Carbonfiberboy 

Reading that "tips for climbing" thread downpage, I got to thinking about what I did this past year.

I've been training continuously and somewhat seriously for the past 20 years. All of a sudden in the past couple weeks we can climb at 90 cadence in zone 5 on our tandem without feeling like our life's blood is pouring out through the soles of our shoes. I've been working toward that for a very long time and all of a sudden, I'm there. My problem is that I'm not sure what made the difference. Whatever, suddenly we're putting up Strava PRs and keeping up with people who could always ride away from us on the climbs.

From December 1 to about May 1 we rode in VT1 both weekend days, going from about 60 miles total to about 100. During the week, we usually warmed up on our rollers or trainer for an hour and then lifted heavy weights two days a week, plus did other stuff like the Stepmill or skied.

From about May 1 until the end of July, we went down to 1 weekend ride but that ride kept getting longer and harder until we did the 1-day STP and RAMROD. During the week we rode outside more and quit lifting about June 1 in favor of more riding.

We took a great lot of supplements to supposedly increase our aerobic ability and endurance, and maybe they did. However we quit them all July 30.

I lost weight in about a straight line drop from December 1 until RAMROD, but only about 8 lbs. total. Stoker only lost a little, but she became much more muscular. I also became more muscular.

BTW, we did virtually no formal interval training. We just did the VT1 thing at first. When we started the longer rides, we rode them for time, i.e. as fast as we could. Being oldsters, we didn't have the energy to do more than we did.

So that's my story. Any idea on what worked best? And what could we do better? Or is it that I finally did everything right? I've been telling myself for years that it's not training more, it's training smarter that helps most.

Machka 

Whatever it is ... I'm jealous.

When I climb, I feel like my life's blood is trying to get out of every single pore and my lungs are trying to climb out through my nose.


So I'll be interested to see what people might pin-point as "the key to your success".

Carbonfiberboy 

The supplements, just in case anyone was curious:

Substance Purpose Dose Times/Day

The usual year-round
Whey protein 45g-60g total per day
Cal/Mag softgels with D3 333mg/167mg/200IU 1 X
D3 2000 IU 1 X
Multi vitamin, no iron Product Dietary Supplement Facts of the Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD) 2 X
Fish Oil 300mg 2 X
CoQ-10 100mg 1 X
Alpha Lipoic Acid antioxidant 250mg 2 X
Iron 18mg 3 X week
Glucosamine Sulfate 750mg 1 X


PEDs: Stopping after RAMROD
Acetyl-L Carnitine Fatty acid transport 500mg 2 X
Natural resveratrol ?? use until gone 200mg 2 X
B-12 dots 500mg 1 X
Pyrroloquinoline Quinone (PQQ) Works with CoQ10 20mg 1 X
N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC) antioxidant precursor to glutathione 600mg 2 X
CoQ-10 mitochondrial function 100mg 1 X
Shilajit Fulvic Acid Complex Works with CoQ10 250mg 1 X

a1penguin

With all those pills, you don't need any meals :-) What do you typically eat at meal time? Lots of protein, salad? I've stopped taking mega vitamins (except for calcium for my old bones and a fish oil) and concentrate on eating balanced meals.

bruce19

Lost weight...got stronger....weight to power is what I'm guessing. Have you been doing hill repeats or more hills generally?

mapeiboy

+1 . Eat less and exercise more .

Carbonfiberboy 

As my post said, we did many things. No, we did not do hill repeats. As I said, no formal intervals of any kind. Again, we trained for and rode the 1-day STP and RAMROD, one of only 3 tandems to finish AFAIK. But I rode these rides on my single several times 15 years ago and did not get these results. As I said, I've been training for 20 years. I'm not an idiot.

bruce19

I never said or implied you were an idiot. But, you are sounding a bit defensive. No worries though, you won't hear from me again.

BlazingPedals

I'm going to take a wild guess that your MHR is higher than you think it is. Zone 5 is not something you an sustain for long, or without significant cost.

69chevy

I'm either a freak of nature, a cardiac time bomb, or that isn't always true.

