Did my 1st TT - advice needed

Quoted message said:

Question is - given that I only ride at this exertion levels VERY briefly,
would I have been best to have stuck to 150-160bpm, ad that way may be done
as well/better without feeling absolutely exhausted???

Newbie to all this, so any info appreciated

Ta

AC

Only you can tell, every ones heart rate is different. I ride 10's and
25's @ an average of 170bpm, I'm 37 years old. That still doesn't tell
you anything.

Quoted message said:

as well/better without feeling absolutely exhausted???

If you want to do well, this will be the result. If your not on the
verge of being sick at the end your not trying hard enough. Sorry, but
it's true.

--
Mark (MSA)
This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling
of contents may have occurred during transmission

"MSA" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Question is - given that I only ride at this exertion levels VERY

briefly,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would I have been best to have stuck to 150-160bpm, ad that way may be

done

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as well/better without feeling absolutely exhausted???

Newbie to all this, so any info appreciated

Ta

AC

Only you can tell, every ones heart rate is different. I ride 10's and
25's @ an average of 170bpm, I'm 37 years old. That still doesn't tell
you anything.

What I'm getting at is;

Is it possible to say that a person who has ridden 100's of miles at 155bpm
but none at 170 should stick to 155 as his body/muscles/etc are trained to
work this way. Jumping straight to 170 won't actually improve performance ?
Or is there a direct relationship between hr and power to the pedals
(apologies to Citizen Smith) for a given rider?

Thanks for your reply anyway

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as well/better without feeling absolutely exhausted???

If you want to do well, this will be the result. If your not on the
verge of being sick at the end your not trying hard enough.

lol

I'm so doomed 🙂

Still, I think I can hold down 23 or 24 over a 10 without straining
myself. That's about my style. None of this over-straining.

--
Callas

AC said:

10 miles in 32:52. Would have been better but chain came off 3 times
- twice off outer chain ring, once off inner. Never had before but
then never been pedalling so hard whilst changing gear!

Would the answer be to adjust front mech (Shimano 105) OR ease off a
bit briefly whilst changing?

Both! :-) Certainly ease off a bit. Angle of mech is the most crucial
adjustment.

Perhaps a Deda Dog Fang* would help for the inner position if you can't
get the mech working totally reliably. Several of the pro teams use this
device -- see www.dedaelementi.com .

~PB

Pete Biggs <[email hidden]> wrote:
: AC wrote:
:>
:> Would the answer be to adjust front mech (Shimano 105) OR ease off a
:> bit briefly whilst changing?

: Both! :-) Certainly ease off a bit. Angle of mech is the most crucial

Unless it's a very unusual 10 course, don't change at the front at all. Just
leave it in the big ring. There's no real need to ease up when changing at the
rear but you do need to ease up a bit when changing at the front.

And, yes, adjust the mech.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune

AC <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Is it possible to say that a person who has ridden 100's of miles at 155bpm
: but none at 170 should stick to 155 as his body/muscles/etc are trained to
: work this way. Jumping straight to 170 won't actually improve performance ?
: Or is there a direct relationship between hr and power to the pedals

Higher HR = more exertion = more power = more pain.

It's a trade of as to how long you can hold power v power out.

If you can ride a distance (30 miles+) at 155 then 170 is probably
ball pack as a starting HR for a 10. To know more you'll need to have
a least a rough idea as to your max HR.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune

Arthur Clune said:

AC <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Is it possible to say that a person who has ridden 100's of miles at 155bpm
: but none at 170 should stick to 155 as his body/muscles/etc are trained to
: work this way. Jumping straight to 170 won't actually improve performance ?
: Or is there a direct relationship between hr and power to the pedals

Higher HR = more exertion = more power = more pain.

It's a trade of as to how long you can hold power v power out.

If you can ride a distance (30 miles+) at 155 then 170 is probably
ball pack as a starting HR for a 10. To know more you'll need to have
a least a rough idea as to your max HR.

If you have a HRM then go and try the various heart rates for what you can
hold. I know that I can hold 140 for many many hours, 160 for over an hour,
170 for just over half an hour and 180 for about 10 mins. If I go much over
that for more than a short (minute or so) time then I've "crossed the line"
and will blow up.

But you will be different. Get on the bike and try holding a certain HRM for
five miles. Try various heart rates and see what works for you.

For a '10' I try to keep the heart rate at about 170 for the first eight
miles then build up to 180 till the finish. That is about a perfect race for
me, getting the best I can from heart and lungs. Still working on the bike
position and improving the strength in the legs.

