CJ C

Yep i still bounce like i used to also. only that after the bouncing it takes me longer to stand back up.

is the bike okay?

CJ C

very true, to ride faster just ride faster. I like the interval thing as it give you a change.

CJ C

Today I had to change my ride to a 50-60 minute one. I took it slow and threw in one sprint for fun. We will see tomorrow on my 2 1/2 hour ride how my legs adapted to the increased riding and intense training.

Strangely looking forward to my next interval day, knowing that i dont need to concentrate on HR and can just give it my all on each interval.

vesteroid

I can only speak to what I have been given for training, but rarely are my intervals at maximum. Most of them are in the 60-80 percent range and are longer duration. Say a minimum of 15 minutes.

Higher intensity intervals are never over 90 percent and most of them have been even shorter.

Longest interval workout I have been given is 3 20 minute intervals at 80 percent with a 5 minute rest in between.

chasm54

Dead. But I have others.

bigfred 

When you say "percent", are you talking about percentage of maximum heart rate? Or, perceived exertion? There's a reasonable difference between the two for most.

The rest of this isn't necessarily aimed at chasm. But, is just, my perspective.

:Insert: all appropriate disclaimers for your locale or personality type with regard to personal fitness, seeking the advice of a physician or health profressinal, not following the advice of some quack on the inter-net, safe riding, thin skin, etc. :insert:

We could probably benefit from defining what exactly we're talking about when we say "interval", "effort", "set, etc.

From my background the word "intervals" was used to describe short hard drills typically aimed at anaerobic exercise. Longer drills targeting aerobic systems would be called an "effort". Multiple "intervals" would combine into a "set". Multiple "sets" or "efforts" into a "workout".

From what I have read, in the absence of a power meter, most people can expect their approximate LT to be at around 90% of maximum heart rate(as gross a generalization as the mathematical max HR calculations). This does not necessarily equate to a percieved exertion of 9/10. If you assume someones LT to also be very close to their 20-40 minute TT perceived exertion limit, most would put that at around 8/10.

With the idea that "intervals" are about anaerobic fitness they vary in length from 15 seconds up to approximately 20 minutes.

The nature of what's being trained for also varies over that time range.

Any intervals of less than 20 minutes would be easily accomplished without necesarily achieving the desired gains if performed at or below LT, 90% of max HR or 8/10 on perceived exertion. That is not to say that a cyclist won't see improvements from such "efforts". But, does suggest that the "effort" is as much or more an aerobic one as an anaerobic one.

There is of course a huge, broad, grey cross over as one moves away from 15 second drills aimed at purely anaerobic work and toward 40 aerobic efforts.

Classically "intervals" would be more tageted at increasing ones LT and anaerobic performance beyond that point. Subsequently, they will almost always be at or above LT or a perceived effort of 8/10.

Short intervals, say of 15 seconds to 1 or 2 minutes are frequently performed at 9/10 to 10/10 and can be extremely taxing on the system. Hence the warnings you see on any books or videos advocating such, about consulting a phsycian, etc.

Unfortunately, when discussing this stuff on the inter-webz, none of us get to see each other face to face. Or, know much about each other, where we are in our personal training progression or even what realistic goals we may have.

If we were to apply the nanny state approach to our conversations with each other we'd end up with, "don't go too hard, or you might hurt yourself." And, for someone obviously overweight AND out of shape, that might not be bad advice. But, for a clyde by act of god who is trying to improve or maximize their cycling performance and who is otherwise inclined to believe they have no underlying issues, .....................

Intervals are HARD! If you don't question your maker at least once during the work out you're not going hard enough. Dig deeper you big pansy! When you're 20 seonds into that 30 second interval and can't help but back off,.............DON'T! It'll make you harder, faster, stronger.

