Time-Crunched Cyclist Test Trainer vs. Exercise Bike

[jpwkeeper]

OK, here is the deal. I'm starting the Time Crunched Cyclist program here soon. I need to do the fitness test first, the one where you do two 8 minute time trials at the highest consistent power output you can manage.

And that's where I immediately run into issues. While I don't live in a region with big climbs, it's literally all rollers. Chris specifically calls out that rollers are bad for the test. I cannot think of 3 miles where I won't be rolling and/or stopping/slowing for traffic.

Likewise, he says you can use a trainer. I don't have a trainer.

I do have a gym membership, so I can use their exercise bikes (just the normal ones; the spin bikes are all used for the spin classes). I supposed I can put the bike on Manual and adjust the resistance until I get where I need to be during that first minute or minute and a half.

Still, I've heard general rumblings, but nothing specific, about trainers being much better than stationary bicycles.

So my questions are as follows:

1. Are trainers a lot better than the gym exercise bikes and, if so, why?
2. If I were to try to do the TCC fitness test, is what I described above the right way to do it? It seems a bit trial-and-error-y to me.
3. Is the test too idealistic and is it possible to get the information I need (I'm training with HR, not power, since I can't afford a power meter) some other way? The test doesn't seem to be looking for LT, it seems to be looking for an arbitrary point as an interval base, but perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[gudujarlson]

I don't see why rollers should hurt anything too bad as long as you measure your effort over them; maintain a constant power and cadence as best you can. Stop lights are a bigger problem. Just remember to preform the test on the same section of road each time.

If "exercise bikes" means the ones with huge padded seats and a very upright position, I would be very worried that I would not produce the same power on them that I do on a real bike/trainer. From my limited experience, they don't approximate real bikes very well.

There are other ways to measure your current fitness for the purpose of setting training zones, but I don't if one is better than the others.

By the way, I have not read the Time Crunched Cyclist book.

 

[jpwkeeper]

Originally Posted by gudujarlson .

I don't see why rollers should hurt anything too bad as long as you measure your effort over them; maintain a constant power and cadence as best you can. Stop lights are a bigger problem. Just remember to preform the test on the same section of road each time.

If "exercise bikes" means the ones with huge padded seats and a very upright position, I would be very worried that I would not produce the same power on them that I do on a real bike/trainer. From my limited experience, they don't approximate real bikes very well.

There are other ways to measure your current fitness for the purpose of setting training zones, but I don't if one is better than the others.

By the way, I have not read the Time Crunched Cyclist book.

I think rollers tend to skew the test because you end up saw-toothed in your power generation. It's really hard to keep consistent power (or even heart rate, since I don't have a PM) on rollers. I was trying to do steady state intervals on them, and it's a challenge because it's SO easy to push just a little harder on those uphills, and then you have to recover just that little bit on the downhill. This test is looking for a fairly steady power output or a fairly smooth heart rate curve.

I see what you mean about not producing the same power. I'm going for Heart Rate though, but I can see how maybe it would still be skewed.

 

[tomw1974]

Originally Posted by jpwkeeper .

OK, here is the deal. I'm starting the Time Crunched Cyclist program here soon. I need to do the fitness test first, the one where you do two 8 minute time trials at the highest consistent power output you can manage.

And that's where I immediately run into issues. While I don't live in a region with big climbs, it's literally all rollers. Chris specifically calls out that rollers are bad for the test. I cannot think of 3 miles where I won't be rolling and/or stopping/slowing for traffic.

Likewise, he says you can use a trainer. I don't have a trainer.

I do have a gym membership, so I can use their exercise bikes (just the normal ones; the spin bikes are all used for the spin classes). I supposed I can put the bike on Manual and adjust the resistance until I get where I need to be during that first minute or minute and a half.

Still, I've heard general rumblings, but nothing specific, about trainers being much better than stationary bicycles.

So my questions are as follows:

1. Are trainers a lot better than the gym exercise bikes and, if so, why?
2. If I were to try to do the TCC fitness test, is what I described above the right way to do it? It seems a bit trial-and-error-y to me.
3. Is the test too idealistic and is it possible to get the information I need (I'm training with HR, not power, since I can't afford a power meter) some other way? The test doesn't seem to be looking for LT, it seems to be looking for an arbitrary point as an interval base, but perhaps I'm wrong.

1) the biggest problem is that the gym stationary bikes are wildly inaccurate in their power settings. They might tell you that you are doing 300 watts when you are doing 180 or they might tell you that you are doing 180 when you are doing 300. It all depends on the model and how badly worn out they are.

You might get heart rate data that's good, but the power data won't be. And you certainly won't be able to do power-based training

2) When you first start doing them, there is a bit of trial and error. You can go too hard the first time and run out of steam. You might go too easy and then know that you can go harder the next time. That's one of the nice things about doing two of them in a single session. You can learn from the first one and apply it to the second.

