I think you are asking about the 2711 kj, which is ~645 kcal.leanman said:u only burnt 2700 calories riding 100 miles???? is that correct?
My goodness you're 63 year old? Are you sure your not lying? You're statistics are so unbelievable.BILLYHOLMES said:I've just completed my FTP test and it seems I'm at 170 watts. My max heart rate is 180 however, during the test (20 minutes) I started at 160 and ramped slowly up to 175. I've always been able to "dig deep" but do you think I'm going too hard as I read that others are well below their max, in the ~85% range.
For what it's worth I'm 63.
Bill.
Hi people, I am 13 years of age and have been cycling for 7 months regularly now and I ride 16mph on my road bike over 30-50 miles. is this a good speed or do you have any advice for my speed increasing? thanks
Hi people, I am 13 years of age and have been cycling for 7 months regularly now and I ride 16mph on my road bike over 30-50 miles. is this a good speed or do you have any advice for my speed increasing? thanks
I'm on my way to 72 years old and normally do rides of 35 or more miles (often 50 - 60) normally with 2,000 or more feet of climbing at a VERY slow pace: average speed of a little over 10 mph up to a little less than 13. I do not push myself simply because the only effect it has is to tire me out to the point of slowing up a great deal.There is certainly something to be said to the "ride lots" philosophy. Average speed depends upon a lot, including whether you are dealing with a heavy wind and flying down the downhills. You could get a nice workout if you are pushing very steep hills at 13 mph.
So how do you explain that on one of the local short evening rides, 7 or so miles, up a climb that, starting from dead last, I left 16 riders behind passing each one on the climbs and at the top actually having to wait five minutes for the first one to get up there? The oldest one of the group beat me to the top and he was 55 and my brother. The rest were at least 10 years younger than him and several were members of the fast group.There are lots of explanations: you are riding lots more than the other folks in the group; the group is not particularly fast or fit; you are getting some quality work in your "ride lots" routine; you have very good riding technique; exceptional genetics, etc
So the question arises - what do you gain from extreme workouts after you get over age 30 or so and are physically limited by your cardiac capacity and not your muscle power?It depends upon how you define "extreme." Most in this thread advocate coming up with a good sense of what their FTP is a fashioning quality workouts in the sweet spot, as opposed to riding in any extreme zone or doing anything extreme. I think the idea is balancing quality along with quantity. In an endurance sport like cycling, at any age, you are generally limited by your cardiac capacity (VO2 Max) as opposed to your muscle power. The question is how long can you hold a pace near your functional limit, which is determined in no small part by your "cardiac capacity." There are other factors including how aero you are on the bike, drafting skills, pacing, etc.
I have read all of the so-called training manuals and have never gotten any additional power or endurance by following restrictive regimes.Again, what do you mean by "restrictive regimes?" Are you riding in Saudi Arabia? There is a lot to be said to the "ride lots" routine, particularly if there is quality work being done on those many miles. Some don't have the time to simply ride lots, or want to get more out of our limited training time. There is a great deal of research behind certain training protocols. None of the masters podium finishers are simply rolling their bikes out of there garage and riding aimless miles at a VERY slow pace. They are riding intervals to get them to higher zones at higher speeds.
Perhaps in my 20's they may have made a difference but after you ride so much there isn't much improvement you can get from riding hard.Even Masters level racers are following routines where they "ride hard" on during specified intervals or periods. None of them are simply riding much.
Though it makes the local college kids feel supermen to fly by me when they are doing their 10 mile training rides. And it does tick off the older guys that will ride off of the front of the group on a hard climb while I ride on the back and finally get tired of them doing that and make up 2 minutes on them in a mile.I can't imagine college age racers are simply doing 10 mile training rides. At a 22-23 mph pace, they would be riding less than 30 minutes? They might be riding hard intervals of that distance but they are not riding 10 mile training rides unless they are sprinters.
And no amount of training is going to do much for you in a heavy headwind. I'm 6'4" and over two feet wide Fighting a headwind accomplishes nothing. Unless you don't mind arriving home so exhausted that you can't go out for three days.The whole point of training smart is to develop the capacity to ride in a headwind, ride up a hill, ride faster. This generally is a function of increasing FTP or your ability to generate power, Watts, over time. At your size and footprint, there might be some low hanging gains from just learning to stay on the drops while you ride in the wind or getting some aero bars. After those gains are made, it is all a function of watts.
So, the question is: why is everyone using performance and training as some sort of measure of the fun of cycling? Most performance issues are not from training but physiological limitations. Unless you are young and racing, if you want more benefits from your rides you don't ride harder - you ride longer at the same speed.
I am not sure that anybody is saying that performance and training is a measure of the fun of cycling. I believe they are saying that training smart can improve performance at all levels and age groups. There are lots of people who continue racing into their 70s and beyond. The 55+ category is very competitive and fast. Some local events will have 60+ or other categories. Many Gran Fondos have 75+ groups.
Simply riding longer at constant speed will train you to ride long distances at a constant speed. If you want to go faster, you have to ride faster. If that's your thing, riding a long time on your bike at a steady 10-13 mph pace, and its fun to you, then do that. Some people, even non-racers, like to go faster. In order to go faster, we have to ride faster and at paces that will improve aerobic performance. You would be surprised how little time you need if you train smarter. At 50, I rarely ride longer than 50 miles, and usually keep my hard training sessions under an hour; but I can still do a Century at a nice clip, or ride a nice long charity event at averages well above 13mph In my neck of the woods, we will climb 2400 feet in about 30 miles and average.
I think you're right about my tolerance for total volume at fairly high average stress levels, even though I probably ride my intervals at a lower power than most.
"
At the risk of seeming contradictory, this does not square with my own experience, nor, I would wager, with that of most cyclists. After a day with more than 40 minutes or so in L4, my ability to do quality work the next day is compromised; not completely shot, mind you, but definitely compromised. I can do consecutive days of L4, but at higher perceived effort. Maybe I've overestimated my threshold, but I don't think so. I'm probably not alone in this regard.
Judging from discussions of your training in the power forum, RDO, it seems that you are able to handle very, very high acute and chronic training loads, much more so than most folks. For instance, you consider a 1000TSS week routine, whereas a 900TSS week for me constitutes serious overreaching. Optimal training load varies from individual to individual, and more isn't always better.
Taking a step back for a moment, RDO, your eagerness to belittle other folks' training loads on this forum worries me a little bit. It worries me because a) you're a very intelligent, persuasive man, so people are likely to take you seriously and b) everything I can gather (your age, your threshold power and VO2max, your training load, etc.) suggests that you're phenomenally talented. It's awesome that day after day of 200TSS with as much time as possible at L4 and above has worked so well for you, but honestly, I suspect anything would work well for you, because you have the genes of a phenomenal endurance athlete. Bannister broke the 4 minute barrier on a ridiculously light (by today's world-class standards) training load, and endurance sport at all levels is full of similar examples of remarkable performances by modestly trained individuals.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.