Questions on fitness and cadence

[Carrera]

2 questions I thought I'd raise. The first deals with fitness.

Over the weeks I've been gradually building on my training schedule, working mainly on general fitness and hill-climbing (done at intervals). I've noticed that while my power on the bike is cause to feel optimistic, I seem to be lacking in fitness (and sometimes stamina).

To illustrate this point, I've tried climbing challenging hills with a far lighter rider tagging along and we both seem to have experienced the same difficulties but for different reasons. The other rider tended more to lack power but was fitter than I was. Myself, I had plenty of pedal power but was surprised that I was gasping on the really steep 10% gradiants while my companion didn't show the same obvious signs of aerobic stress.

However, the fact that I really seem to gasp bucketfulls of air when under more stressful riding conditions makes me wonder whether I may be below average fitness. There have been times, in fact, when I've had to slow down the pace at the top of a big climb till my breathing stabilises somewhat (while companion riders seem to be puffing far less).

Is this a common problem?

Should I just be patient and give myself time to improve fitness levels or do some people lack stamina more than others? Are there people out there who share my problem, used to share my problem or maybe have any ideas on the theme?

Another thing I noticed when riding with other roadies is that one particular guy was pedaling maybe one revolution to my three revolutions but we were both riding at the same pace on a 7.5 gradiant. It seemed to work for him O.K. but I found myself wondering whether riders just find their own cadence as a matter of course.

I wouldn't say I was a spinner as such but I do tend to favour lower (or mid-range) gears somehow as coming natural. But I also wonder which is more energy efficient. Is it more demanding to cycle one revolution and cover a given distance or is it less demanding to cover the same time and distance via 3 or 4 spins of the crank?

How do you know if you're a spinner, a big-cog-churner or somebody who's a combination of both?

 

[VeloFlash]

How do you know if you're a spinner, a big-cog-churner or somebody who's a combination of both?

Just trial and error until you find your natural level. Lance A does not mash up hills nor does Jan U spin.

I do 4 minute V02 max intervals uphill choosing a gear that gives me a cadence of 100-105rpm for 3 of those 4 minutes. The last minute I start changing up, cadence reduces and my speed increases markedly. It is obvious that 100-105 rpm is not my natural climbing cadence but it is a good aerobic workout.

You may also try and experiment with different cadences to find out which range is the most efficient for you. A computer with a cadence read out is a useful training tool. If you measure your wheel circumference (correct tyre pressure plus your weight) you can calculate cadences for each gear.

It would appear from your other posts that you are just starting out. The heavy breathing is typical of a newbie rider whose aerobic system is not well trained for cycling. Just persevere and it will gradually vanish. Next problem will be muscle burn

They say if your are only breathing too heavy, your gear is too low. If your legs are only burning, your gear is too high. The right balance is when both are occurring.

Other than just riding, a quicker solution to overcome the heavy breathing is high intensity aerobic intervals.

 

[Carrera]

"It would appear from your other posts that you are just starting out. The heavy breathing is typical of a newbie rider whose aerobic system is not well trained for cycling."

That's correct, I've only been into cycling for a short time, although I used to cycle a lot in my twenties. My progress is coming along O.K. so it's mostly the odd bout of gasping (or sometimes fatigue) that occasionally makes me feel fitness is slightly lacking. Still if, as you say, this is a common beginner's problem that makes me feel a bit more optimistic.

Originally posted by VeloFlash
How do you know if you're a spinner, a big-cog-churner or somebody who's a combination of both?

Just trial and error until you find your natural level. Lance A does not mash up hills nor does Jan U spin.

I do 4 minute V02 max intervals uphill choosing a gear that gives me a cadence of 100-105rpm for 3 of those 4 minutes. The last minute I start changing up, cadence reduces and my speed increases markedly. It is obvious that 100-105 rpm is not my natural climbing cadence but it is a good aerobic workout.

You may also try and experiment with different cadences to find out which range is the most efficient for you. A computer with a cadence read out is a useful training tool. If you measure your wheel circumference (correct tyre pressure plus your weight) you can calculate cadences for each gear.

It would appear from your other posts that you are just starting out. The heavy breathing is typical of a newbie rider whose aerobic system is not well trained for cycling. Just persevere and it will gradually vanish. Next problem will be muscle burn

They say if your are only breathing too heavy, your gear is too low. If your legs are only burning, your gear is too high. The right balance is when both are occurring.