And that is why:
1. I like the trainer for some of these workouts. I'm literally not safe to be on the road by the end.
2. I value the fact that my neighboorhood is on a quiet peninsula with realatively quiet and safe streets for the workouts I do on the road.

chasm54

I think you have the emphasis wrong, Fred. And it is a mistake to equate LTHR with 90% of MHR as a generalisation. LTHR needs to be tested for specifically. In my own case, my max HR is somewhere in the mid-180s. A couple of years ago it was 186, but I havent seen anything above 181 for a few months so it may have dropped a couple of beats. My LTHR, however, is 156: nearer 85% than 90% of MHR. I could not complete two 20-minute intervals at 90% of MHR.

And I'd also take issue with your underlying assumption, which seems to be that only anaerobic intervals count as real intervals. Absolutely not, in my view. I said at the outset that I wouldn't recommend anyone bothered with Z5 work at an early stage of their training, and I stick by that. 2x20 minute intervals are at threshold, one simply can't complete them much above threshold. But they are plenty hard enough. Shorter efforts will and should take one above LTHR, of course. But until one has an established base one should be very careful with them. To quote Joe Friel from his cyclists training bible,

"anaerobic endurance training is quite stressful and should not be a part of the novice cyclist's regimen. Both speed skills and endurance should be well established, with at least two years of training, before these workouts are attempted on a regular basis. The likely result of too much anaerobic endurance work too soon are burnout and overtraining. "

You did say you were feeling more vulnerable to illness and injury, right? I'd be careful. And just to be clear, anaerobic endurance intervals range from three minutes at 9/10 RPE with equal recovery time, to less than a minute at 10/10 with very short recovery. This is the stuff I need to do more of to improve my crit racing. I really wouldnt recommend it for those who are just in the process of getting fit.

Following Friel, I'd suggest an initial focus on longer efforts for muscular endurance, not anaerobic endurance. Several minutes at a time in HR Z3, building up to longer intervals (ultimately up to an hour) in Z4, nudging into Z5a. . Again to quote Friel

"the effort is much like controlled time trialling and is tremendously effective in boosting both aerobic and anaerobic fitness with little risk of overtraining"

Approaches vary, of course. But for the cyclist who is just starting to get serious about training systematically, I'd concentrate on the tempo work, and save the really fearsome intervals for later. There's no hurry, and if one wants to get really serious later, the very intense stuff will be better tolerated, and therefore produce better results with less risk, if one has spent a longer time establishing one's aerobic base.

bigfred 

Chasm, My apologies. It was Vesteroids post I was replying to. I have no idea why I wrote your name beyond the fact that it was the post below his. Sorry to have confused that issue. But, since you've politely responded to what I've written, I'm interested in carrying on the discussion.

As I stated, the 90% of max HR was an approximation for a starting point and as variable as the max HR formulas. Unfortunately, not all of us have access to power info or the funds to test directly for LT. I couldn't even tell you where I first read about using that as an approximate starting point. But, so far, the 90% starting point seems to not be too far off the mark for me. At some point I'll be doing some longer steady state efforts on the trainer and will get the chance to test it to a more accurate degree than I can on the 10 minute or so max climbs I've been doing. Have you had the opportunity to test for LTHR on an ergo and using blood tesing? Or, did you arrive at 156 through the use of one of the TT approximation methods?

I can't/won't disagree with most of what you're parrotting from Friel. It's not unsound. There are however, other ways to approach the equation. I definately need to go back and reread the bible before commenting too much further. I also need to buy a copy of Carmichael's Time Crunched Cyclist for comparisons sake.

I certainly agree that there is more to intervals than just anaerobic work. The mention of the broad transition from 15 second almost purely anaerobic work to 20 minute+ aerobic intervals is more than just a head nod in that direction. With regard to the limits of anaerobic intervals, yep, three minutes, four if you're world class. Which few are. From there to twenty minutes its a long slope of being an increasingly aerobic interval. Heck, we can even start taking any interval time and start to discuss gearing and cadence choices and how they influence the balance between working on strength versus endurance.

