Trainer Questions

The trainer is a constant load. In the real world we get little variations that switch muscle groups
just enough to spread out the effort a bit. There are also things to think about, i.e., dogs, cars ,
debris, all of which take our feeble minds off the pain of the moment.

All three variations which you mention are good. You should also mix up some work outs. Warm-up, do
5 minutes at your normal training HR then one minute at a sustainable hard effort sitting, 5 minutes
at THR then 1 minute hard out of the saddle. Do 5 minutes at THR out of the saddle. Do what ever
feels right to mix it up and get the work done. Set up some intervals just as you would in the pool
or track. Make you time and effort pay off.

I'll hit the road tomorrow for 4 hours but know the time is coming when the temp will get down into
the 60's so I better think about setting up the CT.

Ken

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

Quoted message said:

It's that time of year again were I end up spending most of my bike time on the trainer. This
year, as is every year I end up with two issues.

1) Although my effort feels similar to road riding, based purely on percieved effort and leg
fatigue over time, my HR is considerably lower during the rides at the same cadence. Cranking
up the HR to more closely match what occurs in a real ride via resistance causes me to wear out
early. I would assume this is caused by the trainer actually causing higher resistance than
real world. I have a couple of options and was wonder what would be the better approach.
a) Ride shorter at same HR and cadence
b) ride long at higher cadence lower resistance same HR
c) Ride long at lower HR, Same cadence

Any thoughts?

2) Yea old Numb nuts. I've gone on 4-6 hour rides on the road without issue, yet 45 minutes on the
trainer and apparently all blood flow is cut off. I'm on the same bike, by all measurements I
can see, in the same position, yet the only time I have the problem is on the trainer.

Anybody else run into this?

~Matt

Quoted message said:

2) Yea old Numb nuts. I've gone on 4-6 hour rides on the road without issue, yet 45 minutes on the
trainer and apparently all blood flow is cut off. I'm on the same bike, by all measurements I
can see, in the same position, yet the only time I have the problem is on the trainer.

Anybody else run into this?

A lurker comes out... There are at least a couple of factors that make numbness more of an issue on
a trainer. One, you don't have wind resistance helping to support your body weight. Two, on the road
you're always making subtle shifts to steer through corners, go down hills, etc. Sure, most folks
stand occasionally on the trainer to get some relief, but those constant changes in pressure points
typically aren't there. Just my two cents... Wes Roanoke, VA

IMKen said:

The trainer is a constant load. In the real world we get little variations that switch muscle
groups just enough to spread out the effort a bit. There are also things to think about, i.e.,
dogs, cars , debris, all of which take our feeble minds off the pain of the moment.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

All three variations which you mention are good.

But which would more correctly simulate a typical "long" aerobic ride.

Quoted message said:

You should also mix up some work outs. Warm-up, do 5 minutes at your normal training HR then one
minute at a sustainable hard effort sitting, 5 minutes at THR then 1 minute hard out of the saddle.
Do 5 minutes at THR out of the saddle. Do what ever feels right to mix it up and get the work done.
Set up some intervals just as you would in the pool or track. Make you time and effort pay off.

I only have this issue for my weekly "long" ride. I do other workouts throughout the week that
include intervals, tempo and hill type work. The issue I'm having is trying to simulate the long
ride. Of course mind numbing boredom is an issue also, but lately I've been making my movie rental
selections based on the weekends long ride time.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

I'll hit the road tomorrow for 4 hours but know the time is coming when the temp will get down
into the 60's so I better think about setting up the CT.

Ken

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

Quoted message said:

It's that time of year again were I end up spending most of my bike time on the trainer.
This year, as is every year I end up with two issues.

1) Although my effort feels similar to road riding, based purely on percieved effort and leg
fatigue over time, my HR is considerably lower during the rides at the same cadence.
Cranking up the HR to more closely match what occurs in a real ride via resistance causes
me to wear out early. I would assume this is caused by the trainer actually causing higher
resistance than real world. I have a couple of options and was wonder what would be the
better approach.
a) Ride shorter at same HR and cadence
b) ride long at higher cadence lower resistance same HR
c) Ride long at lower HR, Same cadence

Any thoughts?

