Cycling Training · Public discussion

what to do now?

Started by Simone@Italy · · Last activity · 26 posts · 2,422 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Training
Published
27 March 2008
Last activity
2 April 2008
Original author
Simone@Italy
Posts
26
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,422
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 26
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Hi there,
    straight to the point: this year, to come back to the last summer's fitness level, I decided to try those 2x20' @ L4, since I've only 60-70 minutes of light for my workouts.

    In the first workouts, my HR was 175-180 bpm (I was using PT for reference, but I was looking at my HR too), and this seemed consistent with the threshold HR I estimated the last year. If I understood correctly, this value should remain almost constant even if my FTP raises (is it true?). Yesterday, after 3' of the first interval, my HR was 160, and 10' later it was 165, where it stayed near till the end (I usually don't do 2x20' but 2x[18' @95% and 2' @110%] ). The HR was consistent with my perceived effort, since it didn't seem to me like a great cardiovascular effort, but then I didn't feel that my legs were able to sustain a greather effort either. In other words, it seems that the limiter is now muscular rather than cardiovascular (VO2Max?)

    At any rate, what would you do now if you were me?
    - train @ lower cadences to raise muscular power? maybe some hill training?
    - try some 5 x 5' @ 110% FTP?
    - stick with the 2x20' @ FTP?
    - other ideas?

    thank you in advance

  2. Simone@Italy said:

    ... it seems that the limiter is now muscular rather than cardiovascular (VO2Max?)...

    After the first five or six weeks of training the limiter is almost always muscular. Heart stroke volume and increased red blood cell count are both very early adaptations to training. Long term adaptations include increased mitochondrial density, increased capillary density, and recruitment of additional muscle fibers. These changes all take place in and around the working muscles. IOW, the really important adaptations that lead to long term power increases aren't centralized to the heart and lungs, they include those systems but have a lot more to do with what's going on in the muscles of interest(your legs).

    Quoted post said:

    - train @ lower cadences to raise muscular power? maybe some hill training?..

    Train hills if you want/need to improve on hills. For instance if your races/rides will include a lot of climbing. But there's no magic in hills that will encourage the appropriate training adaptations better than flat riding at appropriate intensities.

    Quoted post said:

    - try some 5 x 5' @ 110% FTP?...

    Perhaps some focused VO2 Max work might help. That represents a "pull up" approach to raising sustainable power. Personally I hold off on VO2 Max work until I'm within 6 to 8 weeks of important races. I simply can't do as much total work at that level, the workouts themselves are mentally and physically harder and I tend to need more recovery before I'm ready to train hard again. So moving to L5 work too soon costs me over all training load.

    Quoted post said:

    - stick with the 2x20' @ FTP?...

    Well from your description I'd stick with SST and L4 work. That might be 2x20s if that's your preferred way to train SST and L4. Personally I've moved away from pure 2x20 work. I do some efforts for that duration from time to time but I prefer longer SST efforts in the half hour to hour plus range. I might do straight 20 minute efforts on my hardest L4 day but then follow it with a day backed off a bit but with the intervals stretched to 45 minutes or more and then back off on the third day of a block to high Tempo work and hold it for an hour to an hour and a half. I've just found I seem to build power better and get more total training load with longer efforts. The 2x20s are still good to press the limits of L4 power but I've found my overall progress is better if I don't do that too often.

    Remember, it's not about pure muscle strength. That point often gets lost when our legs hurt so badly during a high power effort. But even Lance in his prime only pedaled up big climbs with 50 to 60 pounds per pedal stroke peak force. But he did it at 90-110 times per minute continuously for as long as it took. Can you walk up a flight of stairs? If you can and you're an average adult male you're lifting a lot more than 50 to 60 pounds with each step.

    The reason we can't put out TDF winning power isn't our strength, it's our ability to rapidly convert fuels to power so that our muscles can keep putting out that submaximal force 90-110 times per minute for an hour or more at a shot. That translates to metabolic fitness, not pure strength. You'll develop that metabolic fitness with hard but not necessarily maximal intervals that make you work, get you breathing deeply and that you sustain for at least 10 minutes per effort.

