well prove counterproductive.)

Should I be looking at average power or normalized power? When I go for longer endurance type of rides my normalized power almost always falls in what you call the tempo zone but my actuall average power is down in the endurance zone. I believe the differance has alot to do with time not pedaling and also in the fact that on some of these hills I have to go very anerobic and make up the oxygen deficit on the descent. I try to climb below my FTP if possible. But I feel I go anerobic too much and end up bonking around 60 miles. I've traveled to flatter areas and have done longer rides 100 to 150 miles with no problems.

 

[gvanwagner]

I don't know- I can't prove it but I have a distinct feeling the the average for L2/3 rides is just as if not more important (than Pnorm) from a adaptation standpoint. I used to live in a very similar area. IMO when going uphill above FTP then your getting the job done- But you'll be doing plenty of that stuff later on anyway. When your going downhill then if your not recruiting a muscle fiber then you ain't training it. The same reason why a 1 hr crit at 1.0IF and a 40k TT will force slightly different adaptations.

Of course it would depend greatly on the length of the hills but if VI is 1.3 then there probably long enough that the up/down efforts don't "blur" together.

On stable terrain Id think a good solid ride would average right around the plataue of type 1 fiber recruitment. The issue with highly variable rides is not the time you spend at high intensity but the amount of time at zero and nonsubstantial power (below the midpoint of L2) on highly variable terrain could well be over 50% slack time.

Looking at distribution charts from L2/3 phases in the past when I lived in a similar but not as extreme area as the OP- I see I spent a load of time in L1 and L4/5. The L4/5 time though probabaly wasn't contigious enough to make substantial gains in that department. I would usually see about 40-55 watt Pnorm/Pave spread. Also, I think a lot of riding on that terrain contributed to my particular strength/weaknesses- in a bad way.

Also, Keeping the VI down will burn more KJ- probabaly 700over the course of a long ride. That makes a big difference in your body's fuel usage. Psychological, it can be tough to keep a steady pressure. I went from doing 20% coasting for 3hr to a place where I could ride for 3hr with less than 2% 0 power. It racked me the first couple weeks

Like I said- I can't prove it but that's just a gut theory. That being said, you have to do what you need to do to get over those hills and if that's the terrain you have availible...

 

[acoggan]

Should I be looking at average power or normalized power?

The levels are based on average power.