Level 2 revisited

[TiMan]

Me too. Does this mean I will become as fast as you guys are/were?

Thank you for all the interesting reading on the forum as well!
/J

I'll be a CTS(Carmichael) coach and say YES he he he


....but the most important factor is genetics BY FAR.

Keep training tough and you'll get good enough!

 

[Bruce Diesel]

Lemond quotes on training.

Referring to Cramichael's training approach for top riders Lemond says this....

"He (Chris Carmichael) would say, "I am doing a lot of quantity and quality". But you can't do both without drugs. You can't be doing 30 hours a week and still ride hard." I can tell you that I rarely did 30 hours a week, and this is what they are doing regularly." Mountain Bike Action




Here are a few quotes I recorded from a seminar I attended. Dug up my tape.

"You should train for 2-3 days of quality training in a row and then take 1-2 days off for rest and recovery, and some may need more time off"

"I almost always took one day off the bike, usually Monday, and one day at a very easy spin per week, usually Fridays, as a pro, so most of you with a real job and other life stressors should take at least this much. Many of you will need more recovery time each week."

"If a guy is taking only one day off a week he is not training properly, and he will eventually over train unless he takes drugs. You need at least one day off the bike and one day of very easy spinning per week year round".

"There are so many myths and traditions in cycling and so many riders, and even coaches, are misinformed. Great cycling fitness and performance is a byproduct of an incredible VO2 max, big stroke volume, and well honed lactate threshold. To increase these you need quality training."..... Now he raised his voice a bit and said......"This cannot be done with low level endurance riding! You need to do a lot of lactate threshold training, some tempo, and then latter on, and a few weeks before your early races, start doing VO2 max intervals as well."

"Most riders don't have a clue when it comes to structure in their training. I would sooner have a guy say that he trains only three days a week because he trains so hard that he needs the other days to recover rather then I ride six days a week."


Then after the seminar he hung around for like an hour while guys bombarded him with questions.


Cool eh

Ti

Speaking of Lemond quotes. There is a small book from Bicycling Magazine, 1000 tips for cyclists or some such title.

There is a quote attributed to Lemond in there saying that 12 hours a week of (quality) training was enough time to reach 95% of your potential as a cyclist (I think the word quality should prefix training).

 

[Spunout]

No, I'm not. Clearly, however, you don't have to do 5+ h training rides to race 5+ h as Spunout asserted.

More specifically, it's a mistake to try to directly link race duration to how much/how long one should train...

It wasn't meant as a DIRECT link sir. There are other things learned in a 5 hr ride: How to eat, drink, prepare your ass for the saddle, your core strength, etc.

On the TSS question: I think an athlete should have experience performing the work needed for the race. If it is 3,000KJ, then train for that output. Some may be able to do it in 3 hours, others may need 5 hours.

 

[Spunout]

That was the one I had in mind. Dated or not, I would assume that any training recommendations that it contains reflect Lemond's thinking, or at least his thinking at the time.

Agree. Read around the lines, and meld the ideas and understanding with today's tools. It is so very very current.

I'm going to go read it again too

 

[peterpen]

It wasn't meant as a DIRECT link sir. There are other things learned in a 5 hr ride: How to eat, drink, prepare your ass for the saddle, your core strength, etc.

On the TSS question: I think an athlete should have experience performing the work needed for the race. If it is 3,000KJ, then train for that output. Some may be able to do it in 3 hours, others may need 5 hours.

I agree with this completely. One important benefit is training how to optimally recover from such target outputs, which is obviously more important for those of us who may race consecutive days.

 

[jetnjeff]

It has been a while since I read Lemonds book, but I think that much of his book still hold water today.

IIRC he mentioned only doing really long rides if you let yourself get fat and an had to reduce your weight. But your quality would be hampered.

That's a bit more detailed than his somewhat off-hand comment on Monday, but certainly is consistent (esp. the mention of how long rides in the mountains involved a lot of coasting/soft-pedaling).

FWIW, my impression from our conversation was that he has an extremely good understanding of exercise physiology, how to best train, etc. So much so, in fact, that I now want to go read his book...

 

[Spunout]

HA!.....like me too! Too weird! I threw them all away including Friels, except for Lemonds book, "Better training for Distance runners", and now the Hunter/Coggan book.
There is one other really good book out there Andy...get it....it called
"Road Racing for Serious Runners"
http://www.humankinetics.com/products/showproduct.cfm?isbn=0880118180

Book list:

I've been going back to Jon Ackland's Endurance training, if not just for the tables (I use them to build excel-based planning spreadsheets) and Jeukendrup's High Performance Cycling.

 

[Uhl]

I think an athlete should have experience performing the work needed for the race. If it is 3,000KJ, then train for that output. Some may be able to do it in 3 hours, others may need 5 hours.