    Don't get hung up in the strength myths and start pedaling at 10 rpm up big hills or hang up your bike for the weight room. If you want to get more powerful then ride your bike with focused submaximal efforts, the longer the sustained individual efforts the better as long as they get you breathing deeply and steadily for the duration. Exchanging a lot of O2 during these efforts is a really good sign that you're stressing your metabolic fitness. Oh yeah, don't worry about HR. I know you said you pace on your PT, but some days HR will be low for the effort, some days higher it gets influenced by a lot of factors but doesn't necessarily mean you are more or less fit on a given day.

    Good luck,
    -Dave

  3. This is just a suggestion, not a criticism, but I wouldn't take one day's HR deviation from the average as having a great significance to your physical improvement. An even more aggressive suggestion would be to ignore your training HR as a way of eliminating one source of distraction while you focus on PE and the power data.

    Simone@Italy said:

    - other ideas?


    Keep steady pressure on that aerobic development, while you gradually add event-specific efforts (ie, targetted toward your key events) into your routine. Nice job, keep up the great work! 🙂

  4. daveryanwyoming said:


    Good luck,
    -Dave

    Thank you for your insightful post, maybe I'll follow your (and frenchyge) advice and will throw the HRM away 🙂

    to frenchyge: the HR deviation is not of one day, but it's a result of an almost constant trend. Yesterday I payed it only a little more attention than the other times.

    One question though: why many cycling training book (every book I read, at least) describe and recommend muscular tension intervals at lower cadence if cycling is really all about metabolic fitness?

  5. Simone@Italy said:

    to frenchyge: the HR deviation is not of one day, but it's a result of an almost constant trend. Yesterday I payed it only a little more attention than the other times.


    If you're using the same cadence over the entire period, and you're PE is tracking downward with your HR trend, then that's probably good news. I'd suggest tweaking the power target up a little or extending the interval duration a little (probably the former, for you, since you are constrained by daylight) to see if you can still hang. That's what I meant by saying to keep steady pressure on that upward aerobic development.

  6. frenchyge said:

    If you're using the same cadence over the entire period, and you're PE is tracking downward with your HR trend, then that's probably good news. I'd suggest tweaking the power target up a little or extending the interval duration a little (probably the former, for you, since you are constrained by daylight) to see if you can still hang. That's what I meant by saying to keep steady pressure on that upward aerobic development.


    the cadence was around 90 rpm, and surely the PE was lower.. maybe it's time to do another FTP test 🙂

  7. Simone@Italy said:

    One question though: why many cycling training book (every book I read, at least) describe and recommend muscular tension intervals at lower cadence if cycling is really all about metabolic fitness?

    Because of the reasons Dave described - People conclude that because it feels hard, so it must be that I am not strong enough. That, and the author(s) haven't actually done (or seen) the math calculations to determine how much force a rider is actually presenting to the pedals during anything other than a sprint.

    I'm not aware of any true research that says that this muscle tension stuff has any benefit over work at a higher (normal) cadence, at least for aerobic development.

  8. Steve_B said:

    ... That, and the author(s) haven't actually done (or seen) the math calculations to determine how much force a rider is actually presenting to the pedals during anything other than a sprint.....

    I'd agree it's a combo of common sense feel and that coaches/authors haven't looked at the data. Here's a screenshot from a short effort during a race last season. It only took 49.5 nm of crank torque to average over 460 watts at 88 rpm. It would have taken even less force to hold the same power at a higher cadence. 49.5 nm of crank torque translates to less than 30 kg force or less than 65 pounds per pedal stroke with my 172.5 mm cranks. No I can't sustain this kind of power for very long, I'd be riding protours if I could, but it's not my muscle strength that's holding me back. I'm limited by my ability to continually fuel my working muscles and that's another way of saying metabolic fitness.

    Take a look at your own power files and see what kind of forces you're putting out during sustained peak power efforts of various durations. Divide crank torque by crank length in meters to get Newtons of force and divide that by 9.8 to get kilograms. Sure that's average crank torque and peaks will be higher but that's another discussion and better handled with quadrant analysis.

