Faster 90km Training

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by triman2502
I am currently training for Weymouth and UK Half Ironman triathlon and need to improve my 90km bike time.
I can only manage 100miles a week which includes 1x50-60mile (overdistance) ride @ 70%MHR, 1x10-20mile (tempo) ride @ 85%, 1x45min Interval session @ 85%-93%, 1x60min Endurance ride @ 75%-80%MHR constant and possibly 1x30mins Rec ride @ <65%MHR.
My Current time for the 90km is 02:25:00 but this is @ 80%MHR.
Does anybody know how I can get quicker or stay the same pace but lower my HR for the duration? Ready for a Half Marathon Run!

Bl.... H... Triman that's a 2:08:00 50 mile TT! There are a lot of serious cyclists down this neck of the woods who would be very happy with that time. Anyway good luck, makes me feel tired just thinking about it :o

Sean

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by triman2502
I am currently training for Weymouth and UK Half Ironman triathlon and need to improve my 90km bike time.
I can only manage 100miles a week which includes 1x50-60mile (overdistance) ride @ 70%MHR, 1x10-20mile (tempo) ride @ 85%, 1x45min Interval session @ 85%-93%, 1x60min Endurance ride @ 75%-80%MHR constant and possibly 1x30mins Rec ride @ <65%MHR.
My Current time for the 90km is 02:25:00 but this is @ 80%MHR.
Does anybody know how I can get quicker or stay the same pace but lower my HR for the duration? Ready for a Half Marathon Run!

I train with a number of Ironman Tri boys who have won age-group at Hawaii or in local races, and one who has gone top 20 overall. The key for them seems to lie in two main things:

1. Most training is done at a fairly low intensity, and a very large volume. This might be difficult if you can only do 100 miles a week, but low intensity until about 1 month before racing to develop endurance you can rely on should still be a priority. If you want to race at a lower heart rate you probably need to traing there too. If you can possibly fit it in, I'd do more overdistance work, and cut back on the intervals and tempo until very close to your race. I know this runs counter to most roadie training advice, but Ironman is different because you never need to be anaerobic, or maximally aerobic. Your primary goal is LT raising.

2. On race day especially, but also before, be absolutely meticulous in nutrition and hydration. One of the main limiters for events this long is glycogen availability (though it's a bigger worry for full distance). This means you need to throw down carbs like they're going out of fashion. Do this when training to avoid sickness and getting too run down, and to see what you can stomach at race pace. When you race, have your nutrition strategy as best planned as possible.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
I train with a number of Ironman Tri boys who have won age-group at Hawaii or in local races, and one who has gone top 20 overall. The key for them seems to lie in two main things:

1. Most training is done at a fairly low intensity, and a very large volume. This might be difficult if you can only do 100 miles a week, but low intensity until about 1 month before racing to develop endurance you can rely on should still be a priority. If you want to race at a lower heart rate you probably need to traing there too. If you can possibly fit it in, I'd do more overdistance work, and cut back on the intervals and tempo until very close to your race. I know this runs counter to most roadie training advice, but Ironman is different because you never need to be anaerobic, or maximally aerobic. Your primary goal is LT raising.

2. On race day especially, but also before, be absolutely meticulous in nutrition and hydration. One of the main limiters for events this long is glycogen availability (though it's a bigger worry for full distance). This means you need to throw down carbs like they're going out of fashion. Do this when training to avoid sickness and getting too run down, and to see what you can stomach at race pace. When you race, have your nutrition strategy as best planned as possible.

Point 1 is incorrect.

Assuming that you have the endurance to complete events of this distance (which by your 90km time I assume you do) then the best way to ride a a faster time or the same time with lower energy cost is to raise threhold power. This is best achieved by riding at between 60 - 85% of Maximal aerobic power. In terms of sessions this varies from moderate tempo work for maybe 90 mins + to 5 min intervals @ 75% MAP to shorter intervals up to 85% MAP. All riding in this sort of zone will help to increase threshold power. This means either you can ride faster at the same HR or the same speed at a lower HR and energy cost. Given your limited time - spend most of your time in these zones and make sure you keep the endurance for event as a whole up to scratch via lower intensity / longer training.

