Training: How long in what ? Which ? Zone ?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
Everybody at some time on some string has had their input into cycle training regimes. Since then I seen a few posts on “overtraining” and “ what should I be doing” etc.....

So I thought it would be useful to set some sort of loose ground rule here for all..

Now some will have a longer training history and will possibly do more then most and some of us old guys might need more recovery after heavy sessions....anyway back to the point...

Now if a coach jumps in here and gives good advice we’ll love you for it but in the same breath we understand this is your livelihood and you don’t want to give away for free what others are paying good money for...so.

For all us newbies; On a weekly basis; How long in % terms should we be spending in out base zones ( 65-70% max heart rate)

And on a weekly basis; how long in % terms should we be spending above our Anaerobic Threshold ( 90% max heart rate)

Now this means the difference is spent in zones between 70% and 90% of max HR, obviously, doing whatever, we’ll go figure.....

the answer will depend on a multitude of factors, e.g., goals, fitness, time available, crank velocity, temperature, etc.

additionally, while there's some differences between individuals for HR %, i can't see much point for trained riders, riding at such a low intensity (65- 70%). that's about my recovery zone, whereas, my endurance zone is about 80% (having said that i *actually* monitor and prescribe by power and not HR).

as for 90%, well that's about (again i really use power) my TT HR, and so spend a fair time there.

ric

Ok, I'll jump in this discussion.

This year my goals and training program have changed considerably from last year. I began cycling last May after a decade of no exercise and a sedentary yet stressful life of working in corporate America for "the man". 😠 After being laid off, downsized or outsourced a half dozen times I decided it wasn't worth the aggrivation so I quit work and started exercising again.

Last year I was into the 5 & 10 mile time trial type thing and was pushing most of my rides into the upper zones frequently hitting 90%+ of MaxHR. Most of these rides were around 45 minutes in duration. However, this proved for me (age 43 at the time) to be too taxing, especially when considering I hadn't done ANY base training. I was using the old bodybuilding paridigm of "no pain, no gain". While that may be fine for bodybuilding, it did more harm than good in the long run. It seems as though I had quite a few respritory problems due to this type of training and my knees ached constantly. Go figure.

This year, however, is quite the opposite of last year's goals and training regimen. I have exercised for a full year now, with the exception of respritory problems and a couple of months this winter after my father passed away, and am doing quite a bit more training in my 65% - 75% MaxHR zones.

I spent Jan & Feb indoors on a stationary bike doing 65% to 70% for about an hour while watching TV. However, when it finally got warm enough to get outside on a real bike I found I was not able to keep my HR that low. On the bike I find myself riding mostly around 76% MaxHR and occasionally (once a week perhaps) just under 80% MaxHR. I'm now up to 90 minutes for my daily rides and 2 Hrs 15 min for my once a week longer ride. I'm now adding 30 minutes per month to my daily rides and 10% a week to my weekly longer ride. By July 2nd I should be up to 5 hours for my long ride.

I usually ride 3 days on and 1 day off. I'm 44 now and find that 6 days in a row is too much for me so I split it up. I would like to be able to do a century per month beginning perhaps in July. I don't ride very fast as compared to most of you guys, but I also weigh 243 LBS (Clydesdale!). Although losing weight would help speed me up (strength to weight ratio) I find that if I reduce my caloric intake I get light headed and my exercise suffers so I eat as much as I feel like. Actually, I've gained weight since last year due to riding and lifting weights while my bodyfat percentage has decreased. This isn't something a person wants to do if they race but I like having 18.5" biceps! 😄 I'm certain the subcutaneous fat will melt off when I am up to 2.5 to 3 hours a day of training.

Ric Stern actually has a pretty good prescription for those who train by heart rate. He has posted it on this forum before so I hope he doesn't mind if I post it again. It's a good read.