From my experience (n=1), when I haven't done any long rides in a while, I end up bonking to some degree on my first outing over 3 hours, even with proper nutrition.

My theory is that my body "forgets" how to burn fat as fuel when my glycogen stores run out, so I need to "remind it" with a 4-5 hour ride every few weeks. This probably isn't what's really happening (I'm sure someone with a physiology degree will chime in) but it sure feels that way!

Once I have a couple long rides under my belt, my body handles future long rides, much better. So personally, I do feel a benefit of doing long L2/L3 rides once in a while.

Unfortunately, doing these rides is highly dependent on the weather for me...there's no way I could do them on a trainer!

Good thing I have SST and now L5 to fill the rest of my training time!

 

[kennf]

Went to the bookstore to pick up Lemond's book last weekend (I used to have a copy but lost it), and big surprise, they didn't have it. It's out of print. There are however, about TWELVE books out there by Armstrong/Carmichael. Gross.

Lemond should really write another book, but I think publishers don't want to touch him 'cause of the whole Lance feud. It's a shame.

 

[donm]

HA!.....like me too! Too weird! I threw them all away including Friels, except for Lemonds book, "Better training for Distance runners", and now the Hunter/Coggan book.
There is one other really good book out there Andy...get it....it called
"Road Racing for Serious Runners"
http://www.humankinetics.com/products/showproduct.cfm?isbn=0880118180

How does this one, and "Better Training for Distance Runners", compare to Daniels' "Running Formula"? Do they follow a similar approach, or add anything to Daniels?

 

[shawndoggy]

Went to the bookstore to pick up Lemond's book last weekend (I used to have a copy but lost it), and big surprise, they didn't have it. It's out of print. There are however, about TWELVE books out there by Armstrong/Carmichael. Gross.

Lemond should really write another book, but I think publishers don't want to touch him 'cause of the whole Lance feud. It's a shame.

Try your local library. I just checked my library's online card catalog, and they've got four copies checked in right now....

 

[acoggan]

Lemond should really write another book, but I think publishers don't want to touch him 'cause of the whole Lance feud. It's a shame.

I really doubt that has much, if anything, to do with it.

 

[Chipotle]

(snip)My theory is that my body "forgets" how to burn fat as fuel when my glycogen stores run out, so I need to "remind it" with a 4-5 hour ride every few weeks. This probably isn't what's really happening (I'm sure someone with a physiology degree will chime in) but it sure feels that way!

OK, then there's this; the whole 'fat burning zone' argument. Yet, as far as weight loss goes, some would argue that a calorie is a calorie - ride more (or should I say harder), eat less, burn fat, lose weight, period. However, regarding the trained athlete, will L 2 actually 'remind' the body to be more efficient and choose fat over glycogen as it's prefered source of fuel?

 

[TiMan]

However, regarding the trained athlete, will L 2 actually 'remind' the body to be more efficient and choose fat over glycogen as it's prefered source of fuel?

I kind of doubt that one.

I think the long rides teach the body to store lots of glycogen though. But, I bet 3 X 20 at L4 teaches the body to store a lot too...maybe to an even greater degree since depletion happens much quicker.

There is no doubt that long rides help you loose weight....you can get a lot of calories burnt without trying that hard. Yet , I wonder how many calories an hour at L4 burns compared to 3 hours at L2.....maybe it's pretty much the same. It's a hell of a lot easier to go out and ride for 2 hours at L2, six days a week, in an effort to loose weight than to ride one hour six days a week with a mix of L3 and L4. Plus when you are fat and out of shape it is probably best to "ease into it" anyway.

 

[Sillyoldtwit]

I kind of doubt that one.

I think the long rides teach the body to store lots of glycogen though. But, I bet 3 X 20 at L4 teaches the body to store a lot too...maybe to an even greater degree since depletion happens much quicker.

There is no doubt that long rides help you loose weight....you can get a lot of calories burnt without trying that hard. Yet , I wonder how many calories an hour at L4 burns compared to 3 hours at L2.....maybe it's pretty much the same. It's a hell of a lot easier to go out and ride for 2 hours at L2, six days a week, in an effort to loose weight than to ride one hour six days a week with a mix of L3 and L4. Plus when you are fat and out of shape it is probably best to "ease into it" anyway.

I typically lose 800-1000 calories in one hour on the trainer in the gym when doing L4 workouts. I'm sure it would take me a lot longer out on the road doing a mixture of L2,3 & 4. The staff in the gym tell people coming to the gym for the first time to pedal at low wattage for a longer time to burn calories. I used to believe this untill I started taking peeks at other people's calorie meter. I don't think I've ever seen more than 120 calories and more typically 40-60 calories on their displays. Tyson

 

[Steve_B]

There is no doubt that long rides help you loose weight....you can get a lot of calories burnt without trying that hard. Yet , I wonder how many calories an hour at L4 burns compared to 3 hours at L2.....maybe it's pretty much the same.

