It's killing me but..........

[hrumpole]

2 rides this weekend (No intervals on the weekend):
2:40 min @ NP 190. This was actually a good thing, as it was done with an eye-bleeder of a hangover, and but for the fact that I was going to meet a friend at 730am to do it, would have stayed in bed. Initial bouts of nausea aside, this was really encouraging as earlier this winter there was no way to do this route without having it be pretty challenging. The bonus was that this same buddy (who is in much better shape generally) picked up the Coggan/Allen book during the winter holidays and asked me if I had lost my mind. At the end of the ride, he admitted that he mistakenly thought that the "computer stuff was ********."

1:44 @ NP 209. (Tri bike). New PR for that particular route, which included stoplights, 2 good size (1 mile and half-mile hills), slowdowns for traffic etc. Plus it was fun to pick up a train in the park.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by acoggan .


1. A Google search will also reveal that was the first, last, and only time I drew that parallel. The reason (to answer swampy1970's question) is that, for many people, use of the term "zones" implies that one should tightly constrain their power to a narrow range, something that is not only difficult to do, but likely counterproductive over the long run. (Note: this is a point I've made many, many, many times before....as again, even a cursory reading of my writings would reveal.)

...

0.83 (not 83%)

...

While the system is based on the average power during a workout or interval effort, consideration must also be given to the distribution of power.

Most people understand that level and zone are as interchangable as "." and "%". If you want to insist that they are not, if appears you only need to edit one paper in one location.

You continually make unproven (and refuted) claims about power and training.

 

[An old Guy]

acoggan ----

While you are making the edit suggested above, you can remove the stuff about TSS being best understood as glycogen depletion (or whatever).

 

[hrumpole]

1x5 @ 250; 2x15 @ 232, 229, plus hill climb. NP=212, IF .87
1 hr 27 minutes total
Second interval felt really good, and the graphs are looking a lot better. Still doesn't look like the trainer, but getting more proficient at holding the range. Feels like I'm getting stronger every time now.
Going on vacation next week, and the bike is not coming. Plan to swim and try to run.
How much CTL does one typically lose from a week off?

 

[RapDaddyo]

Originally Posted by hrumpole .

1x5 @ 250; 2x15 @ 232, 229, plus hill climb. NP=212, IF .87
1 hr 27 minutes total
Second interval felt really good, and the graphs are looking a lot better. Still doesn't look like the trainer, but getting more proficient at holding the range. Feels like I'm getting stronger every time now.
Going on vacation next week, and the bike is not coming. Plan to swim and try to run.
How much CTL does one typically lose from a week off?

For the shorter durations (e.g., <= 20mins), I don't think you'll lose much power from a week off. For longer durations (e.g., 1hr), I think you will lose about 5% and I think it will take a full week back on the bike to regain your current power throughout the power-duration curve. BTW, I find that my legs do better after a short layoff than my lungs. I find that I am struggling for air but that my legs feel okay. After making this observation one time, I just decided to forget my breathing and pay attention to my legs. If they're good, I'm good. As to swimming and running, don't expect much benefit for your cycling fitness upon your return. FWIW, when I return from a week off the bike, I just shave about 5% off my prior targets for about a week.

 

[swampy1970]

Can someone change the thread title to "It's gonna kill me but........"

http://ridewithgps.com/trips/564669

There's something intrinsically wrong with the far turn being 186 miles away, 5,000ft up a big hill and the start being at 8pm. Probably gonna need more batteries than a house full of lonely horny women.

 

[slowfoot]

Can someone explain the relationship between power intervals ( 6 to 20 mins) and performance in 1 1/2 to 3 hour races? I've heard that short intervals will boost your aerobic engine but how does that relate to longer distances? In my workouts I've been focusing on shorter intervals at 90% of my 5 min power as well as 30 sec on 30 off type. To boost my weak points in my profile. What should I intersperse with these guys for longer duration rides . I am pretty sore and stiff even with every other day workouts. The thought of 2-3 x 20 mins doesn't thrill me at the moment. Dave

 

[RapDaddyo]

Originally Posted by slowfoot .