Other than just riding, a quicker solution to overcome the heavy breathing is high intensity aerobic intervals.

 

[Postie]

Originally posted by Carrera
"It would appear from your other posts that you are just starting out. The heavy breathing is typical of a newbie rider whose aerobic system is not well trained for cycling."

That's correct, I've only been into cycling for a short time, although I used to cycle a lot in my twenties. My progress is coming along O.K. so it's mostly the odd bout of gasping (or sometimes fatigue) that occasionally makes me feel fitness is slightly lacking. Still if, as you say, this is a common beginner's problem that makes me feel a bit more optimistic.

Hi Carrera.

I believe your assessment is correct. If you find your challenge with your breathing, then it is your cardio system that is behind your companions. Swimming, and/or Running, and/or interval training is the primary way people build on their cardio. Swimming and intervals are a great way for making gains on the anaerobic system. However there is an element of overlap of improvement between the two systems while doing cardio training in general.

To some people cardio training involves anaerobic training while with others it's their aerobic system. On climbs you're usually dealing with your anaerobic system while long sustained efforts in the saddle your aerobic system is in control. Since you've been referring to climbing as your weakness it's likely that your anaerobic system could benefit from work.

This is not to be discouraging in the form of criticism. But given the last part of your post, I'd like to give you a word of advice.

In today's athletic cycling arena it is believed that spinning is better in every way over straight power.

1) It relies on fitness vs. power hence practice via spinning makes you a "fitter" person.

2) Greater fitness translates into higher enhanced ability on climbs, into wind, and over distance.

3) It's easier on the body/joints since torsion and strain are greatly reduced.

I'm not trying to say that power training doesn't have it's place. But personally I'd work on my power in the gym and focus on the benefits of spinning on the bike.

If your cardio improves, I promise so will that winded feeling you're comparing to your friend's.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Carrera
2 questions I thought I'd raise. The first deals with fitness.

Over the weeks I've been gradually building on my training schedule, working mainly on general fitness and hill-climbing (done at intervals). I've noticed that while my power on the bike is cause to feel optimistic, I seem to be lacking in fitness (and sometimes stamina).

i'm not fully sure i understand what you're saying. Power is the direct measure of fitness. In other words the more power you have the fitter you are (obviously this may need to be scaled to each persons mass, as someone who has a mass of 100 kg is likely going to have more absolute power than someone of 45 kg)

To illustrate this point, I've tried climbing challenging hills with a far lighter rider tagging along and we both seem to have experienced the same difficulties but for different reasons. The other rider tended more to lack power but was fitter than I was. Myself, I had plenty of pedal power but was surprised that I was gasping on the really steep 10% gradiants while my companion didn't show the same obvious signs of aerobic stress.

sounds like the other person had a higher power to mass ratio than you, and thus, because they're lighter are riding easier than you.

anyone that rides at a hard level relative to themself will gasp, whether they're a TT1 pro or someone who rides once a week

However, the fact that I really seem to gasp bucketfulls of air when under more stressful riding conditions makes me wonder whether I may be below average fitness. There have been times, in fact, when I've had to slow down the pace at the top of a big climb till my breathing stabilises somewhat (while companion riders seem to be puffing far less).

Is this a common problem?

whenever i train (as opposed to recovery rides) i always gasp at the top of a hill. sometimes i gasp, breathe harder/deeper than other times, but that's dependent on the intensity i ride up the hill at

Another thing I noticed when riding with other roadies is that one particular guy was pedaling maybe one revolution to my three revolutions but we were both riding at the same pace on a 7.5 gradiant. It seemed to work for him O.K. but I found myself wondering whether riders just find their own cadence as a matter of course.

he's obviously pedalling a bigger gear than you. most people self select a cadence that is suitable for themself, the power that they produce and the resultant velocity, and the limits to thier gearing. for e.g., on very steep hills, i might have to pedal at 40 revs/min as my lowest gear is 39 x 23 and i can't produce anymore power to travel at a faster velocity and thus pedal faster.

