Periodization(Periodisation)

You seem to have a really good idea of what each of the periodization periods entail. Within each of these periods there needs to be a series of microcycles that are designed to build upon one another in order to bring about a gradual increase in training load, each beginning with a period of base mileage which includes specific routines. Each microcycle ends with a drop in duration to let the body recover and build itself up in anticipation of the next training load.
www.the-bike-shop.com/training

jagrazor said:

How does the order go for an endurance cyclist. Check to see if im right on it please 🙂

Preperation - endurance rides, gymming if you do otherwise (what is alternate for gymming?), pedal skills training, high cadence stuff
Time Frame- 1-3 months?

Base- endurance rides, beginning on bike strength workouts if you were gymming, Last sessions in gym at the beginning, Tempo training begins, high cadence training continues, volume goes up
Time Frame- 3+ months?

if all you did was low intensity work (which is what you seem to be suggesting above) for 4 to 6+ months, then the majority of racing cyclists would be extremely unfit as many racers would lose huge amounts of fitness.

i'm not sure what pedal skills training is exactly, but assuming it's the pedalling in circles that many talk about, then it's a waste of time. just pedal the bike in whatever manner, so long as you can generate the power/intensity that you require.

depending on exactly what you mean by "high cadence training" then this may also be a waste of time. cadence itself is pretty unimportant. Cadence tends to automatically increase as the intensity of exercise increases to minimise the forces required. however at low intensity exercise (e.g., light endurance work) the forces are so low that cadence doesn't matter within in normal the range (e.g., say 75 to 100 revs/min).

You can't generally build strength on the bike. In general the forces required are too low. Certain populations may be able to build strength, e.g., frail old ladies, but in general people who aren't frail are highly unlikely to build strength. You may be able to build strength with exercises such as standing start 50-metre sprints, but i'd question the validity of such training for the vast majority of cyclists.

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

if all you did was low intensity work (which is what you seem to be suggesting above) for 4 to 6+ months, then the majority of racing cyclists would be extremely unfit as many racers would lose huge amounts of fitness.

i'm not sure what pedal skills training is exactly, but assuming it's the pedalling in circles that many talk about, then it's a waste of time. just pedal the bike in whatever manner, so long as you can generate the power/intensity that you require.

depending on exactly what you mean by "high cadence training" then this may also be a waste of time. cadence itself is pretty unimportant. Cadence tends to automatically increase as the intensity of exercise increases to minimise the forces required. however at low intensity exercise (e.g., light endurance work) the forces are so low that cadence doesn't matter within in normal the range (e.g., say 75 to 100 revs/min).

You can't generally build strength on the bike. In general the forces required are too low. Certain populations may be able to build strength, e.g., frail old ladies, but in general people who aren't frail are highly unlikely to build strength. You may be able to build strength with exercises such as standing start 50-metre sprints, but i'd question the validity of such training for the vast majority of cyclists.

ric

Is Tempo intensity considered low intensity? (normal tempo, not hadd tempo...)

jagrazor said:

Is Tempo intensity considered low intensity? (normal tempo, not hadd tempo...)

can you define "tempo" please. everyone's definition of it is different?

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

can you define "tempo" please. everyone's definition of it is different?

ric

true, everyone has a different definition of Tempo.
Many current elite coaches are defining Tempo as 87-88% of your time trial heart rate depending on age. Again, not a concrete answer, but it does narrow it down some. At this definition, Tempo would be considered a moderate to high moderate pace. In a perceived exertion scale, it would be about a 7 on a scale of 1-10.
www.the-bike-shop.com/training

bikeshop said:

true, everyone has a different definition of Tempo.
Many current elite coaches are defining Tempo as 87-88% of your time trial heart rate depending on age. Again, not a concrete answer, but it does narrow it down some. At this definition, Tempo would be considered a moderate to high moderate pace. In a perceived exertion scale, it would be about a 7 on a scale of 1-10.
www.the-bike-shop.com/training

something is wrong there. assuming that "elite" coach is a higher echelon of coaching, these "elite" coaches either don't know what they're talking about or have been misquoted.

simply, there are two problems with such a range
1) it's so narrow that (in my case 1 b/min range) that you wouldn't be able to stay in the level
2) (and perhaps this is more to do with HR ranges being a poor idea in the first place) -- HR at the same intensity (power output) can vary dramatically due to a myriad of issues -- for e.g., if i do two 40km TTs on consecutive days and produce the *same* power on both day, on the second day my TT HR can be up to 15 b/min lower

ric

But we werent talking about power output as measured with a power meter.