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

I would like to say that I've learned a great deal about cycling, training and exercise phisiology in general by reading the posts in this forum. Just remember that my goals are not your goals and that you should gear your training toward what you wish to accomplish. Also, if you're getting a little older, don't be ashamed that you can't mash the pedals like you used to. I used to bench press just over 400 LBS. twenty years ago. However, that isn't me anymore. Even half of that would cause a shoulder injury now.

I think a number of people read articles about what Lance Armstrong or some other great champion is doing and they try to mimic his regimen. However, he has an army of people working with him and besides there are only a few hundred people in the world tops with his kind of genetic potential. I've been guilty of it too when I used to copy Arnold Schwarzenegger's routine. Believe me, unless you are a genetic freak (or on steroids), it's overkill.

Doctor Morbius

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
the answer will depend on a multitude of factors, e.g., goals, fitness, time available, crank velocity, temperature, etc.

additionally, while there's some differences between individuals for HR %, i can't see much point for trained riders, riding at such a low intensity (65- 70%). that's about my recovery zone, whereas, my endurance zone is about 80% (having said that i *actually* monitor and prescribe by power and not HR).

as for 90%, well that's about (again i really use power) my TT HR, and so spend a fair time there.

ric

Thanks for the post, when we can afford it, we'll all get power meters too.. until then we guess and feel. may I be so forward to inquire; in weekly time frame terms and frequency what "fair amount of time there" is ? referring to 90% training zone.

My training has become quite structured, time at different training intensity varies depending in what period I'm in, but up until now I have kept my 90% + training down to about one 10 minute and one 20 minute session in any given week as I'm 55yrs old and have a recovery issue that erodes my overall training volume if I do more. This is not true for everyone, hence this post.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Doctor Morbius
I think a number of people read articles about what Lance Armstrong or some other great champion is doing and they try to mimic his regimen. However, he has an army of people working with him and besides there are only a few hundred people in the world tops with his kind of genetic potential. I've been guilty of it too when I used to copy Arnold Schwarzenegger's routine. Believe me, unless you are a genetic freak (or on steroids), it's overkill.

Doctor Morbius

As ric put it ( even if it is between the lines ) heart rate is very personal, and power is very comparable.

I wanted to add.. that I, and most who still train heart rate zones, usually take % of the working heart rate. That is to say; we test to get max HR, measure our resting HR and subtract one from the other to get our working HR value. We then % that value and add our resting HR back on. This compresses the values up.

This makes more sense, we you read LA is doing 5 hour sessions at 65% MHR. and I might add that's a volume thing.

... if you train less then say 10 hours a week then your overall training intensity is going to be greater then someone who is training 18 hours a week, because in absolute terms.

..."one can train long or one can train hard one can not train long and hard"

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
the answer will depend on a multitude of factors, e.g., goals, fitness, time available, crank velocity, temperature, etc.
ric

I just picked up on the "crank velocity" variance.
.......So if one trains at high intensities ( high heart rate or power ) with a slow pedal action, might I assume there may be some muscle conditioning occurring that is in some ways similar to resistance ( weight) training and more recovery is needed..... then say doing high intensities ( high heart rate or power ) with a fast pedal action ?

edd,

I have been using the Sally Edwards' heart rate zones based on a simple percentage of MaxHR. Last fall I managed to get my HR up to 185 and have been using that as my barometer. I will try this summer to beat that, but until the weather warms up my asthma prevents me from going full monty. :p

I've read in this forum from one of the cycling coaches and from what I gather he bases heart rate zones on Lactate Threshold, which seems to make a great deal of sense, as LT will increase with fitness levels.

So you are using the Karnoven formula? That's a pretty good formula as it takes into account one's resting heart rate, which also changes with fitness levels.

Taking into consideration my MaxHR of 185 and my RestingHR of 58, the 60% to 70% Karnoven values fall amost exactly into the 70% to 80% Sally Edwards' values.

So you suggest I bump my 65% to 70% BASE rides up to 141 to 147 beats per minute (as per Karnoven)? That would seem to make more sense because I know that at 130 beats per minute (70% on SE scale) I hardly feel as though I'm getting a workout.