I wouldn't say I was a spinner as such but I do tend to favour lower (or mid-range) gears somehow as coming natural. But I also wonder which is more energy efficient. Is it more demanding to cycle one revolution and cover a given distance or is it less demanding to cover the same time and distance via 3 or 4 spins of the crank?

paradoxically, you're more efficient at a lower cadence at a given power compared to a higher cadence. however, it feels worse and may affect performance. you're most efficient at around 50 - 60 revs/min

ric

 

[Carrera]

Hi!
What I find is my power on the bike itself is, more than likely, a strong point. I'm finding I can now get up 20% grades in relatively high gears and sometimes wonder whether I'll really need a triple after all. However, my weaknesses are probably fitness and speed.
To give you an example, I cycled pretty close to Buxton today but my fitness was challenged all the way. There were a couple of times I opted to get off the bike and sit down, drink some fruit, guzzle some bananas and try and perk up. Of course, I completed my ride and had a good session all in all and feel those long rides should definitely encourage more fitness and stamina.
Of course, one thing I should have mentioned that may be very important is I work shifts. I'm usually working right through the night every night and sleeping from 8.00 a.m. onwards for as much time as I can grab. It may be that the subject of cyclists who shift work is a topic in itself and I suppose there must be other folks on the forum who do similar hours. Does it make any difference, given the body isn't programed to function by night?
I would say my fitness is definitely improving but it's not quite up to scratch yet. Speed has always been a weakness but climbing is quite strong now. I've climbed with riders I outweigh by 30 lbs and can keep up but I still huff and puff a lot more than they do.
Sport is tough, though. I read the other night that Frazier lost about 10 lbs bodyweight after his fight with Ali over 15 rounds (the time he won) and I doubt I've dropped that much weight from a ride to date. So, I remain positive.
Any thoughts on what makes a fast rider and can a fast rider be a powerful rider? Can a sprinter be a good climber, do you think?

 

[Postie]

Originally posted by Carrera
Hi!
What I find is my power on the bike itself is, more than likely, a strong point. I'm finding I can now get up 20% grades in relatively high gears and sometimes wonder whether I'll really need a triple after all. However, my weaknesses are probably fitness and speed.
To give you an example, I cycled pretty close to Buxton today but my fitness was challenged all the way. There were a couple of times I opted to get off the bike and sit down, drink some fruit, guzzle some bananas and try and perk up. Of course, I completed my ride and had a good session all in all and feel those long rides should definitely encourage more fitness and stamina.
Of course, one thing I should have mentioned that may be very important is I work shifts. I'm usually working right through the night every night and sleeping from 8.00 a.m. onwards for as much time as I can grab. It may be that the subject of cyclists who shift work is a topic in itself and I suppose there must be other folks on the forum who do similar hours. Does it make any difference, given the body isn't programed to function by night?
I would say my fitness is definitely improving but it's not quite up to scratch yet. Speed has always been a weakness but climbing is quite strong now. I've climbed with riders I outweigh by 30 lbs and can keep up but I still huff and puff a lot more than they do.
Sport is tough, though. I read the other night that Frazier lost about 10 lbs bodyweight after his fight with Ali over 15 rounds (the time he won) and I doubt I've dropped that much weight from a ride to date. So, I remain positive.
Any thoughts on what makes a fast rider and can a fast rider be a powerful rider? Can a sprinter be a good climber, do you think?

Hi again.

Historically in professional racing, many of the top riders were the best sprinters and the best climbers. Today's pros do so much training to a particular specialty that its hard to be the best at all of it.

However if you're asking if us mortals can be great sprinters and great climbers, the answer is most definitely yes.

From an article I read in Bicycling Magazine regarding Lance's trainer Chris Carmichel; Apparently Lance Armstrong has an almost untouchable anaerobic system. Chris worked him and worked him until Lance was ready to collapse, however it didn't seem to help over long races. Then it dawned on him that it wasn't Lance's anaerobic system that needed work at all. Rather, Lance lacked the long easy rides to raise his base aerobic system. That was the special ingredient to make him the guy he is today.

Why did I mention this quote? From what I've read in your posts it sounds like you like to go full effort on each ride (which is what I originally assumed you'd benefit most from). However maybe the solution is the opposite of what I first thought and maybe your riding is missing the long not-so-hard rides of spending 2 to 3 hours in the saddle?

