 Poster: A snowHead
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| Quote: |
Out of c. 40miles/week (30-70 range), I do around 10 at high intensity on average
|
14-33%, which is high. Remember most polarised approaches say max 20% at high intensity, and that is time not miles! So once you convert your miles to times those percentages are going to increase.
|
Thanks for this.
Time spent at high intensity is going to be less rather than more as a % vs distance. By definition the high intensity running is fast, so shorter duration for same distance. 20% of my distance at high intensity would be <15% of my time.
| Quote: |
| Based on your 10km result we can estimate your AnT is around 170bpm 3:54min/km. So your AeT should be 153bpm 4:29secs per km. I.e. you should be able to run an hour at this pace pretty comfortably with your heart rate drift over an hour being less than 5%. If you can't do that you have ads and could definitely get improvements from focusing on aerobic training more. |
I can comfortably run at least 2 hours at 4:29 pace, I suspect I could hold that for a marathon, albeit there would be reasonable HR drift in the latter stages.
I guess I'm still struggling with the fact that the advice seems to be "jump on the bike and get some miles in" which I accept may well be correct (I have no knowledge, hence asking the question), but is so different to what the advice would be for running, or skiing for that matter - think of the difference focussed training makes in most sports. e.g. my kids came into skiing with an ice skating background, so their instructor focussed on totally different stuff to would normally be the case.
I was hoping for something like "2 weeks of 10x5 min intervals with a 2hr tempo ride at the weekend", but maybe Trainerroad will be the answer for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
but is so different to what the advice would be for running, or skiing for that matter
|
Well there are plenty of studies showing good correlation between lower marathon finish time and mileage. I.e. simply running more appears to produce better results. So just "running more" is not the worst advice, granted it's not optimum either. Skiing is very different as for beginners the limitations are not physiological, but rather learning technical skills.
I think there probably is something in just cycling more. There is a reason the pros are logging so much time in the saddle. From what I've seen you need to do more hours cycling than running to achieve similar results. 4 hour bike rides are fairly normal training, 4 hour runs are not. There's no doubt it's possible to log far more hours cycling due to the nature of the activity.
Trainerroad will work, so will sweet spot, just doing more miles, polarised training etc. Everything works to some degree. Which is optimum is more complicated. You have to be realistic though, even kipchoge would take years to become a great cyclist.
If you want to get good at cycling you likely have to drop running. It just takes away potential training hours and needs more recovery because of impacts.
Also equipment makes a difference. I'll let others weigh in on what and how much as they know far more than me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
As per@boarder2020's last post, the fact that 4 hour bike rides are fairly normal training (and shorter than your target) is very significant. The major difference from e.g. 2 hours of running is that a reasonably trained person can do ~2 hours of exercise at HR ~150bpm predominantly burning carbohydrate, but before long (almost certainly before 3 hours) they'd run out of carbohydrate (aka bonking, hitting the wall). To do 4+ hours you'll need to be predominantly burning fat, which will need a lower intensity. You'll also need to keep taking on carbohydrate, but the accepted max that you can absorb per hour is ~90g = 360 kCal, whereas at the running intensities that you're used to you will probably burn ~800+ kCal per hour.
The more you exercise at the intensity for 4+ hour rides, the better you'll get at burning fat (i.e. for a given intensity you'll be able to burn a higher ratio of fat v. carbohydrate), so you'll steadily to able to up the intensity for the same rate of burning carbohydrate. There are not really any shortcuts to this, hence the advice to do long steady rides. One possible shortcut is fasted rides, where you deliberately start in a low carb state. It may be worth trying this, but most advice would be to only do this occasionally (maybe once a week).