    -Dave
    P.S. Check out these articles on why strength training and specifically low cadence work may not give you the results you'd expect:
    home.earthlink.netid4.html
    home.earthlink.netsetraining

  9. daveryanwyoming said:

    After the first five or six weeks of training the limiter is almost always muscular. Heart stroke volume and increased red blood cell count are both very early adaptations to training. Long term adaptations include increased mitochondrial density, increased capillary density, and recruitment of additional muscle fibers. These changes all take place in and around the working muscles. IOW, the really important adaptations that lead to long term power increases aren't centralized to the heart and lungs, they include those systems but have a lot more to do with what's going on in the muscles of interest(your legs).

    Train hills if you want/need to improve on hills. For instance if your races/rides will include a lot of climbing. But there's no magic in hills that will encourage the appropriate training adaptations better than flat riding at appropriate intensities.
    Perhaps some focused VO2 Max work might help. That represents a "pull up" approach to raising sustainable power. Personally I hold off on VO2 Max work until I'm within 6 to 8 weeks of important races. I simply can't do as much total work at that level, the workouts themselves are mentally and physically harder and I tend to need more recovery before I'm ready to train hard again. So moving to L5 work too soon costs me over all training load.
    Well from your description I'd stick with SST and L4 work. That might be 2x20s if that's your preferred way to train SST and L4. Personally I've moved away from pure 2x20 work. I do some efforts for that duration from time to time but I prefer longer SST efforts in the half hour to hour plus range. I might do straight 20 minute efforts on my hardest L4 day but then follow it with a day backed off a bit but with the intervals stretched to 45 minutes or more and then back off on the third day of a block to high Tempo work and hold it for an hour to an hour and a half. I've just found I seem to build power better and get more total training load with longer efforts. The 2x20s are still good to press the limits of L4 power but I've found my overall progress is better if I don't do that too often.

    Remember, it's not about pure muscle strength. That point often gets lost when our legs hurt so badly during a high power effort. But even Lance in his prime only pedaled up big climbs with 50 to 60 pounds per pedal stroke peak force. But he did it at 90-110 times per minute continuously for as long as it took. Can you walk up a flight of stairs? If you can and you're an average adult male you're lifting a lot more than 50 to 60 pounds with each step.

    The reason we can't put out TDF winning power isn't our strength, it's our ability to rapidly convert fuels to power so that our muscles can keep putting out that submaximal force 90-110 times per minute for an hour or more at a shot. That translates to metabolic fitness, not pure strength. You'll develop that metabolic fitness with hard but not necessarily maximal intervals that make you work, get you breathing deeply and that you sustain for at least 10 minutes per effort.

    Don't get hung up in the strength myths and start pedaling at 10 rpm up big hills or hang up your bike for the weight room. If you want to get more powerful then ride your bike with focused submaximal efforts, the longer the sustained individual efforts the better as long as they get you breathing deeply and steadily for the duration. Exchanging a lot of O2 during these efforts is a really good sign that you're stressing your metabolic fitness. Oh yeah, don't worry about HR. I know you said you pace on your PT, but some days HR will be low for the effort, some days higher it gets influenced by a lot of factors but doesn't necessarily mean you are more or less fit on a given day.

    Good luck,
    -Dave

    nice post Dave. I haven't been on here much lately but it seems we are still training pretty much alike :-) I'm still waiting for the shoulders of the roads to re-appear so it's still Computrainer all the way for me

    regards,

  10. daveryanwyoming said:

    I'd agree it's a combo of common sense feel and that coaches/authors haven't looked at the data. Here's a screenshot from a short effort during a race last season. It only took 49.5 nm of crank torque to average over 460 watts at 88 rpm. It would have taken even less force to hold the same power at a higher cadence. 49.5 nm of crank torque translates to less than 30 kg force or less than 65 pounds per pedal stroke with my 172.5 mm cranks. No I can't sustain this kind of power for very long, I'd be riding protours if I could, but it's not my muscle strength that's holding me back. I'm limited by my ability to continually fuel my working muscles and that's another way of saying metabolic fitness.

    Take a look at your own power files and see what kind of forces you're putting out during sustained peak power efforts of various durations. Divide crank torque by crank length in meters to get Newtons of force and divide that by 9.8 to get kilograms. Sure that's average crank torque and peaks will be higher but that's another discussion and better handled with quadrant analysis.