I'm not quite sure where you were going with the losing weight in sport thing. I was in a brutal long endurance cross-country bike race last year and I lost 12 pounds in 7.5 hours (and I was only 151 to start). However it was just water loss because I had made half of it back in the first couple days and most of the rest back with in about a week and a bit. Personally I think that was a testament to what I went through and had little to say about my fitness.

Cheers.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Carrera
Hi!
What I find is my power on the bike itself is, more than likely, a strong point. I'm finding I can now get up 20% grades in relatively high gears and sometimes wonder whether I'll really need a triple after all. However, my weaknesses are probably fitness and speed.

To clarify: power output *is* fitness. It's the direct measure of fitness.

In the above example, if you ride up a hill in 53 x 12 or 39 x 25 (or whatever gear) and your velocity is the same, and the environmental conditions have not changed then your power is the *same*. The force requirements will have altered with the different cadences however.

I've climbed with riders I outweigh by 30 lbs and can keep up but I still huff and puff a lot more than they do.

because their mass is significantly less, and because they are travelling at the same velocity as you, their power is significantly reduced in comparison to yours. This will likely mean that they are riding at a significantly easier level than you, and therefore, won't be huffing and puffing up the hill.

Any thoughts on what makes a fast rider and can a fast rider be a powerful rider? Can a sprinter be a good climber, do you think?

they can generate more power over the durations involved or the same power with a significantly smaller frontal area and CdA or have a smaller mass, or a combination of all.

You (everyone) can increase your power by training. how you do that training will be linked to your goals, time available, etc.

ric

 

[Carrera]

"You (everyone) can increase your power by training. how you do that training will be linked to your goals, time available, etc."

I'm now experimenting with a system that might help boost power and fitness but it's intense and I don't plan to make the mistake of doing it too often. Maybe other roadies use a similar system but this is what I'm trying out:
First I ride an hour or so out into the country where I know of an incredibly steep hill (typical of what you might encounter in the Peak District). I then take a small break and load up on carbs and a sugar drink. Then I get into my lowest gear and start pedaling, standing up and driving the pedals hard as I can.
However, instead of risking overload, I force myself to stop at the point of the climb where I consider my breathing is getting out of control and excessive. I stop and allow myself to get my breathing regulated but mark the stretch of road where I gave up. This is usually at the point where the gradient levels out before it goes up again really steep and seems to be the point of my stamina failure. I resume climbing again and reach the summit very breathless, gasping a little but not totally washed out. Therefore, it takes me 2 efforts to complete the task.
My next goal will be to quit the climb further on from the marker I placed on the hill. This may be a couple of feet, three feet or even six feet on. Hopefully there will be some kind of improvement. The final goal will be to complete the entire ascent in one effort and get to the top without ending up on my knees (which is what happened to me once when I did the hill in one). Of course, I'll have to lose a little more weight to complete the task - which means a certain degree of low intensity cycling on the flat.
I guess this is the highest intensity training I've done to date and can be very uncomfortable - which is why I force myself to abort once breathing becomes too forceful. However, climbing without a triple crank seems to be strengthening my cycling muscles and the load on my lungs must be improving fitness.
A veteran cyclist told me once he had sprinted up this hill without a triple but he was really fit at the time. Even lorries have real problems so I guess it's a good way to train. I doubt it'll improve my speed on the flat but I'm hoping fitness will pick up.

Originally posted by ricstern
To clarify: power output *is* fitness. It's the direct measure of fitness.

In the above example, if you ride up a hill in 53 x 12 or 39 x 25 (or whatever gear) and your velocity is the same, and the environmental conditions have not changed then your power is the *same*. The force requirements will have altered with the different cadences however.





because their mass is significantly less, and because they are travelling at the same velocity as you, their power is significantly reduced in comparison to yours. This will likely mean that they are riding at a significantly easier level than you, and therefore, won't be huffing and puffing up the hill.



they can generate more power over the durations involved or the same power with a significantly smaller frontal area and CdA or have a smaller mass, or a combination of all.