Overall, to get better at long rides, I'd say there a few key things to work on:
Specificity. To get good at long rides, do long rides
Fuelling. Getting used to burning fat as above, and also finding nutrition products and strategy that will get you close to digesting 90g of carbs per hour, every hour. Again, you need long rides to practise this
Aerobic fitness at Upper threshold. It sounds like you've already got much of this, though it would help to maintain this with some higher intensity work, which could be sweet spot, or any number of different interval permutations
Pedalling technique. Some form of drills - e.g. single leg pedalling, cadence drills periodically will probably help efficiency
Core strength and endurance. This can make a noticeable difference in your ability to hold a comfortable aerodynamics position on the bike for long periods
If you wanted to put that into a training plan, you could go for something like each week:
2 x long rides (of you have the time) at steady zone 2 pace. By HR I'd guess you'd probably look at 130-140 bpm. Get used to taking on carbohydrate, and work out what works best for you. If you feel like a bit of variety, you could do some pedalling drills
2 x core conditioning sessions
2 shorter rides. Maybe one working on drills, and the other aerobic fitness, or a combination of both
Or, if you more for a periodised approach over the year (which is pretty common for cyclists), you could have a base training period of 2+ months doing as the above, but maybe dropping the aerobic fitness. Then in the 3 months leading up to your target event(s), drop 1 of the long rides, and do 2 or 3 aerobic fitness sessions. Personally I do this in 4 week blocks (1 easy week, then 3 harder weeks), with each block having one type of aerobic session, with the types of session upping in intensity - e.g. in block 1 the sessions might be 3 x 12 minute at threshold pace, in block 2, 6 x 5 minutes at just over threshold x 1 minute recovery, in block 3 10 x 1 minute at well over threshold pace
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I'd agree with most of @viv points. A few slightly pedantic things though:
| Quote: |
The major difference from e.g. 2 hours of running is that a reasonably trained person can do ~2 hours of exercise at HR ~150bpm predominantly burning carbohydrate
|
It's possible to run for many hours predominantly burning fats, as long as the intensity is low enough. People with highly trained aerobic systems can have a AeT 150bpm or higher. For most people they would have to be exercising at a lower intensity to continue (although those following polarised approach or maf are probably doing most of their running comfortably lower than 150bpm anyway).
Becoming "fat adapted" is definitely an area of interest in ultra endurance sports. Although it often seems to get hijacked by the keto and anti carb zealots, when carbs certainly have an important role to play in sports performance. It's not like a switch that's on or off though, most people are burning fats and carbs during aerobic exercise anyway. The idea is that if you push the ratio more towards fat you save carbs for anaerobic metabolism (e.g. a sprint finish or big hill climb) and for most of us fat is a much more abundant source of energy whereas we have limited glycogen stores so less need to take on energy.
Plenty of studies have demonstrated a shift to increased fat usage through diet, exercise, or both. I'm not sure any have actually demonstrated this lead to improved performance though (there are certainly studies that showed becoming "fat adapted" didn't significantly improve performance). So it's not something to worry about, particularly if you plan on taking on energy during long rides anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
As mentioned earlier, last Sep/Nov we had a "fitness challenge" at work which was basically a step counter challenge.
The best way for me to accumulate the equivalent steps was low intensity biking. Because of the way the rules worked 16 km/h+ on a bike was optimum (I have a very cheap heavy touring bike with paniers etc ,just weighed it @ 19.1 kg without any bags on it.)
On the weekends I was doing up to 11 hours a day on the bike, all low intensity (100 to 120 pulse). I was doing 15 to 32 hours of exercise a week.
Must admit at the the beginning I thought this low intensity can't be doing anything for my fitness but hey I was stacking up the equivalent steps and there was bügger all else to do with Corona so I kept at it.
Threw in the odd interval training which was basically riding the same 19+ kg bike up a very step hill a few times almost exploding my head and turning the old legs to jelly.
COVID meant I didn't get out much in the last 12 months but after a couple of months I noticed that ....
On an MTB ride with friends who are normally of a similar fitness they all gassed out while I was feeling fine.
On the flats I went from being overtaken to overtaking E-Bikes (25 km/h) with the heavy bike @ max 120 pulse. (Total bike weight must have been 25 kg + with water, tools, food extra clothing etc)
The speed difference between myself and the lycra clad racing bikers became less and less. By the end I overtook a few of the slowest racing bike riders even with a low pulse and a bike that weighed 2 to 3 times more.
It was very hard for me to get my pulse up high but I was achieving the same speeds with a heart rate of around 120 that I used to achieve at 140 bpm+.
It was the daylight and not the lack of energy that restricted the length of the rides.
Definitely going to do a similar polarised training plan again once the spring weather starts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Thanks for all the ideas and suggestions @viv, @boarder2020, @DB, I’ve got a few more weeks of running focus with some bike, and will then switch to biking focus with some run, and try some of the ideas.
My balance at present is 5-6 runs per week (5-6 hours) and 1-2 bike (2-6 hours) so I’ve got scope for a bit more time on the bike by dropping to 2-3 runs. The time efficiency of running (exercise benefit per hour) is going to be hard to match!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@DB cycling is a good choice as active recovery for runners,because it's low impact and thanks to the efficiency of bikes you can ride easy with very low stress put on the body. For cyclists I don't think running is a good choice for active recovery it's too stressful - walking or swimming are better options. There is a reason that you don't see kipchoge cycling or pogacar running, the sports simply don't translate that well to each other and time spent doing the other is "wasted" hours you could of been training at the primary sport. If you just want to train for general health and fitness it's perfectly fine (perhaps even better) to do both, but if you want to get good at one you really need to focus on it specifically.