2) Yea old Numb nuts. I've gone on 4-6 hour rides on the road without issue, yet 45 minutes on
the trainer and apparently all blood flow is cut off. I'm on the same bike, by all
measurements I can see, in the same position, yet the only time I have the problem is on
the trainer.

Anybody else run into this?

~Matt

(Wesley Best) said:

Quoted message said:

2) Yea old Numb nuts. I've gone on 4-6 hour rides on the road without issue, yet 45 minutes on the
trainer and apparently all blood flow is cut off. I'm on the same bike, by all measurements I
can see, in the same position, yet the only time I have the problem is on the trainer.

Anybody else run into this?

A lurker comes out... There are at least a couple of factors that make numbness more of an issue on
a trainer. One, you don't have wind resistance helping to support your body weight. Two, on the
road you're always making subtle shifts to steer through corners, go down hills, etc. Sure, most
folks stand occasionally on the trainer to get some relief, but those constant changes in pressure
points typically aren't there. Just my two cents... Wes Roanoke, VA

I was wondering if and adjustment of some sort would help with this issue, lower or raising
the front wheel maybey|? If not I'll just have to remember to get up move around more.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All three variations which you mention are good.

But which would more correctly simulate a typical "long" aerobic ride.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1) Although my effort feels similar to road riding, based purely on percieved effort and leg
fatigue over time, my HR is considerably lower during the rides at the same cadence.
Cranking up the HR to more closely match what occurs in a real ride via resistance causes me
to wear out early. I would assume this is caused by the trainer actually causing higher
resistance than real world. I have a couple of options and was wonder what would be the
better approach.
a) Ride shorter at same HR and cadence
b) ride long at higher cadence lower resistance same HR
c) Ride long at lower HR, Same cadence

It would help to know what your actual cadence and HR were to make a meaninful input. I work at a
rather high HR for my age. Often averaging 150's for 3 or 4 hours. That is 85% plus. Not the
recommended place to be but it seems to work for me. When I run I perceive the same effort at about
140 BPM but can sustain the 150's which seems very uncomfortable until about 40 minutes out. I have
achieved the same max of 178 in both. Perception can full us. It's somewhat dependant on our
surroundings. With the adrenaline flowing we get immune to it.

I can only assume that you are generating lactic acid which is why you wear out early. If so then b)
would be the logical choice closely followed by
c) with the addition of lower resistance to make it work if you cadence is in a good zone.

Hell, just go try to discover what works for you. You might end up starting with option a) and
increasing distance/time with improved fitness adaptation.

Ken

IMKen said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All three variations which you mention are good.

But which would more correctly simulate a typical "long" aerobic ride.

Quoted message said:

> 1) Although my effort feels similar to road riding, based purely on percieved effort and leg
> fatigue over time, my HR is considerably lower during the rides at the same cadence.
> Cranking up the HR to more closely match what occurs in a real ride via resistance causes
> me to wear out early. I would assume this is caused by the trainer actually causing higher
> resistance than real world. I have a couple of options and was wonder what would be the
> better approach.
> a) Ride shorter at same HR and cadence
> b) ride long at higher cadence lower resistance same HR
> c) Ride long at lower HR, Same cadence

It would help to know what your actual cadence and HR were to make a meaninful input. I work at a
rather high HR for my age. Often averaging 150's for 3 or 4 hours. That is 85% plus. Not the
recommended place to be but it seems to work for me. When I run I perceive the same effort at about
140 BPM but can sustain the 150's which seems very uncomfortable until about 40 minutes out. I have
achieved the same max of 178 in both. Perception can full us. It's somewhat dependant on our
surroundings. With the adrenaline flowing we get immune to it.

Typically on a long road ride I run a HR of 125-140 at appr 90 cadence, excludeing major
hills. I can ususally hold this HR with no problem for 4+ hours. On the trainer holding a
cadence of 90 I can only get the HR up to 115-120 even towards the end of 21/2-3hr ride. If
I increase the resistance the HR goes up but I'm unable to hold that level for 2+ hrs. I can
lessen the resistance and get my HR up to 125-130 but my cadence then goes up to 100 or so.