    -Dave
    P.S. Check out these articles on why strength training and specifically low cadence work may not give you the results you'd expect:
    home.earthlink.netid4.html
    home.earthlink.netsetraining


    Very interesting articles.. the only thing that sounds strange to me is to hear that all those coaches have got it wrong. Even myself I'm feeling that the strength workouts I'm currently doing at the gym traslates to a better feeling while cycling, at least at lower cadences ( < 90 rpm ). Is it just suggestion? Couldn't it be that bigger muscle are more able to process ATP that smaller/less powerful ones? I'm just throwing in hypotesis ... I'm kinda ignorant in the metabolic fitness department 🙂

  11. Simone@Italy said:

    Very interesting articles.. the only thing that sounds strange to me is to hear that all those coaches have got it wrong. Even myself I'm feeling that the strength workouts I'm currently doing at the gym traslates to a better feeling while cycling, at least at lower cadences ( < 90 rpm ). Is it just suggestion? Couldn't it be that bigger muscle are more able to process ATP that smaller/less powerful ones? I'm just throwing in hypotesis ... I'm kinda ignorant in the metabolic fitness department 🙂


    I am curious about this too. a teammate of mine has been lifting heavy weights in the gym over the winter, as he is convinced that he lacks explosivity (he is so skinny he needs top put stones in his pockets on a windy day)

    he is convinced that he is sprinting harder, feels stronger and that it has made a real difference. Even though we are now in season, he still does this every monday, which i think is real dumb, as we race on sunday. He takes training instruction from a guy who is involved with the training of the Dutch track squad, who is way into weight training.

    I keep on telling him that there is no evidence that weight training helps (and that in season it's crazy), but he is totally convinced, and he is in fact the only guy on the team to have finished a crit so far this season.....

  12. Simone@Italy said:

    Very interesting articles.. the only thing that sounds strange to me is to hear that all those coaches have got it wrong.

    Careful how far you blow things into 'right' or 'wrong'. Even riding at 30 rpm is still 'riding' and it's also still valuable aerobic work if done for sufficient duration and at appropriate power levels. If you do it a lot, then your aerobic power production will still improve. The athletes and coaches involved will still feel like stronger (more powerful) riders for their effort, and they will be.

    So, their prescription is not necessarily 'wrong' even though it may not be working in the way they assume and may even be marginally less-effective than another mode of work.

    The comments here shouldn't be taken to suggest that another method is necessarily 'wrong', as much as to say that there doesn't seem to be any additional benefit in doing your work that specific way (and therefore, no reason to do it in a 'gimicky' way).

  13. BullGod said:

    I am curious about this too. a teammate of mine has been lifting heavy weights in the gym over the winter, as he is convinced that he lacks explosivity (he is so skinny he needs top put stones in his pockets on a windy day)

    he is convinced that he is sprinting harder, feels stronger and that it has made a real difference.


    Same as my comments above. Sprinting is one of the areas that this forum has universally acknowledged as gaining benefit from weight training for muscular hypertrophy.

    Understandably, it's hard to make clear to some folks why weight training is not beneficial in an aerobic way without the threads eventually sounding like a chant of "all wrong, all the time." There are exceptions, but typically not the ones people expect.

  14. Simone@Italy said:

    .. the only thing that sounds strange to me is to hear that all those coaches have got it wrong...

    Think about this piece: www-rohan.sdsu.eduthermo.htm

    Basically there's an awful lot of tradition and an awful lot of mimickry in the coaching world. If something works for athlete X then it must work for everyone else. If Lance spins 110 rpm up big climbs then Jan is somehow wrong to approach those climbs differently. No matter that Jan was one of the top cyclists at the time and the vast majority of racers would kill for his speed and power. If Moser can break Merckx's hour record by using HR and Conconi testing then we should be doing the same(that one convinced me for years) no matter that later on we find out a bit more about what Francesco was getting from the good doctor. There's an awful lot of follow the current leader thinking with an equal amount of "it worked for...." or "this is how I was coached and how all the great champions were coached..." sort of thinking in sports. The point of sports science is to try to challenge the mythology and find out what works, why it works and how it can be applied in different situations instead of just following tradition or the latest winning fad.