I can't say, "not to worry", with regard to my training, fitness and health. I'm paying close attention to it. I recognize that I'm doing all I can to accellerate my re-development and that with that comes some possible consequences that must be monitored and managed. While I wasn't cycling much over the last few years up to last August, I am lucky to have thirty years of history in my legs. Not only does that give them an awful lot of old motor memory, but, also provides me with plenty of experience about how much I can push, what to look out for, what the pit falls are along the way and the ability to slow down and avoid some of them. Am I stressing my system? Most certainly. But, I'm moderating the degree to which I'm doing that by adjusting the volume of intense work, rather than limiting the intensity itself and putting in more moderate miles. I would be even more concerned if guys around me with lots more miles in their legs than me, weren't coming back from rides as or more knackered than myself.



With regard to the place of short duration intervals or Z5 work, my take on there aplicability has to do with whether the rider in question is motivated by pursuing "fitness" or "speed". As the motivation moves toward "speed" they (intense short intervals and Z5 work) have more and more place. On this point, I would suggest that even at an early stage in a riders cycling development there is room for "some" of this work. As long as, as Friel points out, there isn't "too much".

Your last paragraph is excellent advice for any budding patient cyclist. Unfortunately, I'm not. Watch this space. We'll continue to see how I do. I've certainly learned that I have to be scheduling a light week every fourth or so. Its still too early to worry about scheduling those out to coincide with the event in November that I want to peak for.

As I stated earlier in the thread, when I returned to cycling I started down a familliar path that is very close to the classic Friel bible approach. It was as I started to read articles suggesting that limited time be shifted toward a higher percentage of high intensity work that I started to apply this approach. It's still very much an experiment for me. So far, awesome results! In our little tiny sandbox, this weekend a few of us on the B ride caught a couple of A group drops and proceeded to pull them up the climbs back to the cafe. It's really hard to not continue to pursue the same regime when guys way lighter than your are looking at you at the end of a ride and saying, "that was impressive", "those were some awesome climbs you did".

Let's see if I can keep it up with out suffering over training issues, damaging my knees or getting sick:-)

chasm54

Yes, my LTHR is an approximation from 2x20 minute intervals on a stationary bike rather than blood tests. I'm pretty happy with it, though, having done it a few times one find that a difference of just a couple of bpm can really be felt over that extended period.

As for the rest, you pays your money and you takes your choice. There is no doubting that one can see rapid gains using HIIT. But too much, too soon - or at any time - carries risks and places a huge premium on how intelligently one manages one's recovery.

And the anaerobic endurance intervals, in my mind, aren't about "speed" exactly, they are about being able to deal with repeated accelerations without drowning immediately in a sea of lactate.

Anyway, you know what you want to do and you've been fit before. I hope it works out fine. But the pursuit of quick results, especially for newcomers, has a tendency to come off the rails, so I wouldn't want everyone here to be following your example.

bigfred 

Chasm, thanks for the conversation on the subject. I can benefit from it.

Locally, it's sort of entertaining. On one side I have a group of guys who are apparently impressed by my improvement and very quick to tell me how I could be doing even better if I would x,y,z. When in fact, I'm more than happy with the gains I'm experiencing and am participating in actively limiting my rate of progress, so as not to experience some of the pit falls we've already discussed. On the other side are a few guys who are quietly asking what I'm up to or showing up on my local loops and appear to be adopting some of what I'm doing. But, without really talking about it, the pro's, con's or managing their approach.

Anyhow, I appreciate the conersation. It keeps me thinking.


With regard to LT and determining it: I went looking for an article that I had read about how most athletes end up underestimating their LT by 3-5%. The study went on to take athletes who had lab tested for LT, then systematically asked them to repeat their best test. By displaying numbers to the athletes equal to their previous best while in fact increasing load beyond, the researchers were able to demonstrate that most atheletes were capable of more than they would have allowed themselves. However, when that load was increased by more than 3-5%, they pretty much all fell off the cliff.

However, on my search I quickly came upon this site: https://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com...-training.html It's worth a look for anyone that's followed this thread this far. Without having read all the articles it links to, it does, very early on the first page, point out that the LSD theory is being questioned by some of the establishment.