Good luck.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by peterwright
Point 1 is incorrect.

Assuming that you have the endurance to complete events of this distance (which by your 90km time I assume you do) then the best way to ride a a faster time or the same time with lower energy cost is to raise threhold power. This is best achieved by riding at between 60 - 85% of Maximal aerobic power. In terms of sessions this varies from moderate tempo work for maybe 90 mins + to 5 min intervals @ 75% MAP to shorter intervals up to 85% MAP. All riding in this sort of zone will help to increase threshold power. This means either you can ride faster at the same HR or the same speed at a lower HR and energy cost. Given your limited time - spend most of your time in these zones and make sure you keep the endurance for event as a whole up to scratch via lower intensity / longer training.

Good luck.

I appreciate that this is the primary intensity the literature focuses on in raising LT, and that LT is the primary limiter in events of this sort of distance with constant intensity, however:

That's because it's really really hard to get anyone to sit on a stationary bike with a mask on for 6-8 hours. Also, LT is a relatively low power, I'm not sure if it's what you mean by threshold power. When I say relatively low intensity, I'm not talking miles below LT.

People keep suggesting that endurance rides are only needed to keep your endurance 'up to scratch' before you dive into intervals and intensity, as if endurance can either be on or off, and long rides have no substantial effect physiologically. This just isn't true. What physiological adaptions would you say endurance is down to? And how do you train these?

I notice you prescribe 60%-85% of MAP as the correct intensities for working on LT (if you do mean LT), but then suggest intervals only between 75-85%. If constant pace and endurance are your primary concern, working at 60% and pushing the volume might make a lot of sense.

I also appreciate that if time is really that limited, the kind of work you prescribe is a good idea. However, to get a good result in a half/full ironman, a large volume of training is required. You can do less, but doing more will help.

Point 1 is not incorrect, though you might disagree. There are (as I will readily admit), different ways to train fitness components, and different ways to approach the same event. Have a look at the aerobic/anaerobic training technique dichotomy in track pursuit as an example. The boys I train with include two people with masters of exercise science (by research, from a top 100 global university). They are primarily responsible for how the group trains. It might be an approach you're not used to, but it has got a lot of athletes some very good results, and their sporting and academic qualifications speak for themselves.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
I appreciate that this is the primary intensity the literature focuses on in raising LT, and that LT is the primary limiter in events of this sort of distance with constant intensity, however:

That's because it's really really hard to get anyone to sit on a stationary bike with a mask on for 6-8 hours. Also, LT is a relatively low power, I'm not sure if it's what you mean by threshold power. When I say relatively low intensity, I'm not talking miles below LT.

People keep suggesting that endurance rides are only needed to keep your endurance 'up to scratch' before you dive into intervals and intensity, as if endurance can either be on or off, and long rides have no substantial effect physiologically. This just isn't true. What physiological adaptions would you say endurance is down to? And how do you train these?

I notice you prescribe 60%-85% of MAP as the correct intensities for working on LT (if you do mean LT), but then suggest intervals only between 75-85%. If constant pace and endurance are your primary concern, working at 60% and pushing the volume might make a lot of sense.

I also appreciate that if time is really that limited, the kind of work you prescribe is a good idea. However, to get a good result in a half/full ironman, a large volume of training is required. You can do less, but doing more will help.

Point 1 is not incorrect, though you might disagree. There are (as I will readily admit), different ways to train fitness components, and different ways to approach the same event. Have a look at the aerobic/anaerobic training technique dichotomy in track pursuit as an example. The boys I train with include two people with masters of exercise science (by research, from a top 100 global university). They are primarily responsible for how the group trains. It might be an approach you're not used to, but it has got a lot of athletes some very good results, and their sporting and academic qualifications speak for themselves.

I do not want to get into a long debate about this but would like to point you to an article by Ric Stern that highlights some key points with regards training zones etc.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern

It is a good read.