You (everyone) can increase your power by training. how you do that training will be linked to your goals, time available, etc.

ric

 

[Paul DeVries]

To add to one of the posts above...Pedaling high cadence uses more aerobic effort while riding a bigger gear requires more muscular effort in general. Lance pedals a very high cadence predominantly because his VO2 max is so high that he is not constraned by it when he rides which allows him to use less muscular power and rid ebelow his lactate threshold. Most people would start breathing very heavily and feel they are above their lactate threshold at those cadences and slow their cadence down to a manageable level. Usually normal riders feel a 60-70 cadence while hill climbing (depending on grade) with a slightly bigger gear will get them fastest up the hill with less perceived effort....

 

[limerickman]

Carrera,

This thread is getting bogged down in science !!
We're bike riders for God's sake !

Maybe I am showing my age here but quite frankly this talk of power outputs and wattagae and HR levels is academic.

The old pros advice on improving your performance - be it climbing, sprinting, rolling along - is to simply cycle !
Cast aside the various measurements for one second.

To improve our fitness, we used to do interval training during training rides : sprinting for 200 metres, easing off, going 200 metres again, easing off.

We got in good long rides 4 times per week (these sessions would last 3-4 hours).
Deep steady miles we called them and this helped to build stamina.

Then we started belnding both types of riding - long deep steady miles, with intervals thrown in during them !
This is how we used to do it.
This type of training allowed me to improve and to compete at a national level.
Blessed with a good basic fitness, this type of program worked for me and all my colleagues.
We did not have HR monitors, power output measures, cadence
monitors etc.
It was good old fashioned training.

My advice - join a club and train with them !

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Carrera
"You (everyone) can increase your power by training. how you do that training will be linked to your goals, time available, etc."

I'm now experimenting with a system that might help boost power and fitness but it's intense and I don't plan to make the mistake of doing it too often. Maybe other roadies use a similar system but this is what I'm trying out:
First I ride an hour or so out into the country where I know of an incredibly steep hill (typical of what you might encounter in the Peak District). I then take a small break and load up on carbs and a sugar drink. Then I get into my lowest gear and start pedaling, standing up and driving the pedals hard as I can.

this really isn't an ideal training scenario. you're highly likely to throw up, riding all-out after just eating or drinking. even if you don't it's likely it's highly detrimental to performance.

eat/drink some carbs 2 - 3 hours before an intense session, then just sip small amounts in the first hour of training.

it's also highly likely that you're training *too* intensely to increase your aerobic fitness, which is what i think you are trying to achieve. you need to do long intervals (e.g., one to four x 15 to 30 -mins)

However, instead of risking overload, I force myself to stop at the point of the climb where I consider my breathing is getting out of control and excessive.

as i've suggested before, it's perfectly normal to be breathing hard, gasp for air when training. it's normal when riding very hard, and is only contraindicated if something is wrong with you (e.g., ill, chronic conditions, cardiac rehab patient)

I stop and allow myself to get my breathing regulated but mark the stretch of road where I gave up. This is usually at the point where the gradient levels out before it goes up again really steep and seems to be the point of my stamina failure. I resume climbing again and reach the summit very breathless, gasping a little but not totally washed out. Therefore, it takes me 2 efforts to complete the task.

you're breathing hard, because you are riding intensely. you've exceeded the effort (power) that you can sustain for a long period of time and maybe approaching or have reached VO2max.

you need to increase the power (fitness) that you can sustain for a long period of time. this is achieved primarily, at the start of training hard with the long intervals i suggested above.

to reach the summit of the climb in one go, just pedal a little easier all the way up. the way you are currently training isn't very optimal. i don't think you're going hard enough for a true short effort, and you're not going long enough for a slightly more moderate effort.

The final goal will be to complete the entire ascent in one effort and get to the top without ending up on my knees (which is what happened to me once when I did the hill in one).

put it in a lower gear and ride a little easier to get there in one go.

Of course, I'll have to lose a little more weight to complete the task - which means a certain degree of low intensity cycling on the flat.

to loose fat mass, you need to expend more energy than you consume. it does not necessarily mean anything to do with riding easy on the flat

ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Paul DeVries
To add to one of the posts above...Pedaling high cadence uses more aerobic effort while riding a bigger gear requires more muscular effort in general. Lance pedals a very high cadence predominantly because his VO2 max is so high that he is not constraned by it when he rides which allows him to use less muscular power and rid ebelow his lactate threshold. Most people would start breathing very heavily and feel they are above their lactate threshold at those cadences and slow their cadence down to a manageable level. Usually normal riders feel a 60-70 cadence while hill climbing (depending on grade) with a slightly bigger gear will get them fastest up the hill with less perceived effort....

no one rides below their LT when climbing hills, unless they're riding with a mis-matched fitness partner who is very unfit. As LT can be sustained for 2 - 3+ hrs it's a very low level.