"Professional road cyclists posses exceptional endurance. While VO2max is not always a good predictor of performance in elite endurance athletes, studies have shown that aerobic power is high in this group of performers (1,2,3). More accurate predictors of performance include lactate threshold, maximal lactate steady state and power output at lactate threshold. Lactate threshold has been shown to be as high as 90% of VO2max in professional cyclists (1, 4,5,6).
Peak power output can also be used to predict cycling performance (7,8) across the disciplines. For competitive road cyclists, anaerobic power is required for the mass start, hill climbing and a sprint finish. It may be even more important for off-road cyclists and is obviously a prerequisite for track racing. Traditionally, cycling coaches have prescribed increases in training volume to induce overload and adaptation. Yet it may be that a reduction in volume and integration of interval sprint training may be more beneficial. Not only has this shown to improve peak power output and capacity, it also increases VO2max to a greater extent compared to lower intensity, longer duration training (9,10).
This, along with other training strategies is examined in the articles below. You will find sample training sessions and programs for the various cycling disciplines, all drawing on current scientific research. "


I'm not attempting to poke holes in conventional training regimes. Friel in particular has worked for thousands of cyclists for a long time. I am however, keeping an open mind to the idea that there may be better, or other, ways to more effectively utilize the recreational cyclist's training time. I'm not adverse to examining the idea that many of the gold standard training programs were arrived at by working backward from what the pro's were doing and in many cases assume more time dedicated to training than most recreational cyclist will achieve. If one takes a look forward to what most recreational cyclists desire to achieve and how much time they will actually spend training, there may be more efficient ways of achieving those goals or maximizing performance, while accommodating increased flexibility in the amateur's training program.

However, I do firmly believe that such an approach requires much more active management to avoid issues, if one is going to try to maximize their gains.

Anyhow. Thanks

And CJC, looks like you had a pretty good ride yesterday. 22kph for 64km, cool.

bigfred 

Just reallized, the study/article I was searching for may have been in regard to VO2max testing, not LT. VO2max would be at a higher intensity than LT and be affected by the athletes perception of what they can sustain. Where LT wouldn't.

And, that is why I enjoy the conversation. It keeps me thinking and learning.

CJ C

Thanks, my second fastest time on this route. funny as it was a easy pace ride and my HR average was the lowest of any ride ever, yet I ended up with a fast average mph and a strava PR on my sprint.

Its taken my body a while to adjust to riding right when the sun comes up, to last years and beginning of this years riding in the afternoon. Still not fully adjusted, some days like yesterdays the first two miles i was still trying to wake up.


BTW the back and forth between big fred and chasm54 (also vesteroid) is training gold. the knowledge you guys are dropping is awesome, and insanely useful. Thank you.

chasm54

Fred, I'm not arguing for high volume over intensity indefinitely. I'm arguing that high volume to start with, followed by a shift to less volume and higher intensity, provides a more secure platform.

We're probably into a level of detail far beyond what most people need simply to get, and stay, fit. And we ought to remember that the amount of exercise one needs for health is a lot less than is needed for competitive cycling. However, since CJC is interested...

Friel is candid about the fact that much of the physiology is in its infancy. It's only very recently, for example, that the mechanisms through which interval training works have begun to be understood in detail, even though it has been used for 60 or 70 years. And much of the research that is done has been driven by the practice of elite athletes. The laboratory scientists look at what the pros have found, through trial and error, to be successful, and then try to figure out what the underlying science really is

And, of course, pro athletes train full time. That's the driver behind the time-crunched cyclist - most people have limited time to train and need the biggest bang for their particular buck. But the two approaches aren't as different as they might appear. Long steady distance does not mean long slow distance. Eddy Merckx was notorious for putting in longer hours training than his competitors, even in an age when the pros did much higher mileages than they do now. But he wasn't hanging about. He rode for hour after hour being paced by a motorbike so his speed didn't drop. "Junk miles" weren't his thing at all, he did a massive amount of work at or just under threshold before anyone was testing for lactate or using HRMs. Similarly, you may have heard of Graeme Obree, a Scottish pursuiter who was the world champion on the track and broke the hour record. Obree was notoriously eccentric in lots of ways but, obviously, worth listening to on the subject of training. He was self-coached. He didn't do intervals, and he didn't do massive volume. He went out and rode his chosen training distance pretty much as fast as he could. Then he allowed himself time to recover - quite a long time, two days, three days, sometimes four. Then he went out and did it again, faster. Rinse and repeat. His philosophy was to increase the training stress every time, but to give his body time to adapt between efforts. Not much different in principle From what we are talking about here, just structured differently.