What HR (given MaxHR = 185) would you suggest I try to complete a first century? Last fall, before my father passed, I was able to do 3 hours of cardio at 155 beats per minute average. Thanks in advance.

Doctor Morbius

[QUOTE]Originally posted by edd
[B]Thanks for the post, when we can afford it, we'll all get power meters too.. until then we guess and feel. may I be so forward to inquire; in weekly time frame terms and frequency what "fair amount of time there" is ? referring to 90% training zone.
[/quote]

it depends on your goals, the current point in the training year, and other factors. currently *every* ride i do (except recovery rides) has me hitting 90+ %

Quoted post said:

My training has become quite structured, time at different training intensity varies depending in what period I'm in, but up until now I have kept my 90% + training down to about one 10 minute and one 20 minute session in any given week as I'm 55yrs old and have a recovery issue that erodes my overall training volume if I do more. This is not true for everyone, hence this post. [/B]

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
I just picked up on the "crank velocity" variance.
.......So if one trains at high intensities ( high heart rate or power ) with a slow pedal action, might I assume there may be some muscle conditioning occurring that is in some ways similar to resistance ( weight) training and more recovery is needed..... then say doing high intensities ( high heart rate or power ) with a fast pedal action ?

no because the forces are still low. you're best training strength, with heavy weights and low reps to build cross sectional area (muscle hypertrophy), not that this is required for endurance cycling performance.

(endurance) cycling requires you to train power output -- it's a direct measure of fitness. virtually anyone can meet and exceed the sustainable power of elite TdF pros (of course there are exceptions). in terms of strength, elite cyclists are no stronger than age, gender and mass matched healthy controls.

i tend to find that within reason, it's not the low cadence that slows recovery but the actual power you produce. in other words most peoples recovery seems to be similar or the same whether they pedal at low or high cadence at the same power, from session to session.

ric

[QUOTE]Originally posted by edd
[B]I wanted to add.. that I, and most who still train heart rate zones, usually take % of the working heart rate. That is to say; we test to get max HR, measure our resting HR and subtract one from the other to get our working HR value. We then % that value and add our resting HR back on. This compresses the values up.
[/quote]

the trouble with this is that if your resting HR increases, e.g., if you're fatigued or ill, your training zones go up, rather than needing to go down...

Quoted post said:

This makes more sense, we you read LA is doing 5 hour sessions at 65% MHR. and I might add that's a volume thing.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
the trouble with this is that if your resting HR increases, e.g., if you're fatigued or ill, your training zones go up, rather than needing to go down...
ric

good point, however if I'm fatigued I usually just train in an easier zone.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
.........as i mentioned to someone else who wanted to know why i suggested this was a very low zone and not worth training at, is the average is reduced by periods of coasting (dowhills, corners, etc). in other words even when i train at the approximate equivalent of 80% HRmax, my actual mean HR is closer to this 65% due to recovery downhill etc.
additionally, and while i'm not sure on the exact methodolgy employed by LA's coaches, it's a) done by power, and b) when it was done by HR articles suggest it was done strictly on HRmax.

ric

What I read on the CTS site was that LA was actuall doing 5 hour sessions on an indoor trainer at a specified cadence ( 110) and power output that equated to 65% of his max heart rate. It did not elaborate on whether this was some sort of recovery or preparation phase or not . I thought this odd when I read it too. Might have something to do with extraordinary volumes of work ?

90% max HR...... if I hit 90%+ in every training session I did, after about two weeks, I get stiffness in the knees. However if I keep it just a couple of beats below my An.T. This does not occur even when I up the volume of work ?

So it is really important to listen to what the coaches have to say, but it is equally important to listen to one's body as well !

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
no because the forces are still low. you're best training strength, with heavy weights and low reps to build cross sectional area (muscle hypertrophy), not that this is required for endurance cycling performance.

