Irrefutable Truths and Cycling Training

[frenchyge]

I'm all for simplification at this stage in my cycling experience as I've found that 'paralysis by analysis' is a real and legitimate concern when it pertains to cycling data - witness the debates that have raged within this forum...

I hear ya. I know now that I simply don't have enough free time in my schedule to overtrain, so that simplifies many decisions right there. If there's time, then I can ride. Sweet spot is just my typical unstructured ride intensity, so when I'm riding it's quality training. Simple.

Personally I find the numbers motivating rather than paralyzing, which is helpful for me this time of year, but for many it's unnecessary complication. Maybe the difference is whether a person has pretty much realized their cycling goals, or is still striving to attain them.

 

[fergie]

I am also pressed for personal riding time and travelling often for the next four months so the only metric I am concerned about is ride yes =1, no =0 and trying to hit a score of 5 each week. At present despite some rather hot days I have been doing this on the windtrainer to ensure I get the time in. Also to ensure I get the quality. Too many people out and about that tends to sidetrack me with harder riding or prolonged coffee stops.

 

[DancenMacabre]

<snip>

I'm all for simplification at this stage in my cycling experience as I've found that 'paralysis by analysis' is a real and legitimate concern when it pertains to cycling data - witness the debates that have raged within this forum...

In my observation/experience, most newbs are moreso prone to over-reaching than under. The sheer enjoyment of the new found addiction that is road cycling is the catalyst to riding/training too much rather than not enough...ymmv...

it happens like you say....over-thinking & other cliche's about forests & trees

I started off kind of slowly with diff. goals than i do now. In summer it was - get fit enough to ride 10-20 miles at one time + with friends in the hills. That seemed like doing the near impossible. All i did for a while was do 3x/week "tempo' style rides, maybe 1.5-2.5 hrs long. Then after riding some & soon outriding friends, then it didnt seem like much motivation. The interest and motivation to get fitter took a life of its own. for me getting better, has made it funner

<snip>

Personally I find the numbers motivating rather than paralyzing, which is helpful for me this time of year, but for many it's unnecessary complication. Maybe the difference is whether a person has pretty much realized their cycling goals, or is still striving to attain them.

put me in the striving but loves the numbers camp. there is such a camp right?

the coach & rider in my equation are one & the same. plus the maths and calcs don't scare me one bit. so the more i learn, i think i can hella better coach & plan for myself.

 

[swampy1970]

Six riders have won the Tour de France without winning a stage: Oscar Pereiro (2006), Greg LeMond (1990), Lucien Aimar (1966), Gastone Nencini (1960), Roger Walkowiak (1956) and Firmin Lambot (1922)

One can win a track points race without ever crossing the line first.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...



... but the Tour guys still virtually crossed the line first.

As for the track, well that's not real racing. It's for folks who cant go up hills or make rights turns.

 

[frenchyge]

put me in the striving but loves the numbers camp. there is such a camp right?

Absolutely. I think it's after one's goals have been met that higher numbers become less important, and that would be the 'other' camp in my mind.

 

[Alex Simmons]

As for the track, well that's not real racing. It's for folks who cant go up hills or make rights turns.

My idea of a hillclimb is swinging up track in the bends.

 

[Piotr]

# (whatever we're up to): YMMV

 

[fergie]

I believe I mentioned the Principle of Individuality

 

[SolarEnergy]

May I try another truth? (if it hasn't been quoted already)

In order to better distinguish the false from the Truth(s)...
#10 - Assess the efficiency of your training on a regular basis.

If you don't train with power, that can still be done using speed (or time).

All you need to do is to pick few "key" courses, and monitor your improvement (or lack of it) throughout the season.

Want to know what's true or false about better ways to improve your climbing abilities? Simple. Pick a climb, time yourself in performing it, then repeat this test on a regular basis. That should help turning "theoretical" truths into more "practical" ones.