Can someone explain the relationship between power intervals ( 6 to 20 mins) and performance in 1 1/2 to 3 hour races? I've heard that short intervals will boost your aerobic engine but how does that relate to longer distances?
In my workouts I've been focusing on shorter intervals at 90% of my 5 min power as well as 30 sec on 30 off type. To boost my weak points in my profile.
What should I intersperse with these guys for longer duration rides . I am pretty sore and stiff even with every other day workouts. The thought of 2-3 x 20 mins doesn't thrill me at the moment.
Dave

Dave, your current workouts are targeting VO2MAX and AWC (Anaerobic Work Capacity). VO2MAX and AWC are certainly important in 1.5-3hr races, but primarily for surges, short climbs, rollers and the finish. But, to stay with the lead group in a RR you need aerobic power. While the shorter efforts will result in some residual benefits to your aerobic capacity, you can best target aerobic capacity with longer efforts at 10+ minutes and 91%+ of your 1hr max power. BTW, the best book on this subject is Hunter Allen's and Andy Coggan's Training and Racing with a Power Meter. It will be the best $16 you invest in cycling training. The TrainingPeaks website also has some good technical papers, mostly authored by the two authors of the book above.

 

[slowfoot]

I figured as much that it wouldn't be doing much for aerobic , but I need more matches to burn in addition to better FTP. It's so hard to find time to work out to build both power and endurance. I'll add back those 20 mins intervals , and buy the book... Thanks Dave

 

[slowfoot]

Coincidentally found the answers in the " new training paradigm" thread. The quote is from a program i was following about high intensity workouts . Hence my emphasis on vo2max workouts. Clearly , there is no free lunch to be had . Time to restart the 2-3 x 20 mins. The high intensity was wearing me down so it is good to see that with less intensity you can still see great improvements. Dave

 

[RapDaddyo]

Originally Posted by slowfoot .

Coincidentally found the answers in the " new training paradigm" thread.
The quote is from a program i was following about high intensity workouts .
Hence my emphasis on vo2max workouts.
Clearly , there is no free lunch to be had . Time to restart the 2-3 x 20 mins.
The high intensity was wearing me down so it is good to see that with less intensity you can still see great improvements.
Dave

It's not an either-or tradeoff. You can increase aerobic power with sub-aerobic efforts (e.g., VO2MAX and AWC), as illustrated by this study: http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2001/acsms/papers/LAUR.pdf

It's more of a question of what is your primary targeted adaptation? If your primary target is aerobic power, you will benefit more from 10+ min efforts. The intensity is less, but the duration is longer. Some find aerobic efforts easier due to the lower intensity and some find them harder due to the longer duration. As you said, there's no free lunch.

 

[Sillyoldtwit]

Well I’m back, more with a whimper than a bang. After a disastrous winter vis-a vis training , managed to get a grip and get some good sessions in over the last 2 weeks.
However, haven’t been near the Computrainer since the middle of last October, until today that is. With the big 7 - 0 looming on the horizon (12th August), it’s now or never this year.
If I’m not consistent over the next few months then I think I will hang up my pedals.

Have plans for the b’day but more on that nearer the time. Fast forward to tonight. I intended to do 1 hour at 170 watts but through boredom and a sore you know where I did 1 x 25, maintaining a speed of over 20mph and a cadence between 82 and 86. I’m determined not to fall into the trap where I did 1 x 60 @ 400+ watts at somewhere around 5mph. (resulting in an inaccurate wattage.)

Anyway, after 5 minutes rest got back on the CT and did 1 x 15 @170. It actually felt better than the first interval and managed to keep the cadence up around 90. Did 1 x 11 @170 to finish off and actually bumped the cadence up to a steady 105 for the last 2 minutes.

Going to work my way slowly back up, concentrating on longer intervals on the CT rather than attempting short intervals with a high wattage.