After you have been training with power for some time, you will know your 8 minute best power and have a better idea of what to aim for.

3) all tests are idealistic, whether in school or on the bike. The goal is to create an artificial environment where you can get numbers that are useful for setting training goals for the coming weeks and to compare your performance over time.

The test is really testing your 8-minute power, which is at the long end of your VO2max intensity. For relatively inexperienced athletes (Carmichael's core audience), 20 minute and 60 minute tests are a little too much to ask. 8-minute test are something that most people can handle, even if they have never raced before, and the numbers it gives you are still useful. Even without training with a power meter, the heart rate data that you get is still useful for the calculation of training zones.

 

[BrianMacDonald]

Could you find a 1 or 1.5 mile stretch and turn around 1 or 2 times? Are there tuesday night time trials in your area put on by local racing clubs. If so they will likely have found a good stretch of road for something like this. Just some ideas to think about.

 

[danfoz]

Both Tom and Brian have good points above but as you are doing HR and not power I personally think the rollers are less of an issue. You're doing these efforts as hard as you can, accurate power would be more of an issue but your HR should be at the limit anyway. The key is not to blowup and to limit how far beyond threshold you allow youself to go on the up portion of the roller. At no point should you be "resting" your legs to continue the effort. If that is the case you've gone slightly to hard. Try and find that 1.5mile stretch of road and do a turnaround - 3 miles should put you in 8 minute territory. You're just wasting your time if you need to stop for traffic.

I've done 2 cycles of the TCP in the past, and although I do my own version of base and build phases (non existant in Carmicheals plan) I continue to use his plan for my peaking phase. It follows very closely to a 6-9-12 cycle: 6 weeks to get some good power going, 9 weeks to reach the peak, which can then be held for another few weeks.

Btw, the first time I tried the plan I did it solely on RPE without the field test, essentially just using it to find some structure in my workout. Returning after a long layoff and starting over in Cat5 it actually did a great job of preparing me for the surges that come in entry level racing although without the volume aspect it does have some real limits. Carmichael mentions it's good up to 60 mile Cat3 races, I disagree. The cases he presents are racers with prior experience who have already raced at that level and I suspect are doing something similar to what I am doing which is starting the plan with an already existing aerobic base of fitness. Under those circumstances it works very well.

And do yourself a favor and go into the test prperly warmed up. It would be ideal to have already spent 30-60 seconds at full tilt after slowly bringing up your HR over 20-25 minutes. The shorter the event, the more important the warmup. You should be starting this thing with a thin layer of sweat.

The test is looking for your average HR over the effort. You want that number to be as high as possible.

 

[jpwkeeper]

Thanks for the responses.

Actually reading your responses and plotting a potential route, I realize two things:

1. I don't need 3 miles. That would be 22.5Mph for 8 minutes! I'm a 230lb computer nerd on a hybrid, I don't think I can sprint that fast if I don't have a tailwind! Not sure why I never did the math in my head before.
2. I have a route that is 1.8 miles in length that's MOSTLY uphill but not by a lot. Probably no stops there either (only for traffic that would be turning, and its residential so it's not usually a problem), and only 1 left hand turn (but it's literally at the end of the road and it's a 90 degree turn, so it's not likely to slow me down much). There is a turn-around at the end of this (think cul-de-sac with the middle filled in) that's actually banked so even at the turn I don't really need to lose steam. At my predicted average speed, given the mostly-uphill nature, I think I'll only need around .2-.4 more miles. My best time on this route for a full loop (plus loops through side roads to get the length up) was 15.6Mph. Given that this doesn't include the downhill portion, and it's now cold which usually knocks me back by at least 1Mph if not 2, I don't think I'll even crack 15.
3. I'm doing heart rate as danfoz pointed out, and since I believe him that it's not that big a deal for that.

@danfoz, I'm not going to start my HRM till I start the set each time. I'll have to note it during the cooldown and remember what it was for the first set. After a few minutes of being off I'm fairly sure my HRM resets (it's an older Polar) so I should have clean heart rate data for the 2nd run.

@tomw1974, I hear you about the warmup. Chris is actually very specific about how to warm up for this ride in the book, as it combines fast pedaling sets with a few very short all-out sets with recovery times. I suspect trial and error wise, I'm going to need to try this 2 or 3 times before I get it right. I have a tendency to listen to my Ego shouting more than my Lungs and legs, and end up blowing up.

@BrianMacdonald, Funny, there IS a Tuesday night group that rides with the local club. However, they do it on the Navy base, to which I can't get access easily (not like in the old days) AND that ride is for "serious" cyclists, i.e. people who are fast. It was a good idea, though.

 

[BrianMacDonald]

I wasn't suggesting that do a club ride. I was suggesting that you should look at the racing calendar in your area and see if there are time trials listed. The club that puts on the race will generally publish a flyer that will give details, and often a map, of the route. Then do the route by yourself. In a lot of areas there are races like this on weeknights during the racing season.