Other pros have similar/same VO2max and LT as LA and pedal at lower cadences. It doesn't make much difference, if any, within a normal range of cadence.

Most non-pros can NOT ride at the same cadence as LA uphill as they are constrained by the size of gearing. For e.g., a popular gear for racers (whether pro or not is a lowest gear of 39 x 23). Pedalling that gear at a specific high cadence will always mean travelling at the specific velocity associated with it. For e.g., riding at 90 revs/min in 39 x 23 will give you a velocity of ~ 19 km/hr. on a pan flat road that might require (e.g.) 80 W. up an Alpine pass that might require 400 W. As 400 W is beyond the scope of most people for the duration of an Alpine pass, we (non pros) would have to ride at a lower power that elicits a slower velocity. And, if 39 x 23 is your lowest gear you'll have to pedal at a much lower cadence. For example an amateur racer may be able to generate ~ 260 W for the duration of Alpine pass. This might elicit a velocity of 13 km/hr that would give you a cadence of ~ 60 revs/min with 39 x 23.

ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by limerickman
Carrera,

This thread is getting bogged down in science !!
We're bike riders for God's sake !

Maybe I am showing my age here but quite frankly this talk of power outputs and wattagae and HR levels is academic.

The old pros advice on improving your performance - be it climbing, sprinting, rolling along - is to simply cycle !
Cast aside the various measurements for one second.

To improve our fitness, we used to do interval training during training rides : sprinting for 200 metres, easing off, going 200 metres again, easing off.

We got in good long rides 4 times per week (these sessions would last 3-4 hours).
Deep steady miles we called them and this helped to build stamina.

Then we started belnding both types of riding - long deep steady miles, with intervals thrown in during them !
This is how we used to do it.
This type of training allowed me to improve and to compete at a national level.
Blessed with a good basic fitness, this type of program worked for me and all my colleagues.
We did not have HR monitors, power output measures, cadence
monitors etc.
It was good old fashioned training.

My advice - join a club and train with them !

whilst i'm often in favour of KISS, the training you're suggesting isn't really specific to RRing or TTing etc. Training science has moved on somewhat from just two types of sessions, and whilst your ideas will get you fitter, they will take a lot longer and with less likelyhood of knowing when you'll be at peak fitness etc.

ric

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by ricstern
whilst i'm often in favour of KISS, the training you're suggesting isn't really specific to RRing or TTing etc. Training science has moved on somewhat from just two types of sessions, and whilst your ideas will get you fitter, they will take a lot longer and with less likelyhood of knowing when you'll be at peak fitness etc.

ric

Ric : there seems to be a propensity for people throughout this
site to rely solely on the "science" - for their training.
I am not a complete Luddite but these days we have a whole generation of cyclists who are controlled solely by their readouts
(I see it with the ypunger guys that we have at our club).

We have guys in their early twenties - fit cyclists, with all the new technology - and they are repeatedly destroyed in races by people like me (who should not be able to beat these guys).
From my experience, when I discuss their performace with them
and I assess their training, they tell me gems like "well our training program says........etc.

I am 38 - there is no way that I shouldn't be able to beat fit 23-25
year olds.
But I do.
And the reason is not that I am any good - it is because these guys don't put in the effort.
They're obsessed with max HR's and lactate levels and only going for training spins up to 75 miles in duration.
In the final 10-15 miles of a 100 mile race - these guys are dying.
But because they're "governed" by whatever the latest fad is
about training, they would never consider doing a 100+ mile training spin.

Maybe, I'm just an old man now but I would seriously suggest that people get out and RIDE THEIR BIKES and leave what the
monitors say, at home, for a change.
Instead of reading what a monitor says - listen to their own bodies and perhaps try to work through whatever difficulties
they have ON THE ROAD.