One other point of detail. You are probably aware, but others may not be, that by taking an easy week every fourth week you are doing pretty much what the coaches recommend. If working at high training loads this is important in managing your fitness and peaking for events, because it is as your fatigue level drops that your fitness level comes up. But it also helps safeguard one from overtraining, and from just getting stale.

chasm54

Guess what, you're getting fitter. Basically, your heart is pumping more blood with each beat than it used to (increased stroke volume, in the jargon) so more oxygen is available to your muscles at a given heart rate. Plus, the network of tiny blood vessels in the relevant muscles, the capillaries, is growing, so your muscles are more able to take up and use that oxygen, and nutrients. So, your HR and perceived effort stay the same, but you get faster. Just like Greg Le Mond said, "it doesn't get easier, you just get faster".

bigfred 

For others that are interested. Here's a very superficial explanation from Carmichael of the theory behind the higher intensity/lower volume approach:

https://www.bicycling.com/training-nu...hael/under-gun

chasm54

Thanks for that link, Fred. Reading it emphasises, for me, the fact that there is less difference between the approaches than one might imagine at first glance. Carmichael is suggesting roughly seven hours per week on the bike, of which less than an hour and a half (76 minutes, to be precise) are spent at or above LTHR and the bulk of the rest of the time is "endurance miles". It's not all that different from going out for a long steady distance ride a couple of time a week but including some hills in which one goes hard. Hills and rolling terrain is nature's way of making me do intervals...

bigfred 

Chasm,

The question that remains in my head is; What is the minimum amount of "base" that needs to be built before moving into a more high intensity, interval based program? Certainly, for a recreational cyclist, two years of base building would be excessive. I also can't imagine a developing young rider exhibiting that sort of patience. I was back on the bike for approximately a year, at around 100-160km per week, before beginning.

One thing I'm enjoying about this thread is that it has caused me to return to Friel's blog and read his last three posts on aerobic capacity, lactate threshold and economy. It's also caused me to find and read a few other articles on VO2max and lactate threshold testing. I'm gaining a better understanding of what each represents and how they are related.

The economy article was of particular interest. It parallels nicely with one of things I've been working on. On climbs, with a steady heart rate at or near threshold, I've been endeavoring to increase my cadence without increasing my heart rate by recruiting additional muscles and improving my below optimal cadence spin. It seems I can frequently achieve a 10% or better gain in cadence without further increasing my HR.

My reading has also highlighted just how variable all the methods of "approximating" VO2max and LT are when compared to lab testing.

chasm54

That may explain a lot. If you spent a year just riding around for 4000-5000 miles you probably went a fair way to restoring your aerobics base anyway.

For the rest, it depends on how fit the cyclist is when they start, I guess. One thing I try to remember is how much less fit most of us are than our grandparents were, when most people did real physical work for a living. There used to be a joke in Yorkshire that all one had to do to recruit a new fast bowler was whistle down a mineshaft and two or three would emerge. And it was true - if one spent one's days hewing coal or digging canals or heaving bales around, one would laugh at the notion that an hour a day in the gym amounted to strenuous exercise. The British Army complains these days that most of their recruits arrive too unfit to even start "basic" training, they have to do a "basic, basic" period to get them up to speed.

If a young rider has been involved in athletic pursuits through their teens, a lot of this stuff is academic. They are going to arrive fit enough to train seriously. If they've been sitting on a couch for ten years with a playstation and an unlimited supply of pizza, not so much.

bigfred 

Yep, more or less also comes close to paralleling Lon Haldeman's one point training plan of attempting to spend 1 hour per week at or exceeding 90% of max HR.