Essentially Threshold power is higher than LT and is ussually linked to the sort of power one can sustain for a 40-60 min TT.

I am not contesting that endurance training at a lower intensity than this has its place in long event build up BUT it will have no effect on ones ability to ride faster or to elicit more power at the same HR (which is what the OP wants to do)

In order to stimulate an increase in threshold power (or LT power) one must train at a higher intensity that ranges from just below to just above this power level.

In order to train this way effectively a good base of endurance is essential but it will not increase threshold power.

The key point here is that if a rider wants to ride at a lower %age of his max power (or HR) but maintain the same speed then higher intensity training is necessary. Training at a lower / endurance level will help you continue to ride for longer but will not help you ride faster.

I do not mean to disrespect your friends / training partners but these are established training principles. I would be very surprised if athletes at this level are not training at the higher zones (tempo / threshold) aswell as endurance levels.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peterwright
[B]I do not want to get into a long debate about this but would like to point you to an article by Ric Stern that highlights some key points with regards training zones etc.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern
[/quote]

🙂 Cheers, I've already read it.

Quoted post said:

Essentially Threshold power is higher than LT and is ussually linked to the sort of power one can sustain for a 40-60 min TT.

Quoted post said:

I am not contesting that endurance training at a lower intensity than this has its place in long event build up BUT it will have no effect on ones ability to ride faster or to elicit more power at the same HR (which is what the OP wants to do)

Quoted post said:

In order to stimulate an increase in threshold power (or LT power) one must train at a higher intensity that ranges from just below to just above this power level.

Quoted post said:

In order to train this way effectively a good base of endurance is essential but it will not increase threshold power.

Quoted post said:

The key point here is that if a rider wants to ride at a lower %age of his max power (or HR) but maintain the same speed then higher intensity training is necessary. Training at a lower / endurance level will help you continue to ride for longer but will not help you ride faster.

Quoted post said:

I do not mean to disrespect your friends / training partners but these are established training principles. I would be very surprised if athletes at this level are not training at the higher zones (tempo / threshold) aswell as endurance levels. [/B]

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
🙂 Cheers, I've already read it.



How would this kind of power be specific for an event that lasts 2:20 and is done at a constant pace?



If you train at a certain relative intensity, you will become more efficient and thus faster at that intensity, and the energy systems recruited at that intensity will be targeted.



Correct, and an ironman or half ironman would be interested almost entirely in raising LT.



What on earth is a 'good base of endurance' if not physiological adaption to allow greater efficiency at an appropriate speed (appropriate to a constantly paced ironman)?



The kind of training depends on the event and the limitations of the rider.



LT training, yes, as already described. Harder than that for a (half)ironman? It's not that specific, and it's only done in the few weeks preceding. Long distance triathlon is a different sport to road, and needs to be trained differently. The principles are the same. Specificity for example. And doing maximal VO2 efforts is not particularly specific to long distance tri's (though it has some place in the few weeks preceding).

One 2 hour threshold/tempo style session is also completed... but the weight of training is done at LT or just below (which allows a substantially greater volume and thus greater effect, even if the adaption per kilometer is slightly lower).

There's no disrespect to my friends - they follow established training principles but they can apply them properly to different events. (Hence I follow a different program to most of them despite being coached by one, because I ride the road not tri's).

I think that where you are misunderstanding me (or disagreeing with me !) is that you contest that training at one relatively low intensity will make you faster.

In effect it is like a golfer...they may get very used to walking round a golf course at a steady pace and indeed even get very efficient at it but if you ask them to up the pace and finish the round half an hour faster then most of them could not do it. Therefore they have the endurance for a round of golf but only at a speed that is within their capacity.

If one follows your logic then if one of the golfers want to play and walk faster - you would simply tell them to do more endurance work and perhaps play 2 rounds in one day. This would infact have no impact on their ability to play and walk round faster.