Quoted message said:

I can only assume that you are generating lactic acid which is why you wear out early. If so then
b) would be the logical choice closely followed by
c) with the addition of lower resistance to make it work if you cadence is in a good zone.

I beleive it must be a strength issue vs an aerobic issue. Running at lower cadences and
higher resistance, in my understanding, will generally not raise ones HR as high as the
opposite. However it does improve the strength issue, like weight lifting on the bike. In
the case of the high resistance and lower cadence it is also my understanding that HR is not
a good indicator of effort level.

Quoted message said:

Hell, just go try to discover what works for you. You might end up starting with option a) and
increasing distance/time with improved fitness adaptation.

You may be exactly correct here. My limiting factor on the bike is probably
strength/muscular endurance not aerobic capacity as I can/have hit 180+ on the bike, but can
only hold it for short periods of time. I suspect as you mentioned earlier all are good
options. Mabey I'll spend this winter working on the lower cadence stuff at at lower HR for
my longer rides. I still have my other shorter rides for other systems.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Ken

The data that you are missing is power output -- you would be really well-served by riding a
CompuTrainer to measure your power in terms of Watts (in real-time, average, and max) during your
focused intervals.

Power output is the best indicator of intensity on a bike, not HR.

I'm actually going to extend my CT-based power training to the road next year & invest in a Power
Tap to gather that data. That way I'll be able to compare my sustained power on a CompuTrainer to my
sustained power out on the road. I'm hoping to learn more about the relationship between my indoor
interval sessions & how they translate into faster sustained rides outside.

Have fun indoors this winter -- looks like another tough one out here!

-Mike

MJuric said:

IMKen said:

Quoted message said:

>All three variations which you mention are good.

But which would more correctly simulate a typical "long" aerobic ride.

>>1) Although my effort feels similar to road riding, based purely on percieved effort and leg
>> fatigue over time, my HR is considerably lower during the rides at the same cadence.
>> Cranking up the HR to more closely match what occurs in a real ride via resistance causes me
>> to wear out early. I would assume this is caused by the trainer actually causing higher
>> resistance than real world. I have a couple of options and was wonder what would be the
>> better approach.
>>a) Ride shorter at same HR and cadence
>>b) ride long at higher cadence lower resistance same HR
>>c) Ride long at lower HR, Same cadence
>

It would help to know what your actual cadence and HR were to make a meaninful input. I work at a
rather high HR for my age. Often averaging 150's for 3 or 4 hours. That is 85% plus. Not the
recommended place to be but it seems to work for me. When I run I perceive the same effort at
about 140 BPM but can sustain the 150's which seems very uncomfortable until about 40 minutes out.
I have achieved the same max of 178 in both. Perception can full us. It's somewhat dependant on
our surroundings. With the adrenaline flowing we get immune to it.

Typically on a long road ride I run a HR of 125-140 at appr 90 cadence, excludeing major
hills. I can ususally hold this HR with no problem for 4+ hours. On the trainer holding a
cadence of 90 I can only get the HR up to 115-120 even towards the end of 21/2-3hr ride. If
I increase the resistance the HR goes up but I'm unable to hold that level for 2+ hrs. I can
lessen the resistance and get my HR up to 125-130 but my cadence then goes up to 100 or so.

Quoted message said:

I can only assume that you are generating lactic acid which is why you wear out early. If so then
b) would be the logical choice closely followed by
c) with the addition of lower resistance to make it work if you cadence is in a good zone.

I beleive it must be a strength issue vs an aerobic issue. Running at lower cadences and
higher resistance, in my understanding, will generally not raise ones HR as high as the
opposite. However it does improve the strength issue, like weight lifting on the bike. In
the case of the high resistance and lower cadence it is also my understanding that HR is not
a good indicator of effort level.

Quoted message said:

Hell, just go try to discover what works for you. You might end up starting with option a) and
increasing distance/time with improved fitness adaptation.

You may be exactly correct here. My limiting factor on the bike is probably
strength/muscular endurance not aerobic capacity as I can/have hit 180+ on the bike, but can
only hold it for short periods of time. I suspect as you mentioned earlier all are good
options. Mabey I'll spend this winter working on the lower cadence stuff at at lower HR for
my longer rides. I still have my other shorter rides for other systems.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Ken