For example snowdave is currently training up to 7-12 hours per week. That kind of time is ok (not great but ok) for improving cycling. Start cutting into it with runs and I don't think there is enough cycling hours to make great gains. Of course it comes down to personal goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@boarder2020, fwiw I’m seeing cycling improvements with one 60mins race a week with 25 min warmup and 2x TrainerRoad sessions, one of 60 and one of 90mins. Then 2 runs a week
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The government has just released more £50 repair vouchers if anyone missed out on the previous offers.
Managed to get one for myself and wife 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@kitenski no doubt trainerroad and racing will improve your FTP and sprint times. Depending on level of fitness you already have will depend on how much time you need to put in to get improvements. I would say this type of training focusing all on high intensity interval style work is the classic route to aerobic deficiency syndrome, so while you will get good improvements to begin with they will plateau when your aerobic base is no longer sufficient to support a very well adapted anaerobic system.
https://www.uphillathlete.com/aerobic-deficiency-syndrome/#:~:text=Aerobic%20Deficiency%20Syndrome%20(ADS)%20is,Athlete%20for%20coaching%20and%20training.&text=They%20feel%20fit%2C%20fast%2C%20and,woefully%20underdeveloped%E2%80%94sometimes%20virtually%20nonexistent.
Anyway Snowdave is talking about a goal of 5 hour rides which is a different kettle of fish to 60-90mins rides. For that he's going to need to put in much more time than 4 hours over 3 sessions per week. Pros have the best coaches in the world, we have to assume they are optimising training as much as possible to allow maximum recovery and they are doing 20 hours plus. There is a reason we see weekly miles during training correlate with marathon finish times - generally more is better for endurance training (providing you can stay injury free at the higher workload). We also know most of the top pros are using polarised training, and the science backs it up - lots of easy low intensity work, with a sprinkling of high intensity work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@boarder2020, I'll add in longer Z2 rides with summer which should help with the aerobic engine and I do a steady run once a week as well, so seems to be working and balanced enough for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to most of the polarised approaches the balance should be around 80% z2 and 20% high intensity. But we see many of the top endurance athletes doing quite a lot lower than 20%. So I'm not sure longer rides during summer and one steady run a week are optimum.
Again I'm talking from a point of trying to optimise training and push towards achieving someone's potential. Thats not always important to everyone though. I have a friend who trains like you - all swift racing and hiit stuff. He would say himself it's not optimum, but it's what he enjoys, fits in nicely with his work schedule, and his goals are fairly modest (beating his work colleagues of similar ability in the weekly swift race) - it works for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@snowdave, I’ve ridden quite a few Audaxes - Ultra randonneur, couple of PBPs and a couple of 1500km events. At your current levels of fitness you’ll be near the front of the field on most events, I don’t think you need to worry about a training programme. Max average speed allowed in an Audax is 30kmh and while being able to go faster is handy for building up sleep time it’s not required unless you really need a lot of sleep. If you can sustain 25kmh as a moving average you’ll have plenty time for eating and sleeping.
That said, if you want to train to get your average speed up then what worked for me was doing short intervals on the turbo trainer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@boarder2020, interesting my stats from Jan without thinking much about it, doing one race series and trusting TrainerRoad
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Valkyrie, thanks, that’s very helpful and useful to get some firsthand experience.
My main desire for improved speed is consistent with your suggestion - I’m not great with sleep deprivation, so figured that if I can sustain 25km/h over very long distances, I can get a proper night’s sleep on a 600.
Were your 1500s LEL? Are you tempted by TCR or TABR? Those are at the back of my mind as potential long term goals...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@snowdave, there is a guy in our club doing plenty of long races including TCR. He’s also organising a taster one from leeds in may/June I think if you are interested??
He’s got a load of info here https://richardgate.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@kitenski, thanks - great blog, I’ve read a lot of TABR and TCR blogs but hadn't seen that one.