This is why some riders are faster than others - they can put out a higher power for a relatively lower or similar energy cost to another rider - therefore they ride faster. If you get more efficient at endurance riding then this is what you will be good at - effectively you could ride longer..and longer..until you could spend all day on your bike.

BUT if you want to ride faster at a lower energy cost then you need to have a higher power to weight ratio (the distance of the event has no bearing here excepting in the other sessions you will be doing) If lance or any other pro rider rode with you or I at our pace then he would be cruising along at a lower energy cost than us. This is because his power to weight ratio is much higher than ours.

The only way to raise power to weight ratio is to train at higher intensities. This when combined with good endurance training during the base phase of a season will result in faster riding at the same HR or the same speed at a lower HR. This is why most coaches will periodise training to include lots of low intensity endurance work in the off season followed by progressively higher intensity and lower volume as race season approaches.

Guess thats it from me - we may just have to agree to disagree

(for what its worth I have completed Lanzarote IM so am not just road focused)

glad to see you've both read my article. :-)

trying to keep my answer brief... you're both correct. most people need to be able to comfortably ride over the duration that the race(s) last for. additionally, some people like to have the confidence that may arise from being able to ride certain distances (e.g., if you're doing a 100-m TT, people like to ride that distance regularly in training to feel comfortable with it mentally).

on the intensity side, the various measures of LT (OBLA, MLSS, VT, etc.) and actual 1-hr TT power are all highly correlated with one another. thus, if you can increase the power that you can sustain for e.g., 1-hr then your LT (and i'm talking about e.g., 1mmol/L increase for clarity) will also rise.

in the approach(s) i've previously used, i've had riders increase their sustainable 1-hr power and also have them ride over the race distance. i do this with most endurance race distances (although with people who ride 12-hrs, i've never had anyone ride more than 6-hrs in training!!!). obviously, there's other stuff that goes into a training prescription as well!

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
glad to see you've both read my article. :-)

trying to keep my answer brief... you're both correct. most people need to be able to comfortably ride over the duration that the race(s) last for. additionally, some people like to have the confidence that may arise from being able to ride certain distances (e.g., if you're doing a 100-m TT, people like to ride that distance regularly in training to feel comfortable with it mentally).

on the intensity side, the various measures of LT (OBLA, MLSS, VT, etc.) and actual 1-hr TT power are all highly correlated with one another. thus, if you can increase the power that you can sustain for e.g., 1-hr then your LT (and i'm talking about e.g., 1mmol/L increase for clarity) will also rise.

in the approach(s) i've previously used, i've had riders increase their sustainable 1-hr power and also have them ride over the race distance. i do this with most endurance race distances (although with people who ride 12-hrs, i've never had anyone ride more than 6-hrs in training!!!). obviously, there's other stuff that goes into a training prescription as well!

ric

Very diplomatic.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by peterwright
I think that where you are misunderstanding me (or disagreeing with me !) is that you contest that training at one relatively low intensity will make you faster.

In effect it is like a golfer...they may get very used to walking round a golf course at a steady pace and indeed even get very efficient at it but if you ask them to up the pace and finish the round half an hour faster then most of them could not do it. Therefore they have the endurance for a round of golf but only at a speed that is within their capacity.

It's nothing like that. You already mentioned that 60% MAP is an effective training intensity. It's this kind of intensity I'm advocating. If you treat speed in running to be roughly equivalent to power in cycling (admittedly very rough), the golfer at 4km/h is at an equivalent of between 30-45% MAP (hey, he might be REALLY unfit, he plays golf). I don't think he's going to get much better at anything much at this intensity.

The theory you are advocating in the rest of the post doesn't seem to take into account specificity of event or energy system. 'If you want to go faster, ride faster.' Yes, but....

Quoted post said:

This is why some riders are faster than others - they can put out a higher power for a relatively lower or similar energy cost to another rider - therefore they ride faster. If you get more efficient at endurance riding then this is what you will be good at - effectively you could ride longer..and longer..until you could spend all day on your bike.