Read a good training manual on interval training to really get the best out
of your body.

...d

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:25:45 +0100, David Martin
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

If you have a HRM then go and try the various heart rates for what you can
hold. I know that I can hold 140 for many many hours, 160 for over an hour,
170 for just over half an hour and 180 for about 10 mins. If I go much over
that for more than a short (minute or so) time then I've "crossed the line"
and will blow up. But you will be different.

Absolutely. I can maintain over 180 for an hour without ill-effects
(aged 40). Some people can sustain much higher rates than others.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Eek! I hit 170 at all and I'm just about fit to die. The thought of
maintaining it for more than 5 minutes is just plain scary.

I know that everyone has their own max etc, but should I be worried that I
can't comfortably sustain 170 for any period?!

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 17/7/04 1:18 pm, in article [email hidden], "Arthur

Clune"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

AC <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Is it possible to say that a person who has ridden 100's of miles at

155bpm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

: but none at 170 should stick to 155 as his body/muscles/etc are

trained to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

: work this way. Jumping straight to 170 won't actually improve

performance ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

: Or is there a direct relationship between hr and power to the pedals

Higher HR = more exertion = more power = more pain.

It's a trade of as to how long you can hold power v power out.

If you can ride a distance (30 miles+) at 155 then 170 is probably
ball pack as a starting HR for a 10. To know more you'll need to have
a least a rough idea as to your max HR.

If you have a HRM then go and try the various heart rates for what you can
hold. I know that I can hold 140 for many many hours, 160 for over an

hour,

Quoted message said:

170 for just over half an hour and 180 for about 10 mins. If I go much

over

Quoted message said:

that for more than a short (minute or so) time then I've "crossed the

line"

Quoted message said:

and will blow up.

But you will be different. Get on the bike and try holding a certain HRM

for

Quoted message said:

five miles. Try various heart rates and see what works for you.

For a '10' I try to keep the heart rate at about 170 for the first eight
miles then build up to 180 till the finish. That is about a perfect race

for

Quoted message said:

me, getting the best I can from heart and lungs. Still working on the bike
position and improving the strength in the legs.

Read a good training manual on interval training to really get the best

out

Quoted message said:

of your body.

..d

Sam Simpson said:

Eek! I hit 170 at all and I'm just about fit to die. The thought of
maintaining it for more than 5 minutes is just plain scary.

I know that everyone has their own max etc, but should I be worried that I
can't comfortably sustain 170 for any period?!

No, don't worry about it. My max HR was about 168 when I was taking
racing seriously. That was mostly rowing, but also a few road TTs with
fairly respectable times.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Callas said:

Still, I think I can hold down 23 or 24 over a 10 without straining
myself. That's about my style. None of this over-straining.

Sometimes I suspect that your racing career has already peaked...but
don't worry, the older you get, the faster you could have been!

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Arthur Clune said:

Unless it's a very unusual 10 course, don't change at the front at all. Just
leave it in the big ring.

Oh, I'm sure I used to change down to the 52T on steady climbs :-)

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

James Annan said:

Sam Simpson said:

Eek! I hit 170 at all and I'm just about fit to die. The thought of
maintaining it for more than 5 minutes is just plain scary.

I know that everyone has their own max etc, but should I be worried
that I
can't comfortably sustain 170 for any period?!

No, don't worry about it. My max HR was about 168 when I was taking
racing seriously. That was mostly rowing, but also a few road TTs with
fairly respectable times.

James

168-170 is about where my legs kick in with the burning lactic acid
thang. It varies sometimes depending on temp (of me and the weather),
how hard the legs have worked to that point, how well hydrated I am, how
well fed I am, etc, but normally it's somewhere around here that it
starts to kick in.

Apparently you can raise this limit by careful training, but I've not
really found this happening yet (and mine's a bit rushed right now!).

Highest I've ever seen was 196 at the top of a very hard but short climb
at the end of a long ride, but I suspect due to the way I felt it wasn't
quite my absolute max.

Oh, and max heart rate (rather than what you can just about manage to
sustain for 20 mines) is different for each sport you do, apparently - I
didn't realise this, very interesting to know!

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

168-170 is about where my legs kick in with the burning lactic acid
thang. It varies sometimes depending on temp (of me and the weather),
how hard the legs have worked to that point, how well hydrated I am, how
well fed I am, etc, but normally it's somewhere around here that it
starts to kick in.

Apparently you can raise this limit by careful training, but I've not
really found this happening yet (and mine's a bit rushed right now!).