Joules = average_power (in Watts) x duration (in seconds).

For me (FTP = 290 W):
60 minutes @ L4 (290 W) = 1,044,000 J = 1,044 kJ
3 hours @ L2 (190 W) = 2,052,000 J = 2,052 kJ

I'd have to slow down to a painfully slow 97 Watts average (for 3 freaking hours ) to reduce the kJ of the long ride to that of the hour of L4. Alternatively, I could ride for only 92 minutes at 190 W and produce the same kJ as 1 hour of L4.

 

[Steve_B]

The staff in the gym tell people coming to the gym for the first time to pedal at low wattage for a longer time to burn calories. I used to believe this untill I started taking peeks at other people's calorie meter. I don't think I've ever seen more than 120 calories and more typically 40-60 calories on their displays. Tyson

I would say is that the average person out there doesn't ride 500 hours/year and even our recovery rides would be a bit of a workout for them. That might explain some of the low calorie totals you've seen. Also, I think a lot of exercise bikes give pretty bogus info.

 

[Steve_B]

OK, then there's this; the whole 'fat burning zone' argument. Yet, as far as weight loss goes, some would argue that a calorie is a calorie - ride more (or should I say harder), eat less, burn fat, lose weight, period. However, regarding the trained athlete, will L 2 actually 'remind' the body to be more efficient and choose fat over glycogen as it's prefered source of fuel?

My understand is that the lower the intensity, the greater the reliance upon fat and the less the reliance on carbohydrate.

Having said that, I've been able to lose weight doing a lot of, but not exclusively, L3 and L4. Some of the weight loss was due to not fully replenished glycogen stores, but some was definitely loss of blubber. (Wearing loose jeans was fun. )

According to Pam Hinton (Cyclingnews.com Form and Fitness panel member), to some extent the body sort of figures out where to get what it needs given what you're feeding it. Of course, there are limits to this though.

 

[bikeguy]

My own personal experience on long rides or long efforts is that you need them to have endurance for road racing, or at least I do. My road racing was bloody awful before I started doing long rides and I'm still not satisfied with my endurance as I tend to be unable to respond to attacks near the end of a race while having no problems at the beginning. I'll be doing a few 150 km rides this summer or even 200, as the best riders on our team do go out in small groups for a 200 km ride every other sunday.

-bikeguy

 

[Felt_Rider]

I kind of doubt that one.

I think the long rides teach the body to store lots of glycogen though. But, I bet 3 X 20 at L4 teaches the body to store a lot too...maybe to an even greater degree since depletion happens much quicker.

There is no doubt that long rides help you loose weight....you can get a lot of calories burnt without trying that hard. Yet , I wonder how many calories an hour at L4 burns compared to 3 hours at L2.....maybe it's pretty much the same. It's a hell of a lot easier to go out and ride for 2 hours at L2, six days a week, in an effort to loose weight than to ride one hour six days a week with a mix of L3 and L4. Plus when you are fat and out of shape it is probably best to "ease into it" anyway.

I agree completely with your statements.
I have experienced both in preparation for numerous bodybuilding competition where bodyfat levels have to be extremely low for competition.

During my last several competitions I found the HIIT on a cardio device was very efficient as a fat burning method and I am finding in the fitness industry that these methods are becoming more popular and have been for at least the last 5 years. The popular Les Mills RPM (spin class) can be found in gyms across the nation.

My personal observation for the two types of training (L2 or L4+) is that I can feel the sensation of thermogesis for a period of time following the high intensity. Meaning the body is still in a fat burning mode as the metabolism is still accelerated and the body temp. is still higher. I have found myself still sweating profusely after taking a shower, going to work and sitting at my desk for another 30 minutes or so. Whereas, a low intensity has to be performed for a longer period of time and once finished I may not even be sweating I can sense my metabolism is not racing nor did I even break a sweat and there is probably a very minimal thermogenic effect if at all.

So on one hand a person could spend hours training at a low intensity or take the option of training at a higher intensity, up the metabolic rate and potentially create a higher thermogenic effect that will last perhaps another hour following training.

I have done both sucessfully, but I find that I enjoy the higher intensity and fits in with my tight schedule. Plus I seem to be getting much faster on the bike and I now ride with the fast group with my club and I couldn't do that 4 months ago. People in my group have been amazed at the improvement and it all goes back to L4's for short duration intervals 5 days a week.

Lighter, Leaner and Faster