This would be the gold standard for training intensity (power output measure).

The next best available measure of intensity is the heart rate. And while granted a 1-2 beat differential is a bear to try and maintain, it is the best measure of exertion next to power output. We also arent talking about measuring distance travelled, speed attained, or time for the race, but on physical output of work by the body. So if this is the subject, then the above definition of tempo and its desired ranges is the most definitive measure of output. But you are absolutely correct that power output measuring is the top dog. But less than 1/2 of 1% of all cyclist have these tools available to them. So heart rate training is going to have to be the focus for the rest of us poor cyclist. www.the-bike-shop.com/training

bikeshop said:

But we werent talking about power output as measured with a power meter.

This would be the gold standard for training intensity (power output measure).

The next best available measure of intensity is the heart rate. And while granted a 1-2 beat differential is a bear to try and maintain, it is the best measure of exertion next to power output. We also arent talking about measuring distance travelled, speed attained, or time for the race, but on physical output of work by the body. So if this is the subject, then the above definition of tempo and its desired ranges is the most definitive measure of output. But you are absolutely correct that power output measuring is the top dog. But less than 1/2 of 1% of all cyclist have these tools available to them. So heart rate training is going to have to be the focus for the rest of us poor cyclist. www.the-bike-shop.com/training

Perceived exertion along with HR (as an adjunct) is a much better measure than HR alone. Primarily, this is because, as i pointed out above, HR can vary significantly due to previous training sessions. Thus, if i normally rode a TT at 180 b/min (avg HR) then a couple days later tried to complete a "tempo" session at 87 or 88% it would be utterly the wrong intensity.

I don't believe that anyone in their right mind would prescribe such a narrow window of training prescription.

Finally, the "tempo" that you suggest fits inside my standard endurance range for say 2 - 3 hrs (in other words to many cyclists here, this would be a step down from what they would term "tempo", which is what i was alluding to in my response to Jagrazor)

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Perceived exertion along with HR (as an adjunct) is a much better measure than HR alone. Primarily, this is because, as i pointed out above, HR can vary significantly due to previous training sessions. Thus, if i normally rode a TT at 180 b/min (avg HR) then a couple days later tried to complete a "tempo" session at 87 or 88% it would be utterly the wrong intensity.

I don't believe that anyone in their right mind would prescribe such a narrow window of training prescription.

Finally, the "tempo" that you suggest fits inside my standard endurance range for say 2 - 3 hrs (in other words to many cyclists here, this would be a step down from what they would term "tempo", which is what i was alluding to in my response to Jagrazor)

ric

Next time you are in the book store, pick up Chris Carmicheals Ultimate ride book. For those not familiar, he is the personal coach of Lance Armstrong. I believe he is in his right mind, and he prescribes the narrow window of training I just described. He goes on to say that the ranges used in previous years of say 65-75% of this heart rate and 85-92% of that heart rate gives a range far too large to be effective in dialing in training intensity.

bikeshop said:

Next time you are in the book store, pick up Chris Carmicheals Ultimate ride book. For those not familiar, he is the personal coach of Lance Armstrong. I believe he is in his right mind, and he prescribes the narrow window of training I just described. He goes on to say that the ranges used in previous years of say 65-75% of this heart rate and 85-92% of that heart rate gives a range far too large to be effective in dialing in training intensity.

you'll have to find some better supporting evidence than that. as i stated such a range has a multitude of issues, which would prevent them from being used. as a Level 3 coach myself, and sports scientist i would seriously advise against such a narrow range.

ric

Thats about as high an authority as I am aware of in cycling training. Guess the worlds top athletes could do a lot better than their current coaches philosophies. www.the-bike-shop.com/training

bikeshop said:

Thats about as high an authority as I am aware of in cycling training. Guess the worlds top athletes could do a lot better than their current coaches philosophies. www.the-bike-shop.com/training

right! i suggest you do some reading within the sphere of exercise physiology and sports psychology then

ric

bikeshop said:

Next time you are in the book store, pick up Chris Carmicheals Ultimate ride book. For those not familiar, he is the personal coach of Lance Armstrong. I believe he is in his right mind, and he prescribes the narrow window of training I just described. He goes on to say that the ranges used in previous years of say 65-75% of this heart rate and 85-92% of that heart rate gives a range far too large to be effective in dialing in training intensity.