I got my racing rate up by doing some hard intervals..2-4 mins flat out,
then a somewhat shorter recovery (or maybe the same, definitely not
enough recovery!). Repeat ad nauseam. No, not really, just about 5 or 10
or something. It all seems like such a long time ago...but it did seem
to help especially on the shorter TTs.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and max heart rate (rather than what you can just about manage to
sustain for 20 mines) is different for each sport you do, apparently - I
didn't realise this, very interesting to know!

Cycling (and rowing) tend to be a bit lower than running, but it also
depends a bit on how you train. Anyway, max HR is a particularly useless
number to determine. At best, it is a vague determinant of other
thresholds which can be much more sensibly (and more accurately)
determined directly.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Fair enough. I've done a (Polar chest strap+watch) MaxHR test this
morning - 188.

Worryingly, my "OwnIndex" - supposedly roughly equivalent to VO2Max is 42 -
that's not great at all!

Oh well.....

Cheers,

Sam

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sam Simpson said:

Eek! I hit 170 at all and I'm just about fit to die. The thought of
maintaining it for more than 5 minutes is just plain scary.

I know that everyone has their own max etc, but should I be worried that

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can't comfortably sustain 170 for any period?!

No, don't worry about it. My max HR was about 168 when I was taking
racing seriously. That was mostly rowing, but also a few road TTs with
fairly respectable times.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Sam Simpson said:

Fair enough. I've done a (Polar chest strap+watch) MaxHR test this
morning - 188.

Worryingly, my "OwnIndex" - supposedly roughly equivalent to VO2Max is 42 -
that's not great at all!

Oh well.....

Cheers,

Sam

Heh, it's better than mine, at 35!

FWIW, my polar max hr is 186 or so. Which is clearly wrong wrong wrong
for me, given I've recorded it at 196, and it's quite probable I've had
it higher than that on one particularly nasty hill when utterly unfit,
since I'd not reached the 'about to puke and feint' thing when at 196,
and was just about there on the other hill ;-)

--

Velvet

On 18/7/04 11:53 pm, in article
[email hidden], "Velvet"

Quoted message said:

Highest I've ever seen was 196 at the top of a very hard but short climb
at the end of a long ride, but I suspect due to the way I felt it wasn't
quite my absolute max.

Highest I've seen was 195 at the top of a short intense uphill sprint. This
was accompanied by tunnel vision rapidly closing in and a strong desire to
ease off.

...d

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 18/7/04 11:53 pm, in article
[email hidden], "Velvet"

Quoted message said:

Highest I've ever seen was 196 at the top of a very hard but short climb
at the end of a long ride, but I suspect due to the way I felt it wasn't
quite my absolute max.

Highest I've seen was 195 at the top of a short intense uphill sprint.

This

Quoted message said:

was accompanied by tunnel vision rapidly closing in and a strong desire to
ease off.

..d

managed 202 twice in a fortnight a few years back- first time I was on a big
hill but didn't even consider what mny HR might be, second time round I
thought I'd just bury myself and see how high it got- got the very same
figure! Not sure I can get over 200 anymore but I wouldn't be surprised! Its
all a bit meaningless really though

Velvet said:

Sam Simpson said:

Fair enough. I've done a (Polar chest strap+watch) MaxHR test this
morning - 188.

Worryingly, my "OwnIndex" - supposedly roughly equivalent to VO2Max
is 42 - that's not great at all!

Oh well.....

Cheers,

Sam

Heh, it's better than mine, at 35!

FWIW, my polar max hr is 186 or so. Which is clearly wrong wrong
wrong for me, given I've recorded it at 196, and it's quite probable
I've had it higher than that on one particularly nasty hill when
utterly unfit, since I'd not reached the 'about to puke and feint'
thing when at 196, and was just about there on the other hill ;-)

My Polar "Max" is 176, and I've "done" 188 twice tonight without dying (too
much - although the very (for me) harsh 6km uphill from Kintbury to Coombe
Gibbet, with the last km averaging 10%, nearly "did for" me!). 176 feels
about right for my anaerobic threshold though as I'm normally OK keeping 170
going for a while and start to burn at around 175.

My "OwnIndex" is normally round 42-43, but I bet tonight it will be less
than that, maybe down to 40 until I recover. When I started cycling 6 months
ago it was around 35.

Sad to see the evenings start to draw in a little now....

Cheers,
Chris
--
_____________________________________________________

Chris Walters
Hungerford, UK
_____________________________________________________