    Quoted post said:

    ... Couldn't it be that bigger muscle are more able to process ATP that smaller/less powerful ones? ...

    On the muscular level mitochondrial density is really important. If you could have muscles with large cross sectional area(typically what weight lifters get from low rep strength work and muscle hypertrophy) densely packed with mitochondria then yep, those bigger muscles would allow you to generate more power.

    Trouble is there seem to be limits on how much mitochondria a given cell can hold. So folks tend to have big strong muscles with relatively low mitochondrial density or small compact muscles with relatively high mitochondrial density. How many champion body builders or power lifters do you see winning cycling races? How many top cyclists do you see winning power lifting competitions? Rasmussen is very powerful, he's not particularly strong.

    If you read deeper in Andy's strength training article you'll see that he concedes that if weight lifting resulted in quick hypertrophy of the relevant muscles then it might be of benefit to endurance athletes. But he goes on to discuss studies that show that during the early stages(first 18 months IIRC) of weight training there is very little actual muscle growth as tested by biopsies. The folks doing the trainer are getting much stronger and lifting much bigger weights but he argues that this has a lot more to do with training their neuromuscular recruitment patterns then increased muscle size. IOW, in the early stages of weight training you simply teach your body how to lift weights by engaging the correct muscles in the correct firing sequence.

    That supports the idea that the best way to build real peak muscle strength for cycling is to do it on the bike with things like standing starts. That way you're actually learning the correct NM muscle recruitment patterns that apply to cycling not spending valuable workout time teaching your muscles and mind to accomplish a different task.

    And as frenchyge points out there are places like track sprinting and kilo riding where peak strength definitely plays a part. If your friend is really interested in improving his peak sprint then some weight work might really help. But it's unlikely to help him become a better climber or time trialist at the same time.

    -Dave

  15. daveryanwyoming said:


    Trouble is there seem to be limits on how much mitochondria a given cell can hold. So folks tend to have big strong muscles with relatively low mitochondrial density or small compact muscles with relatively high mitochondrial density. How many champion body builders or power lifters do you see winning cycling races? How many top cyclists do you see winning power lifting competitions?


    to me, this doesn't prove anything, since I've never seen a champion bodybuilder try to become a cyclist. The very thing I quoted above suggest me that given a fixed mitochondrial density, the more muscle cell you have the more mitochondri you have (in absolute number) and the more power you can generate. Is it my hypothesis wrong?

  16. Simone@Italy said:

    to me, this doesn't prove anything, since I've never seen a champion bodybuilder try to become a cyclist. ...

    I tried to keep it conceptually simple. But if you want a more scientific response:

    cat.inist.frcat.inist.fr
    physiotherapy.curtin.edu.auconcurrent.cfm
    home.hia.nohypplas.htm
    jan.ucc.nau.edu490MuscleadaptUSE.htm

    Here's some quotes from those pieces:

    "We know that aerobic training results in an increase in mitochondrial volume/density, oxidative enzymes, and capillary density (27). Also, in some elite endurance athletes the trained muscle fibers may actually be smaller than those of a completely untrained person. Bodybuilders and other strength-power athletes, on the other hand, have much larger muscles (14,40). That's their primary adaptation, their muscles get bigger! All the cellular machinery related to aerobic metabolism (i.e., mitochondria, oxidative enzymes, etc.) is not necessary for maximal gains in muscle force producing power"

    "Strength training has been reported to cause muscle fibre hypertrophy, associated with an increase in contractile protein, which contributes to an increase in maximal contractile force (Sale et al 1990). Strength training also reduces mitochondrial density and suppresses oxidative enzymes activity which can cause impede endurance capacity, ... In contrast, endurance training usually causes little or no muscle fibre hypertrophy, but it does induce increases in mitochondria content, citric acid enzymes, oxidative capacity and the possibility of muscle fibre conversion from fast twitch to slow twitch (Bell 1991, Nelson et al 1990)."

    "The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of strength training (12 weeks, 3 days/week, four lower-body exercises) of young individuals (mean age 23.6 years) on estimates of mitochondrial distribution throughout muscle fibres....We conclude that the muscle hypertrophy associated with strength training results in reduced density of regionally distributed mitochondria, ...."