I’m planning to try some audaxes this summer, and have promised my son that we’ll do London Paris as a 2 day trip when we’re allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@snowdave, lots of people enjoy LEL but the route has never appealed to me. Lots of flat, dull riding in England. The Scottish and North of England bits are nice but that’s roads I’ve ridden many times. My two 1500s were HBKH and the Eightsome Reel. HBKH’s full name is Hamburg-Berlin-Koln-Hamburg. It’s a fairly small event, less than 100 riders but well organised with decent controls and a bag drop at one of the controls that’s used twice. The Eightsome Reel is a Perm event, which means you can just buy the card and the route sheet and ride it anytime you want. It joins the 4 extremities of Scotland, route goes Berwick on Tweed - Tongue - Dunnet Head - Mull of Galloway - Berwick on Tweed. I found that a fairly tough ride, on big Perms you need to either sleep rough or pre-book accommodation. Sleeping rough means carrying more gear, pre-booking means you have to get to your accommodation before it shuts for the night which adds a bit of pressure.
I like events that get me somewhere I’ve not ridden before, did a lovely 1200 in the south of Ireland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@kitenski, Thanks - good pace, and very useful training data. I haven't yet found my "threshold distance" on the bike; most of my long rides are done with my 13 yr old son, so even a 100miler felt easy because our pace is very steady (13-14mph, HR 100-110). I am wondering how it would feel to just jump on my bike and ride 200km - I may try it around Easter. From your 250km training/ride, it doesn't look like I'm far off, particularly if I keep the pace down.
@Valkyrie, I've been reading yacf for a few weeks and educating myself on "perms", "ECEs" and similar. I'm planning to try a 300 then a 600 during the summer (which seem very natural distances vis a vis daylight, sleeping etc.) and will re-assess my longer-term ambitions at that point. From my long-distance hiking days, sleeping rough doesn't bother me, tho' I think planning around routes that can include a premier-inn stop might be more civilised! I can see that premier inns might be a challenge on your Scottish "Eightsome Reel" !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@snowdave, the big problem with sleeping rough is carrying extra weight. Even if you’re sleeping in bus stops (aka Audax Hotels) you need some extra clothes and some food. Getting water can sometimes be tricky too, I once had to creep around in some back gardens to try and find an outside tap at 3am. Calendar events will always be routed to get you somewhere you can eat/sleep at night so I’d recommend doing a calendar ride or two before trying a DIY or Perm. A bit of company for the night riding is always handy too, a wee bit of chat helps pass the time and reduce the risk of falling asleep on the bike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
please, does this watch have GPS reverse navigation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Honor Watch GS Pro
please, does this watch have GPS reverse navigation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Honor Watch GS Pro
please, does this watch have GPS reverse navigation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| kitenski wrote: |
@boarder2020, interesting my stats from Jan without thinking much about it, doing one race series and trusting TrainerRoad
|
Sorry I only just saw this, only 6 months late but not a bad topic of conversation to continue. nice choice with intervals.icu!
I think now the science is moving in a direction less strict with the polarised definition. To the point where pyramid is also fine. The thing seems to be important is huge amounts of time below lactate threshold 1*. Then a little high intensity work, which may be classic hiit which makes for more of a polarised looking graph, or may be more threshold work (less intense but longer intervals) which gets more of a pyramid looking graph like yours. Even tempo zone 3 stuff it's not such a no go area now as part of a balanced training program - although still an issue for many recreational athletes that go out and do every session at that intensity.
If your training intensity distribution is coming out as "base" in intervals.icu you are probably on the right track. Although I'd want to see that for power zones rather than HR zones as in my experience for most people HR zones lag behind power zones. As an example here's a ride with a few vo2 max intervals:
Zone % of time Power / HR
Z1 - 3.3. /. 75.2
Z2 - 68.3. /. 15.2
Z3 - 16.8. /. 4.8
Z4 - 1.2. /. 4.8
Z5 - 10.3. / 0
I think trainer road are now offering some more polarised style training plans? For people with limited time I can see the appeal of their programs which favour lots of threshold and sweet spot intensity. They will get your FTP up, but there is some risk of overtraining due to the intensity. You are also missing out on some key physiological adaptations you only get from long low intensity rides, so never build that base. The recommendation is still only 2-3 high intensity sessions per week, more seems counterproductive you don't see any further improvements and risk overtraining. 2-3 hour zone 2 rides are probably better, but not particularly exciting or feasible due to time restrictions to many though, especially now with the weather getting cold and people maybe moving indoors onto trainers.
*An extreme example of this is Blummenfelt buildup to his Olympic gold in triathlon doing half his cycling below 55% of FTP - which is what most of us would call recovery intensity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