FYI, CC backpedaled on the narrow range HR training in a recent issue of cycle sport for the exact reasons Ric mentioned. I somehow doubt that he's been prescribing HR workouts to Lancy for several years now.

Coaches like CC and others who prescribe workouts within a very narrow HR range do so to make it seem like they know something at the microscopic level that that other coaches don't when in reality, such mintiae doesn't really matter. It's all marketing, which apparently you fell for.

I fell for the old medicine show snake oil numbers. yyyyeah. Thanks guys. 🙂

beerco said:

FYI, CC backpedaled on the narrow range HR training in a recent issue of cycle sport for the exact reasons Ric mentioned. I somehow doubt that he's been prescribing HR workouts to Lancy for several years now.

as an adjunct, was he even prescribing training. i was under the impression it was MF. either way, i suspect strongly, it would've been by power

Quoted post said:

Coaches like CC and others who prescribe workouts within a very narrow HR range do so to make it seem like they know something at the microscopic level that that other coaches don't when in reality, such mintiae doesn't really matter. It's all marketing, which apparently you fell for.

and it all backfires, when someone thinks about it for a second!

ric

The idea of The Hadd Tempo "levels" is for the normal person to step back a little and build into a real tempo, to get the most benefit out of the "real" tempo intensity level.

In other words he is saying doing a tempo ride right now (assuming you haven't done this before (this being his "retooling"😉) it wouldn't be as effective as if you were to build up to it with slightly lower intensity tempo rides first and mastering that level.

try reading the link i put out in the other thread it might take you an hour, but i challenge you to read it. It is information you don't know about. (here is my bait...) Any good Coach or Athlete would be like a wild animal seeing some easy prey (when that wild animal is starving) and jump right on it!

ric_stern/RST said:

can you define "tempo" please. everyone's definition of it is different?

ric

sub lactic threshold. Lets go with the maxium intensity Hadd would call tempo which is right below your Lactic threshold by no more than 5-10bpm

ric_stern/RST said:

if all you did was low intensity work (which is what you seem to be suggesting above) for 4 to 6+ months, then the majority of racing cyclists would be extremely unfit as many racers would lose huge amounts of fitness.

i'm not sure what pedal skills training is exactly, but assuming it's the pedalling in circles that many talk about, then it's a waste of time. just pedal the bike in whatever manner, so long as you can generate the power/intensity that you require.

depending on exactly what you mean by "high cadence training" then this may also be a waste of time. cadence itself is pretty unimportant. Cadence tends to automatically increase as the intensity of exercise increases to minimise the forces required. however at low intensity exercise (e.g., light endurance work) the forces are so low that cadence doesn't matter within in normal the range (e.g., say 75 to 100 revs/min).

You can't generally build strength on the bike. In general the forces required are too low. Certain populations may be able to build strength, e.g., frail old ladies, but in general people who aren't frail are highly unlikely to build strength. You may be able to build strength with exercises such as standing start 50-metre sprints, but i'd question the validity of such training for the vast majority of cyclists.

ric

Isn't it important to get all the neuromuscular developments as well. When you do High Cadence Intervals (Fast Pedal(chris charmicheal)Speed skills(Joe Friel)) your muscles learn how to work together better in the motion that is the circle that you move your legs through. Saying that .. pedal however as long as your power goes up is certainly true, but more efficently is the way to do that. If you can make your power go up by doing simple workouts that hardly stress you at all, wouldn't you want to do that?

Sprinters and distance runners and swimmers all spend time with form, why wouldn't a cyclist?

jagrazor said:

Sprinters and distance runners and swimmers all spend time with form, why wouldn't a cyclist?

Because unlike swimmers, runers and sprinters, a cyclists "form" is constrained by the crank and pedals.