(endurance) cycling requires you to train power output -- it's a direct measure of fitness. virtually anyone can meet and exceed the sustainable power of elite TdF pros (of course there are exceptions). in terms of strength, elite cyclists are no stronger than age, gender and mass matched healthy controls.

i tend to find that within reason, it's not the low cadence that slows recovery but the actual power you produce. in other words most peoples recovery seems to be similar or the same whether they pedal at low or high cadence at the same power, from session to session.

ric

You said this before and I believe every word. This does not change the fact that some interval set cause some hypertrophy.... my legs got bigger after a month of 30 sec intervals ? Didn't help my endurance of sustained power output, okay.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Doctor Morbius
edd,

I have been using the Sally Edwards' heart rate zones based on a simple percentage of MaxHR. Last fall I managed to get my HR up to 185 and have been using that as my barometer. I will try this summer to beat that, but until the weather warms up my asthma prevents me from going full monty. :p

I've read in this forum from one of the cycling coaches and from what I gather he bases heart rate zones on Lactate Threshold, which seems to make a great deal of sense, as LT will increase with fitness levels.

So you are using the Karnoven formula? That's a pretty good formula as it takes into account one's resting heart rate, which also changes with fitness levels.

Taking into consideration my MaxHR of 185 and my RestingHR of 58, the 60% to 70% Karnoven values fall amost exactly into the 70% to 80% Sally Edwards' values.

So you suggest I bump my 65% to 70% BASE rides up to 141 to 147 beats per minute (as per Karnoven)? That would seem to make more sense because I know that at 130 beats per minute (70% on SE scale) I hardly feel as though I'm getting a workout.

What HR (given MaxHR = 185) would you suggest I try to complete a first century? Last fall, before my father passed, I was able to do 3 hours of cardio at 155 beats per minute average. Thanks in advance.

Doctor Morbius

If you just read ric's posts, regardless of formula I'd bump the base up, yeah !

As for comp HR, that's something you are going to have to go figure.
Don't ask me I go out and blow myself up all the time.... but I'm learning not to do that.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
You said this before and I believe every word. This does not change the fact that some interval set cause some hypertrophy.... my legs got bigger after a month of 30 sec intervals ? Didn't help my endurance of sustained power output, okay.

i'm not being funny, but why would you think 30-sec intervals would help your sustained power or endurance? (unless you did like 40-mins worth, with 30-sec recoveries between them)

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
i'm not being funny, but why would you think 30-sec intervals would help your sustained power or endurance? (unless you did like 40-mins worth, with 30-sec recoveries between them)

ric

I did say it would, I didn't think anything, hey, for a month, we just did them.

They consisted of 5 x 4 minute blocks with 2 minute recoveries. each 4 minute block consisted of 30 seconds at high intensity then 30 seconds at all out effort. We did these on stationary bikes ( spin bikes ). Having warmed up, we put the resistance way up climbed out of the saddle for 30 seconds at about 65 cad then sat and churned out anything up to 90 cad in the saddle on the same resistance. We didn't always get to the end of the 30 seconds. then back up into the 65 cad standing climb , repeated for four minutes then recovery.

30 min all up.

Very, very hard intervals.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
I did say it would, I didn't think anything, hey, for a month, we just did them.

They consisted of 5 x 4 minute blocks with 2 minute recoveries. each 4 minute block consisted of 30 seconds at high intensity then 30 seconds at all out effort. We did these on stationary bikes ( spin bikes ). Having warmed up, we put the resistance way up climbed out of the saddle for 30 seconds at about 65 cad then sat and churned out anything up to 90 cad in the saddle on the same resistance. We didn't always get to the end of the 30 seconds. then back up into the 65 cad standing climb , repeated for four minutes then recovery.

30 min all up.