Before I began training with power, there's a 63k flat course I use to take on a steady basis with the only intention being to complete the course faster than my previous attempt. As simple as that.

 

[tonyzackery]

^ Can definitely agree with the above that regular, standardized testing to determine the efficacy of one's training program is vital to development. I know I don't test myself enough - just 2 lab tests four months apart in the 3.5yrs I've been road cycling. And obviously the tests don't need to be done in a lab to be beneficial.

A critical question though is how much time is a reasonable amount between tests to determine if the adaptations sought after should have taken place? Individual adaptability to the responses from an exercise protocol will come into play here. Perhaps the coaches on the board will weigh-in here...

 

[steve]

#8 Spend more time riding the bike than you spend analysing the power files or talking about it on Cycling Forums.

I disagree with the last point in your post, extremely poor advice in my opinion

 

[fergie]

Now I have power data from every ride I probably will never do another lab test again. Again the evil spectre of specificity comes into play as we don't race on windtrainers in labs with controlled environments and different motivations I trust the data I get from the road or track more than the lab.

Only thing with the lab is test-retest reliability but then you are not really testing what you will be performing at in the first place.

As to how far you test after trying a certain protocol, one thing I would say is this depends on how big a believer you are in either a big overload pre a long taper or a steady overload over a long time and a short taper. I have had success with both but prefer then long term build up as the heavy overload can mentally crack riders as their form nose dives so close to the big event. But then within two weeks I have seen riders going from inability to tear the skin off a rice pudding to riding the field at NZ Champs off their wheels.

With the ability to track training so much better with the Performance Manager I prefer the long term build up where I try to lift CTL as high as possible without creating such a TSB hole the rider can not climb back out of. Also I train Professionals so there is a trade off between training hard for a World Championship and still being able to perform to earn a paycheck. Still only one rider who can call the shots in those terms.

One thing with testing outdoors without power is that weather can influence times hugely so if you have the option of power (even if you rented one for a week twice a year) you can get a far better indication.

 

[fergie]

I disagree with the last point in your post, extremely poor advice in my opinion

 

[DancenMacabre]

^ Can definitely agree with the above that regular, standardized testing to determine the efficacy of one's training program is vital to development. I know I don't test myself enough - just 2 lab tests four months apart in the 3.5yrs I've been road cycling. And obviously the tests don't need to be done in a lab to be beneficial.

A critical question though is how much time is a reasonable amount between tests to determine if the adaptations sought after should have taken place? Individual adaptability to the responses from an exercise protocol will come into play here. Perhaps the coaches on the board will weigh-in here...

tony, seems to me that the further up the power training food chain you are, the more precision is needed for the tests & the more time has to pass between tests. i mean if you are further up the curve then i gotta think the adaptations take longer to happen.

for the power minnows & guppies like me, oftentimes regularly scheduled sessions result in PB's. it takes hella more to meet the overload principle for you & the 300 watt riders, than it does for me.

even so i still do tests regularly because:
- they are good training
- key point, they are good practice to pace yourself
- lastly, they help you see that beneath the cumulative fatigue many of us newbies
mistake for plateau, is in fact plenty of progress

so say once every 6-8 weeks for me is a monod test that i can use along with what i am doing in regular sst/l4 sessions to recalibrate FT as needed.

for someone totally totally new theres probably no point in tests. because the physiological adaptations ( stroke volume, vo2max gains, etc) are happening so fast that you can do a test today & 5 days later, surpass it. reminds me of when I did PT for weight training at gyms. newbies wanted to find their 1 rep max but i said it was a waste of time. you improve so quick in the first 2-3 months that such a number is useless since it is constantly going up, not to mention a good way to hurt yourself. do 5-8 rep sets & virtually every week for months you will be adding weight to the bar w/little or no trouble.

if i were a 300 watt rider & i sure hope to be one day, i would test less often. maybe 3-4 times a year would be all that's needed to see if you are on track.

what do the 300 watt guys have to say on their own exp. & frequency of testing?