A monitor is not going to solve your predicament in a race if you're
twenty miles from home and your bollocked.
Self-reliance and hardwork is the solution.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by limerickman
Ric : there seems to be a propensity for people throughout this
site to rely solely on the "science" - for their training.
I am not a complete Luddite but these days we have a whole generation of cyclists who are controlled solely by their readouts
(I see it with the ypunger guys that we have at our club).

We have guys in their early twenties - fit cyclists, with all the new technology - and they are repeatedly destroyed in races by people like me (who should not be able to beat these guys).
From my experience, when I discuss their performace with them
and I assess their training, they tell me gems like "well our training program says........etc.

I am 38 - there is no way that I shouldn't be able to beat fit 23-25
year olds.
But I do.
And the reason is not that I am any good - it is because these guys don't put in the effort.
They're obsessed with max HR's and lactate levels and only going for training spins up to 75 miles in duration.
In the final 10-15 miles of a 100 mile race - these guys are dying.
But because they're "governed" by whatever the latest fad is
about training, they would never consider doing a 100+ mile training spin.

Maybe, I'm just an old man now but I would seriously suggest that people get out and RIDE THEIR BIKES and leave what the
monitors say, at home, for a change.
Instead of reading what a monitor says - listen to their own bodies and perhaps try to work through whatever difficulties
they have ON THE ROAD.

A monitor is not going to solve your predicament in a race if you're
twenty miles from home and your bollocked.
Self-reliance and hardwork is the solution.

i understand entirely what you're saying, but that has *NOTHING* to do with scientific training and coaching and everything to do with either bad coaching or event selection.

ric

 

[Paul DeVries]

Ric - when I was referring to Lactate threshold - I mean that level you can sustain for at most 30-60 minutes, not 2-3 hours - we probably have a definition difference here...

Also, Limerickman - your advice is good - people have to get out on their bikes and ride and try lots of different things - however..in general....a good solid training program using today's science of HR's and power, etc coupled with a desire to win and do what is necessary (on race day) will be the best way to meet a riders goals....

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Paul DeVries
Ric - when I was referring to Lactate threshold - I mean that level you can sustain for at most 30-60 minutes, not 2-3 hours - we probably have a definition difference here...

the standard definition of lactate threshold is, the workload (intensity) that elicits a 1mmol/L increase over exercise baseline levels, giving a lactate of ~ 2.xx mmol/L (see Coyle et al.). The other generally accepted definition of LT is the workload that elicits a lactate of 2.5 mmol/L.

There's no scientific definition or term for the effort that can be maximally sustained for ~1-hr, and unlikely one that would cover the differences in power between 30 and 60 mins.

That said, whatever the definition of LT, the rest of my post still stands.

ric

 

[Paul DeVries]

Lactate threshold is defined as the exercise intensity that results in an abrupt increase in blood lactate concentration. If exercise is maintained above this intensity, blood lactate levels in the body will continue to rise, indicating a progressive increase in stress on the cyclist’s body (even if the workload remains constant). It is this progressive increase in stress that ultimately leads to failure of muscles (this is direct from a textbook)

Your definition is the minimum lactate that is produced by low intensity workouts (lactate <2.5). The above is in fact the definition which is correct that produces an abrupt increase in lactate that ultimately (within 30-60 minutes) requires the athlete to stop or greatly reduce effort. This is what you ride at during TT's or relatively short uphill efforts....

 

[Roadie_scum]

Originally posted by Paul DeVries
Lactate threshold is defined as the exercise intensity that results in an abrupt increase in blood lactate concentration. If exercise is maintained above this intensity, blood lactate levels in the body will continue to rise, indicating a progressive increase in stress on the cyclist’s body (even if the workload remains constant). It is this progressive increase in stress that ultimately leads to failure of muscles (this is direct from a textbook)

Your definition is the minimum lactate that is produced by low intensity workouts (lactate <2.5). The above is in fact the definition which is correct that produces an abrupt increase in lactate that ultimately (within 30-60 minutes) requires the athlete to stop or greatly reduce effort. This is what you ride at during TT's or relatively short uphill efforts....

Seriously dude, you should trust Ric on this one. He knows what he's talking about. When it comes to the science, ric always knows... There are a few different plausible definitions for LT, but what you're talking about isn't one of them. You are describing something like mean lactate steady state threshold, which, arguably, is not sufficiently well defined to constitute a scientific measure.