But, the thing I was poorly attempting to point out to Vesteroid and others was, that to achieve that time at or above threshold one needs to be targeting intervals during the at least two workouts per week. The remaining recovery time between intervals in addition to a weekend ride or two provides below threshold mileage without the need to schedule mid week sub threshold rides. 1/2 to 2/3 of your rides end up being "labelled" interval rides, even though those intervals don't equate to that much time above threshold.


Time for bed.

Brando_T.

The downward spiral?

CJ C, I recommend you do core exercises while you are at the gym. Check Bicycling Magazine's website for some suggestions.

bigfred 

Exactly.

Brando_T.

remains my favourite Sufferfest vid.

bigfred 

I think Dave of Sufferlandria would be more pleased if it were referred to as "your least despised means of destroying yourself". I don't think we're supposed to have "favorite" sufferfests:-)

I like the workout, but, the accompanying footage isn't as good as some of them.

CJ C

Okay Second interval training today, (with cadence working)

https://app.strava.com/activities/13633838

Had a decent warm up, but just couldnt hold the interval efforts for the full minute. Wondering if i dont have a strong enough cycling fitness base to do intervals? I couldnt tell if it was my legs or my lungs stopping me from making the minute (i know, i know its my mind that stopped me)
I did notice that during the cool down it took about 15 minutes before my legs stopped burning, so i count this as a good work out.
I also took a too easy of a cool down, need to step that up a bit.

I decided to switch the tempo and interval days, as i feel the intervals hammer the muscles more and the tempo leans towards the cardio. so putting the interval first in the week i get more rest for the weekend rides. Is this a good thought process?

bigfred 

It appears you warmed up for about 10 minutes. Which isn't bad. But, it wouldn't hurt to give yourself a few more warm up efforts after those 10 minutes and before going into your intervals. Something like 2:00 at 7/10, recover, 1:00 at 8.5/10, recover, 0:45 at 9/10, recover, then workout. Personally, I need at least 15 minutes, preferably 20 before going really hard. Even after that, I frequently feel as though my first interval or two aren't as good as the next few.

With regard to performing a full 60 second interval: Looking at your data, it appears you achieved a cadence of 120-130 rpm. That might be a bit quick for anything but a sprint (<0:15 to 0:45 if really conditioned) at high resistance levels. It probably wouldn't be too quick for light resistance, like any sort of downward sloap/grade. Either way, holding 120+ for 60 seconds is something that I would expect to require some training to achieve.

What sort of Perceived Exertion level were you attempting to maintain? Depending on your condition, one might expect it to be somewhere between 9 and 9.75. 10 would certainly lead to you trailing off after the first 30 seconds or less. I know I've said, "give it everything you've got". But, that has to be kept realative to what you're expecting achieve. If you're expecting to maintain the same cadence and gear for the entire 60 seconds you have to back away from that level ever so slightly.

With regard to having adequate base: I'm not going to ask about total miles or averages. There's just too much variation possible between toodling around for great distances and having been "hitting it" for realatively short ones. Plus, it largely depends upon your starting point. Only you can be the judge of when you have enough base to proceed with this stuff. Or, you can follow the more conventional advice of Friel, et al and particpate in consistent aerobic training for two years before moving on to this sort of stuff.

With regard to your training days: Yep, that's pretty much what I've ended up with. Sunday/Monday are a "Social" or "Recovery" ride. Tuesday is "Trainer Intervals". Which are my hardest interval workout. Wednesday rest. Thursday "Road Intervals". Which are still high intesnsity. But, not as intense as those on the trainer. Friday rest. Saturday "Group Ride".

The article(s) I read that started me on this routine stressed the necessity of remaining flexible with your workouts. Don't hesitate to listen to your body if it starts giving you feedback. There's a difference between "good" sore and "bad" sore. Adjust your rides accordingly. If your tight schedule causes you to miss a ride don't try to double up in order to get it back. The recovery periods are just as important as the workouts. Last nights "Trainer Intervals" were some of the hardest we've done (I've set up an indoor group in our garage. Had four in there last night.) Subsequently, I'm quite sore this morning. I won't hesitate for one second to go for a good tempo ride tomorrow if my legs aren't feeling up to more high intensity riding.

I hope you continue to see the improvements in your riding that you're looking for. Be smart.