 

[fergie]

Totally agree that newbies are wasting their time doing huge amounts of testing. Many of the U17 Juniors I work with want to test and from the few that have they see huge gains of up to 150watts in a year but this is a false reality. The huge gains they make come from growth and deliberate practice at their sport. Many also find the tests quite motivating while Elites generally don't, they prefer to display their talent in the racing.

Yes as you move up the food chain the more you need to focus on specificity and overload as these are where the small gains are made. One Kiwi Professional has made gains every year since they started testing him in 1995 so imagine how hard it must be for him to keep pushing forward when the law of diminishing returns makes the gains each year smaller and smaller.

 

[tonyzackery]

As to how far you test after trying a certain protocol, one thing I would say is this depends on how big a believer you are in either a big overload pre a long taper or a steady overload over a long time and a short taper. I have had success with both but prefer then long term build up as the heavy overload can mentally crack riders as their form nose dives so close to the big event. But then within two weeks I have seen riders going from inability to tear the skin off a rice pudding to riding the field at NZ Champs off their wheels.

Okay, you don't really have a use for lab testing. You're entitled to your opinion - no problem. I find the
power output:lactate analysis and the EGA (for caloric expenditure information) well worth the price of admission. Anyway...

Do you mind putting into layman terms (i.e. months or weeks) your opinion as to how long one should give a training program an opportunity to produce the adaptations one is desiring before a re-test is in order? If there is no relatively short answer, then so be it...

 

[SolarEnergy]

But if you train with power, you're likely assessing your FTP one way or the other on a regular basis aren't you?

 

[fergie]

Okay, you don't really have a use for lab testing. You're entitled to your opinion - no problem. I find the
power output:lactate analysis and the EGA (for caloric expenditure information) well worth the price of admission. Anyway...

Do you mind putting into layman terms (i.e. months or weeks) your opinion as to how long one should give a training program an opportunity to produce the adaptations one is desiring before a re-test is in order? If there is no relatively short answer, then so be it...

Not really an opinion just a personal statement. I haven't done a lab test since I got the power meter. Ditto for my riders. Because they train specifically I have the testing I need to be able to determine if the training is preparing them for the physiological demands of competition. Knowing the technical error of measurement for lactate testing I have little faith in that.

With my preference for a long build up and short taper (where possible) I would say 7 days max to see any benefits.

 

[Alex Simmons]

^ Can definitely agree with the above that regular, standardized testing to determine the efficacy of one's training program is vital to development. I know I don't test myself enough - just 2 lab tests four months apart in the 3.5yrs I've been road cycling. And obviously the tests don't need to be done in a lab to be beneficial.

A critical question though is how much time is a reasonable amount between tests to determine if the adaptations sought after should have taken place? Individual adaptability to the responses from an exercise protocol will come into play here. Perhaps the coaches on the board will weigh-in here...

Frequency of testing depends on a few things and is athlete specific. Some need it more regularly than others As for suggestion on this sans power meter:
Training: Homebrew Fitness Testing - BikeRadar

 

[SolarEnergy]

A critical question though is how much time is a reasonable amount between tests to determine if the adaptations sought after should have taken place? Individual adaptability to the responses from an exercise protocol will come into play here. Perhaps the coaches on the board will weigh-in here...

May I? (I'm a coach after all )

I'd like to quote one of my favorite authors on this topic:
Testing is training, training is testing (A.Coggan)

I think there are several implications to this quote. First, for power users, there are tools provided with most softwares to help you identify peak performances (MMP curve etc). Then, assessing your FTP and readjusting it is also a form of testing.

For me, the frequency at which those tests should take place depend on few things. The main one pertains to the goals of the current phase of training we're in. Some goals need to be tracked more closely (rapid changes in fitness etc).

Finally, not wanting to make any promotion here or anything. What I liked about RaceDay (as an alternative to wko+) is that this software distinguishes normal training workouts from tests. Performance prediction features depend on the input provided for those tests. This is good!