Watch this space to see how an old guy can make it - or not./img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

Tyson

 

[RapDaddyo]

Originally Posted by Sillyoldtwit .

[SIZE= 12px]Going to work my way slowly back up, concentrating on longer intervals on the CT rather than attempting short intervals with a high wattage.[/SIZE]

Tyson

I completely agree with this strategy. When I come back to my bike after a long layoff, my immediate objective is to work my way up to 120 mins at a constant intensity, irrespective of the actual power. I don't care if my AP is 150 watts initially, I'm just looking to build up some endurance. Endurance then power.

Welcome back!

 

[Sillyoldtwit]

Thanks RD for confirming that I'm adopting the right approach towards making a comeback.

What a difference 2 days make! Climbed back on the torture rack today and my father's genes kicked in. Managed to do 1 x 40 @ 170W, followed by 1 x 10 at 170W. I intend to resist the temptation to up the wattage and stay with 170 till the end of April. In May we start the 'real' work. I anticipate 180/190W being a doddle as we say in the UK. Only time will tell.

Tyson

 

[hrumpole]

After a week off, having a hard time finding the rhythm. Only two rides this week--90 min: 5 min @ 239; then 2x15 @ 218 exactly. One hour; 5 min at 237; 1x15 at 217. Frustrating, as the time to train just isn't there. Huge falloff in CTL.

 

[Sillyoldtwit]

Watch your back wheel, I'm coming to show you how it's done./img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

Tyson

 

[RapDaddyo]

Originally Posted by hrumpole .

After a week off, having a hard time finding the rhythm. Only two rides this week--90 min: 5 min @ 239; then 2x15 @ 218 exactly. One hour; 5 min at 237; 1x15 at 217. Frustrating, as the time to train just isn't there. Huge falloff in CTL.

After a layoff, our first instinct is to try to pick up where we left off. This normally results in frustration because we just can't do the efforts we were doing. I recommend a different approach. If you have been off your bike for more than a week but less than a month, I recommend doing your workouts at about 90% of what you were doing when you interrupted your training program. This may seem too easy (e.g., doing L4s at 200W instead of 220W), but you will complete your efforts and it will not be frustrating. After a few days or a week, you will naturally begin to increase the power until you're back to where you were. But, the time required to get back should not be underestimated. I don't think a ratio of 1:1 (time off to time to regain fitness) is anything to be ashamed of. When I come back after a month or more, I just begin with constant power rides at whatever feels comfortable.

 

[hrumpole]

Originally Posted by Sillyoldtwit .

Watch your back wheel, I'm coming to show you how it's done./img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

Tyson

Bring donuts. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

 

[hrumpole]

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo .



After a layoff, our first instinct is to try to pick up where we left off. This normally results in frustration because we just can't do the efforts we were doing. I recommend a different approach. If you have been off your bike for more than a week but less than a month, I recommend doing your workouts at about 90% of what you were doing when you interrupted your training program. This may seem too easy (e.g., doing L4s at 200W instead of 220W), but you will complete your efforts and it will not be frustrating. After a few days or a week, you will naturally begin to increase the power until you're back to where you were. But, the time required to get back should not be underestimated. I don't think a ratio of 1:1 (time off to time to regain fitness) is anything to be ashamed of. When I come back after a month or more, I just begin with constant power rides at whatever feels comfortable.

Ugh. I worked so hard for those watts... but it sounds like good advice. I could finish at 218; it wasn't murder. Before, 232 was pretty easy and I felt like I was getting stronger each trip.

200 would have been too easy (that's what I tell myself). The hard part is that between weather, vacation, and other obligations I have not had the time that I would like to go out for longer rides on weekends. NP for these rides is @205 or so.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by hrumpole .


Quote: Originally Posted by Sillyoldtwit .

Watch your back wheel, I'm coming to show you how it's done./img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

Tyson

Bring donuts. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif



Sorry... I ate them all.

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/drool.gif