This is efficiency and is an important but relatively small part of getting faster. Endurance riders can ride faster mainly because they have higher LT's and VO2max's. Track riders are fast for different reasons - it has nothing to do with low energy cost and everything to do with expending the most energy (usefully - into your bike) in the time it takes to complete your event (that's what power is).

Quoted post said:

(the distance of the event has no bearing here excepting in the other sessions you will be doing)

This is patently wrong and shows a lack of understanding of the limiting physological variables for different event lengths.

Quoted post said:

If lance or any other pro rider rode with you or I at our pace then he would be cruising along at a lower energy cost than us. This is because his power to weight ratio is much higher than ours.

If Lance rode with me he would be below LT and thus not accumulating lactic acid and fatiguing. He would also be burning more lipid and thus preserving glycogen. And, if he took off for 3-4 minutes, he would be consuming more oxygen and expending more energy. Power to weight is meaningless unless you scale it to time.

Quoted post said:

The only way to raise power to weight ratio is to train at higher intensities. This when combined with good endurance training during the base phase of a season will result in faster riding at the same HR or the same speed at a lower HR.

The only way to train a specific energy system is to train at an intensity that specifically targets that energy system. Thus VO2max is improved by maximal aerobic efforts, LT is raised by training at LT, and sprint power is best worked on by sprinting.

Quoted post said:

This is why most coaches will periodise training to include lots of low intensity endurance work in the off season followed by progressively higher intensity and lower volume as race season approaches.

This is a non-sequitur.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
It's nothing like that. You already mentioned that 60% MAP is an effective training intensity. It's this kind of intensity I'm advocating. If you treat speed in running to be roughly equivalent to power in cycling (admittedly very rough), the golfer at 4km/h is at an equivalent of between 30-45% MAP (hey, he might be REALLY unfit, he plays golf). I don't think he's going to get much better at anything much at this intensity.

The theory you are advocating in the rest of the post doesn't seem to take into account specificity of event or energy system. 'If you want to go faster, ride faster.' Yes, but....




This is efficiency and is an important but relatively small part of getting faster. Endurance riders can ride faster mainly because they have higher LT's and VO2max's. Track riders are fast for different reasons - it has nothing to do with low energy cost and everything to do with expending the most energy (usefully - into your bike) in the time it takes to complete your event (that's what power is).



This is patently wrong and shows a lack of understanding of the limiting physological variables for different event lengths.



If Lance rode with me he would be below LT and thus not accumulating lactic acid and fatiguing. He would also be burning more lipid and thus preserving glycogen. And, if he took off for 3-4 minutes, he would be consuming more oxygen and expending more energy. Power to weight is meaningless unless you scale it to time.



The only way to train a specific energy system is to train at an intensity that specifically targets that energy system. Thus VO2max is improved by maximal aerobic efforts, LT is raised by training at LT, and sprint power is best worked on by sprinting.



This is a non-sequitur.

OK Roadiescum I can see we are not going to get anywhere here. Suggest you re - read Rics article and or response above and maybe you will see where I am coming from.

The OP can make up his / her own mind as to what makes sesnse.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by peterwright
OK Roadiescum I can see we are not going to get anywhere here. Suggest you re - read Rics article and or response above and maybe you will see where I am coming from.

The OP can make up his / her own mind as to what makes sesnse.

I can absolutely see where you are coming from. Training at a 'golf-like' intensity is stupid, and it's what you thought I was advocating. Given that it's not what I'm on about, we're coming closer to agreement. To expand, the reasons I think 60%MAP/LT power is a good idea for (ultra)endurance triathletes most of the time rather than intervals are:
(i) Closer to intensity at which the event will be completed (more specific).
(ii) Easier to recover from, so greater volume can be completed more easily to greater overall effect, and swim/run training can be completed.
(iii) Nutrition strategies can be tested over long distance as is necessary in the event.

Given you are keen on Ric's article (and it's a great article, thanks Ric, please excuse the small unauthorised reproduction here), please note these direct quotes:

Zone 2 forms the 'core' of an endurance cyclist's training programme. Zone 2=50-65% MAP.

