Training & Nutrition - 20 minute intervals

the all important 20 minute interval or intervals. who does them? how often? how hard? and has anyone ever done these a lot harder than the prescribed effort?

I do. Once a week. Right at LT, push a little over. No.

the all important 20 minute interval or intervals. who does them? how often? how hard? and has anyone ever done these a lot harder than the prescribed effort?

If you can do them a lot harder than the prescribed effort, then the prescription is based on faulty assumptions.

If you can do them a lot harder than the prescribed effort, then the prescription is based on faulty assumptions.

Right on :D

who does them? how often? how hard? and has anyone ever done these a lot harder than the prescribed effort?

The bread & butter of yester years greats, Merckx, Hinault etc. I just wonder how hard them guys trained, what massive intervals they did, over the fancy Chris Carmichael/Joe Friel training and recovery system programs they both advocate.

They certainly weren't worrying about wattages.

The bread & butter of yester years greats, Merckx, Hinault etc. I just wonder how hard them guys trained, what massive intervals they did, over the fancy Chris Carmichael/Joe Friel training and recovery system programs they both advocate.

They certainly weren't worrying about wattages.


Interesting that nobody mentioned wattages until you...

Well, its all the rage these days & fancy programs, something the greats didn't have.

I guess I'm just old skool, I would love too think it was just one massive hammer fest, day in day out, no let up or any regards to anything else.

This would go against your highly technological beliefs umd?.

no

I thought it would. Not worrying about anything, including power meters, programs etc but just smashing the pedals as hard as hell on every ride, year in year out.

I thought it would. Not worrying about anything, including power meters, programs etc but just smashing the pedals as hard as hell on every ride, year in year out.

I don't believe that's how he trained, and even if it was that doesn't work for most people. Power meters are not necessary by any means but they are a useful tool to quantify training and facilitate communication between athlete and coach.

The very concept of doing an interval in any form goes completely against the concept of simply smashing the pedals as hard as hell on every ride. You yourself said that 20 minute intervals were the bread and butter of the greats of yesteryear...

You yourself said that 20 minute intervals were the bread and butter of the greats of yesteryear...

Not entirely, if you reread the quote in the message.

Lemond seems to think that long intense hours are what you need to keep your levels high, I think Merckx, Hinault & alot of others went by the same means. That means not maintaining a certain power output for a certain day, it means high intensity, every single day you ride, everyday. I doubt very much "recovery" rides were ever on the agenda. I couldn't allow myself (If being a professional cyclist) to train at 250w when there were guys out there training at higher wattages every single day. I would feel like I'm short handing myself.

I know one mental tool I use every single time I ride & that its never to let the motorist see you ride slow or see you weak. It keeps the intensity sky high for me.

You are trolling again.

You are trolling again.

Where all trolls, all disagreeing, all have opinions. Someone disagrees with me?, TROLL, TROLL, lol. j/k.

Just a difference in training methods, of course, not one greater than the other.

I respect the fact Lance is a Carmichael trainer. Others used very basic, head down, straightforward training methods.

Just wonder how they compare?.

Personally I would take the old skool methods over Lance & Carmichael, power meters etc, regardless of Lances success & the MASSIVE respect I have for him.

No, you are trolling because you are intentionally misrepresenting statements, and twisting reality to get a rise out of people. It's one thing to troll your own threads but don't crap on this guys thread.

Just a difference in training methods, of course, not one greater than the other.

I respect the fact Lance is a Carmichael trainer. Others used very basic, head down, straightforward training methods.

Just wonder how they compare?.

Personally I would take the old skool methods over Lance & Carmichael, power meters etc, regardless of Lances success & the MASSIVE respect I have for him.I know you don't like to hear this but the primary reason performances have improved in all sports is that the athletes have benefited from the application of the scientific method to nutrition and training.

You can feel free to ignore advances in our knowledge base but you can bet that Merckx and Lemond took full advantage of whatever technology was available to them.

And if you think Lemond Hinault, etc. didn't care about intervals, power, numbers, etc. you should read this interview with Lemond http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

Training by power, periodization, and the like are relatively modern concepts, but they have pretty much always done something like intervals in some form. Rather than going as hard as you can all the time, you go harder than you can go all the time, for a short period of time. Eventually you can do that intensity for longer, and even more intensity for a shorter period of time. They just didn't quantify it, label it, and package it like we do today.

I know you don't like to hear this but the primary reason performances have improved in all sports is that the athletes have benefited from the application of the scientific method to nutrition and training.

You can feel free to ignore advances in our knowledge base but you can bet that Merckx and Lemond took full advantage of whatever technology was available to them.

Where not talking technology, where talking training. Greg LeMond in '89 put his bike in a huge 55 x 12 gear and rode it 54.545 km/h (34.52 mph), one of the fastest time trials ever in the Tour de France & trained long intense hours, I think Merckx, Hinault & alot of others went by the same means.

I'm not seeing much difference in times nor speeds, from todays guys over the guys of yesteryear???... And with "todays" guys we can associate them with performance enhancing drugs & fancy programs.

Thoughts?.

Where not talking technology, where talking training. Greg LeMond in '89 put his bike in a huge 55 x 12 gear and rode it 54.545 km/h (34.52 mph), one of the fastest time trials ever in the Tour de France.