    Do some research, (PubMed is a good place to start) see what you find on the subject. But really do whatever kind of training you like it's your season....

    -Dave

  17. Bullgod said:

    I am curious about this too. a teammate of mine has been lifting heavy weights in the gym over the winter, as he is convinced that he lacks explosivity (he is so skinny he needs top put stones in his pockets on a windy day)

    daveryanwyoming said:


    ........snip How many champion body builders or power lifters do you see winning cycling races? How many top cyclists do you see winning power lifting competitions? Rasmussen is very powerful, he's not particularly strong.

    snip.....

    Sorry for the hijack, but Bullgod if you feel the following comments sound reasonable you can pass it along to your teammate.

    Since I do not compete in strength related events since 1996 and do not intend to compete in cycling because of my former drug use, I am able to do the taboo thing of cross training. But if I were to compete in cycling I would definately stop lifting. A couple of weeks ago I felt the result of training legs on a Tuesday with weight, training on trainer that whole week and then we had our climbing day on Saturday for our long ride on the road. My legs never really recovered from the weight training on Tuesday and I definately struggle that day with climbing. This happens quite often, but it would not be fair to my team if I were on one.

    Even though I love training with weights and it's an area that I specialize in for the past 25 years, I am a big believer in training specificity. If I were preparing for a powerlifting meet I would not do cardio unless I had to make it into a certain weight class. My thought in preparing for a type of activity is that if you have the ability to use other types of training you may not be training hard enough in your specific event.

    In other words with training specificity and intensity you should be barely recovering, but that is just my personal opinion. Train very hard, recover, adapt, repeat until you have reached that training periodization/scheduled detraining period. 🙂

    Just an opinion

  18. So true...been there on those days I really wish I did not do any lifting the day prior...but what makes you happy is what counts...I guess I just love training. As my wife told me the other day...you train ... to train more.

    Hehehehe...so true but so much fun!

    -js

    Felt_Rider said:

    Sorry for the hijack, but Bullgod if you feel the following comments sound reasonable you can pass it along to your teammate.

    Since I do not compete in strength related events since 1996 and do not intend to compete in cycling because of my former drug use, I am able to do the taboo thing of cross training. But if I were to compete in cycling I would definately stop lifting. A couple of weeks ago I felt the result of training legs on a Tuesday with weight, training on trainer that whole week and then we had our climbing day on Saturday for our long ride on the road. My legs never really recovered from the weight training on Tuesday and I definately struggle that day with climbing. This happens quite often, but it would not be fair to my team if I were on one.

    Even though I love training with weights and it's an area that I specialize in for the past 25 years, I am a big believer in training specificity. If I were preparing for a powerlifting meet I would not do cardio unless I had to make it into a certain weight class. My thought in preparing for a type of activity is that if you have the ability to use other types of training you may not be training hard enough in your specific event.

    In other words with training specificity and intensity you should be barely recovering, but that is just my personal opinion. Train very hard, recover, adapt, repeat until you have reached that training periodization/scheduled detraining period. 🙂

    Just an opinion

  19. jsirabella said:

    So true...been there on those days I really wish I did not do any lifting the day prior...but what makes you happy is what counts...I guess I just love training. As my wife told me the other day...you train ... to train more.

    Hehehehe...so true but so much fun!

    -js


    Yeah.....that makes me glad that I don't compete in anything anymore so that I can do those things that I am not supposed to do. 🙂

  20. Simone@Italy said:

    to me, this doesn't prove anything, since I've never seen a champion bodybuilder try to become a cyclist. The very thing I quoted above suggest me that given a fixed mitochondrial density, the more muscle cell you have the more mitochondri you have (in absolute number) and the more power you can generate. Is it my hypothesis wrong?

    You may be confusing muscle hypertrophy (bigger muscle cells) with hyperplasia (more muscle cells). There's very little evidence that muscle hyperplasia even occurs in humans (after birth), and if so only after many years of intense muscle building. You can google it yourself, but from what I've read in order to grow more cells your best bet is to keep injuring yourself. :eek: 🙂

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.