Power output for 80.5km TT = 64-72%MAP.

Power output for 161km TT = 60-68%MAP.

Given the half-ironman bike leg is 90km, and you would be wanting to go at less than your maximal 90km pace as you need to run a half marathon afterwards, I would say around 60%MAP would be a pretty race specific training pace.

We can also conclude from this that efforts over 70%MAP are almost never going to be necessary in an Ironman. This doesn't mean don't do them, as MAP and VO2max are still limiting factors,
(warning, less substantiated opinion follows) but the bulk of the work should concentrate on raising LT, and MAP/VO2max work should be done in the last 1-2 (max 3) months before the event.

Increase intensity, drop volume, (but not too much, it's primarily an endurance event...), etc. I would keep the long ride as long as possible and drop midweek volume to accomodate interval/tempo work in the leadup. (If you're still reading let us know triman!)

Or you could try reverse periodisation... a whole new argument follows...

🙄

Perhaps if we could agree on the following we might find it easier to get somewhere:

What fitness components are we trying to train for endurance triathlon, and what is the most important of these fitness components?

Here's what I reckon:

Over an event that takes around 5 hours, glycogen availability is a major concern. This adds a couple of complicating factors to training, making efficiency and lipolytic capacity more important than they normally would be (in, say a crit or a 60 minute TT). SO:

Here's what we need to train, primarily:

VO2max/MAP (similar training for both)
LT (extremely important)

Here's a couple of things I think it's also worth developing in the name of glycogen preservation (you'll thank me at the end of your half marathon):

Efficiency/economy
Lipolytic enzymes
Nutritional Strategy

Obviously, every athlete requires work in pretty much every zone for various purposes, but for the Ironman the nature of the event means focusing less on intensity, and doing the intensity in a controlled buildup that still includes long rides to retain endurance and other adaptions. When I say less intensity I don't mean the golfer's 25%MAP.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by peterwright
Very diplomatic.

I think, if you've seen how Ric has treated some of my incorrect posts (and ones where I still reckon I have a point but he disagrees), you'll find he says what he thinks, rather than just being 'diplomatic'. If you doubt this, check out what he says about weights for trained cyclists in some of the other threads!

:p

Anyway... I for one thank Ric for his frankness in rejecting things he thinks are wrong or misleading, it's certainly helped my understanding.

So what kind of things would be good to improve VO2 Max/LT? Hill intervals? Unfortunately, although there are plenty of hills around here, none of them are very long and/or steep.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
I think, if you've seen how Ric has treated some of my incorrect posts (and ones where I still reckon I have a point but he disagrees), you'll find he says what he thinks, rather than just being 'diplomatic'. If you doubt this, check out what he says about weights for trained cyclists in some of the other threads!

:p

Anyway... I for one thank Ric for his frankness in rejecting things he thinks are wrong or misleading, it's certainly helped my understanding.

to be honest, i haven't had too much time to look at this thread as i'm pretty busy dealing with a power crank threads! so i haven't delved too far into what you're both saying.

however, as roadie points out, my response before wasn't meant as a diplomatic one, but as an actual answer! you're both wrong!! or both right. you do need to do some intensity work (e.g., ~ 1-hr TT power) and you also need to do some longer endurance work.

in my experience too many triathletes focus on too much volume and not enough intensity. additionally, i've seen some people's training from 1/2 ironman and ironmans, who looked like they were preparing for a kilo TT!!

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by keydates
So what kind of things would be good to improve VO2 Max/LT? Hill intervals? Unfortunately, although there are plenty of hills around here, none of them are very long and/or steep.

LT is improved with efforts in zones 2/3/4.

VO2max is improved with efforts in zones 5/6

this isn't strictly true as some LT work will also increase VO2max and vice versa (but just not as effectively).

efforts for VO2max need to be between about 3 and 8-mins duration, they needn't be uphill, just intense enough to elicit or approach VO2max (some where a little above a 10-mile TT power)

ric