I'm not seeing much difference in times nor speeds, from todays guys over the guys of yesteryear???... And with "todays" guys we can associate them with performance enhancing drugs & fancy programs.

Thoughts?.

If you read the interview I posted you would see that Lemond was closer to modern training methods than you think.

Where not talking technology, where talking training. Greg LeMond in '89 put his bike in a huge 55 x 12 gear and rode it 54.545 km/h (34.52 mph), one of the fastest time trials ever in the Tour de France & trained long intense hours, I think Merckx, Hinault & alot of others went by the same means.

I'm not seeing much difference in times nor speeds, from todays guys over the guys of yesteryear???... And with "todays" guys we can associate them with performance enhancing drugs & fancy programs.

Thoughts?.Firstly, it would help your credibility marginally if you made a little effort to use proper grammar and spelling.

Performance in all sports has improved significantly over the years. It's more difficult to compare cycling performance from one era to the next because there are very few timed events under consistent, controlled conditions. You'd also need to look at all riders not just Lemond and Merckx who would be considered outliers.

Training on a bike without power is kind of like running without a watch. Without an ability to measure your performance it is difficult to determine whether a particular training regimen works for you.

Do yourself a favor and buy a power meter. Then you can show us how smart you are by posting your steadily improving power numbers as you ride harder and harder every day, every month, every year without a break. Who knows, with a little help on your spelling, you could even write a book about your revolutionary, old school, training methods :)

Do yourself a favor and buy a power meter. Then you can show us how smart you are by posting your steadily improving power numbers as you ride harder and harder every day, every month, every year without a break. Who knows, with a little help on your spelling, you could even write a book about your revolutionary, old school, training methods :)

I've seen no evidence that he even has a bike.

Like I said, I'm not seeing much difference in times nor speeds, from todays guys over the guys of yesteryear training via old skool methods, compared to the highly advanced training programs of today. Very marginal.


Do yourself a favor and buy a power meter.

But I don't need to buy a power meter because Merckx, Hinault etc didn't need to buy a power meter. Why would I need one to be successful?. Those guys were very quick & very strong.

But I don't need to buy a power meter because Merckx, Hinault etc didn't need to buy a power meter. Why would I need one to be successful?. Those guys were very quick & very strong.

The power meter was not to assist with your training, but so you could awe us with your spectacular progress.

The power meter was not to assist with your training, but so you could awe us with your spectacular progress.

But when it's all over, I hope too boast silently.

But when it's all over, I hope too boast silently.

That won't keep us from laughing at your idiocy.

But I don't need to buy a power meter because Merckx, Hinault etc didn't need to buy a power meter. Why would I need one to be successful?. Those guys were very quick & very strong.If you're not competitive you're correct there is no need for a power meter. If you're not racing the definition of success can be quite broad.

Since you seem enamored with the old guys training methods have you found any evidence that they trained on 80lb dutch bikes? Or do you think, perhaps, that Eddie could have been even more dominant, and won a higher percentage of his races if only he'd trained with a heavier bike?

my original post was that from what i read, the 20 minute interval is supose to be, from what i read now, 90% of your 10 mile time trial pace... someones opinion saying thats the correct way to do them. so i just wanted to try do these starting at 10 minutes and working up to as long as i can hold it.do a longer interval, but at a higher hr than 90% of my 10 mile tt.
who realy knows the proper way to train?
i remember in an article reading how ludo dierckxson did the same 180k route day in and day out at the same 35-40k per hour. that would be a bore, but it sure worked for him. palo battini from what i read did 20 second intervals with 40 second rests. a bunch of them. i trained 2times with marty jimeson who rode on lances team for 10 years or so, and he said he did everything.. short intervals, long intervals, motorpaced a lot very fast and motorpaced very long at a slower pace. robbie mckwen does motorpacing 200k at 40k per hour. merckx rode across belgium, and took the bus home..
so many different ways to train. what works for some sure dosent work for others. jesper skibby tried for a few months to lift weights for his legs and after only a few months said this isnt for him at all. it takes away his suppleness, where lots of guys use weights in the off season, but 99% of coaches say that is helps a road cyclist 0% doing squats. it helps only the track rider for the first 2-3-4 rpm's and thats it.
so, why do i do my 20 minute interval harder than some guy says how hard to do them.. i want to. none of us on this board are pros so why not experiment.
as a former runner and o so close to an age division american record in the mile, i remember the kenyans way of training. .. so simple.. hard days hard. ez days ez.. no moderate days at all. puke at the end of the hard days, and relax, but get the miles in on your ez days. whay not take your cycle training the same way? i do.

If you're not competitive you're correct there is no need for a power meter. If you're not racing the definition of success can be quite broad.

Since you seem enamored with the old guys training methods have you found any evidence that they trained on 80lb dutch bikes? Or do you think, perhaps, that Eddie could have been even more dominant, and won a higher percentage of his races if only he'd trained with a heavier bike?

That was what I wasn't insinuating. I don't think the old skool trained on heavier bikes but they gained success through differing training methods, methods which by todays standards are out of date, BUT, there is very marginal (if any) increase in times or speeds from yesteryear.

It probably just goes to show, there isn't a correct method (IMO). It must be ingrained key qualities of the individual that far outweigh any program.

So the 20 minute intervals???... Who knows.

There seems to be no correct way, but I'm a traditionalist.