Very, very hard intervals.

i've no real idea what a spin bike is... however, the harder you train the more you need to ride your *race* bike to do such intervals, as adaptations occur at the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained.

certainly, it sounds like a hard block of training, however, with such a system of work intervals it's likely that power was quite moderate (for yourself) after the first couple of intervals. with lots of 30secs on/off your body can't really recover, and thus power starts dropping (even though it can feel very hard). this is what i was alluding to in my previous post.

personally, i prefer to do either a sustained interval, either 4 or 5 mins or a long block (15 to 30-mins) to improve aerobic performance. on the other hand, if i feel good for attacking in a road race i might do a few sessions of 30-secs all-out, with long recoveries between to work on my anaerobic work capacity. however, i think of this as very fine tuning, and only bother to do these if my aerobic engine is in tip top shape (i.e., VO2max, LT, TT power).

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
i've no real idea what a spin bike is... however, the harder you train the more you need to ride your *race* bike to do such intervals, as adaptations occur at the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained.

certainly, it sounds like a hard block of training, however, with such a system of work intervals it's likely that power was quite moderate (for yourself) after the first couple of intervals. with lots of 30secs on/off your body can't really recover, and thus power starts dropping (even though it can feel very hard). this is what i was alluding to in my previous post.

personally, i prefer to do either a sustained interval, either 4 or 5 mins or a long block (15 to 30-mins) to improve aerobic performance. on the other hand, if i feel good for attacking in a road race i might do a few sessions of 30-secs all-out, with long recoveries between to work on my anaerobic work capacity. however, i think of this as very fine tuning, and only bother to do these if my aerobic engine is in tip top shape (i.e., VO2max, LT, TT power).

ric

I do the longer intervals you suggest about half to 3/4 through a programe but tapper to doing 20 - 30 seconds on with 20 - 30 seconds off in blocks during my "sharpening" stage. Noting of course I am a track rider. I only do the short intervals for a max of 3 - 4 weeks.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
i've no real idea what a spin bike is... however, the harder you train the more you need to ride your *race* bike to do such intervals, as adaptations occur at the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained.
ric

A spin bike is a stationary bike that is used in gyms for the GP in group indoor fitness rides. I teach these classes and have compiled class formats that fit into my personal training programme. I do this with a bunch of participants who train along with me. The bike is set up exactly like my road bike.. to the millimetre.

In oz we are blessed / cursed with some big hills, I should say steep as they are all about 2 to 6k in length, but some are very steep. I'm pushing a 23 cassette at the moment on a 39 ring and some of the hills are a serious test.

I have no choice but to slow the cadence down or blow up. In this period of my training we ride a lot of hills. This also has some hypertrophy effect. It's not what I'm aiming at but I noticed my thighs getting bigger, still, after we stopped the short interval thing.
And next day recovery feels just like I’ve over done a pyramid squat session.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
personally, i prefer to do either a sustained interval, either 4 or 5 mins or a long block (15 to 30-mins) to improve aerobic performance. on the other hand, if i feel good for attacking in a road race i might do a few sessions of 30-secs all-out, with long recoveries between to work on my anaerobic work capacity. however, i think of this as very fine tuning, and only bother to do these if my aerobic engine is in tip top shape (i.e., VO2max, LT, TT power).

ric

We do something similar with minor variations, ie: 2 x 20 min blocks, 1 x 30 min block, 3 x 8 min, 5 x 4 min, pretty well all year round. At least one of these, once a fortnight to as many as three of them in any given week.

I'm not even considering racing until spring (six months away )

I'm a bit confused at your post re 90% everytime you ride ( at the moment )
and the "30-secs all-out, with long recoveries between to work on my anaerobic work capacity. however, i think of this as very fine tuning, and only bother to do these if my aerobic engine is in tip top shape" statement ?

I'd really like someone to step up and explain what is meant by TT power and equate it roughly to HR.

Because as far as I can fathom a TT can be anything from 10 minutes to 60 minutes and obviously there would be some minor variation in the intensity.

At the efforts required, minor variation can mean a lot.