80% of my max heart rate (191) is 152.8 bpm. 191 is the highest I've ever recorded and it was a full effort up a 10% grade.

Literature says that zone 5 is only sustainable in short bursts (less than a minute).

I sustained what literature calls my zone 5 for over an hour.

I'll admit I'm a HR noob, but can you enlighten me. (OP... If you don't want side discussions, I'll take this elsewhere.)

Carbonfiberboy 

OK, whatever. I probably should have been more specific about what has and hasn't changed. What hadn't changed were the training rides for STP and RAMROD. If anything, those training rides were a little shorter and we rode them at a slightly lower intensity than usual simply because we couldn't ride them any harder. I'm curious about whether that lowering of intensity was because we didn't do intervals or because our overall volume was higher. We were getting some Strava PRs for the tandem though. What changed were the VT1 work, the supplements, the volume, and the heavy weights.

My "not an idiot" remark is because if one is faster climbing for sure one's power to weight ratio is better. There isn't another explanation. My question is why or perhaps some ranking for what changes did what.

Carbonfiberboy 

I didn't say I could sustain Z5 at 90 cadence for a long time, just that I could do it at all. I've usually been able to sustain Z5 for 5-10 minutes but at a much lower cadence. Actually I've been putting in 159 as my MHR even though I haven't seen over 156 for a long time. I've been using 143 as my LTHR, but that's probably technically too high: I don't think I could sustain that for an hour, maybe only 20 minutes. I do Z5 intervals at ~146 which I can hold for ~8 minutes in a set, longer if I only do one.

Carbonfiberboy 

Why do you think that 80% of MHR is an interesting number? That's about the top of Friel's Z2. I should hope you could sustain that for over an hour. I've averaged an 80% HR on 3 hour group rides. For most people, Z5 starts at 89%-92% of MHR. However that may be, only testing can tell you your lactate threshold which is the beginning of Z5.

Information about a common LTHR field test can be found here: CTS Field Test: Why two 8-minute efforts instead of one 20-minute effort? - CTS

I believe you are incorrect about what the literature says about Z5 interval limits.

69chevy

The HR training guide I read calls "zone 4" the 80% to 90% zone.

It calls "zone 5" 90-100%

Should I be able to average "Zone 5" for over an hour and never get below "Zone 4" from mile 2 to mile 22?

EDIT: Ziel's LTHR formula also put me in "Zone 5" as an average for the whole ride. (162-172)

bruce19

Actually there can be. It's called technique. My power to weight ratio did not change but my climbing got better because of two things I learned from others. First, I learned to exhale with force which emptied my lungs allowing me to inhale more air. That helped me a lot. Then a professional trainer explained that some people can climb better with increased rpms while others can use bigger gears and rely on power. It depends on your body type and strength. I abandoned the former for the latter and my climbing improved again. So, it doesn't have to be just power to weight.

69chevy

I think the variable of the extra rider makes it hard to figure out.

Carbonfiberboy 

OK. Are we good? I seem to have changed from a moderate rpm climber to higher rpms. At least for now I only pedal fast at high power, dropping the rpms as the power drops. Which makes sense if one can do it. I'm going to continue to work on that, thinking that like for most things, practice helps.

69chevy

Now that I can tell you from personal experience, is a big booster to your climbing ability.

Increasing my cadence was the best (and one of the hardest) changes I've ever made. I used to rely on my legs until they were taxed, and then spin 90-100 to let them recover.

Once I tried a high cadence, I immediately noticed two things. I could climb long grades faster, and I had more leg left once I crested.

Carbonfiberboy 

Well . . . There are many HR zone systems, which don't matter at all because the only thing that matters is how a training plan is structured within that zone system. I've actually gone to a 3 zone system for my training, but don't usually mention it because the US audience is wired for a 5 zone system. In the 3 zone system, zone 1 is below where your breathing rate increases so that you can no longer talk in a normal conversational manner. Zone 3 is panting. Zone 2 is everything in between. The idea is to train as little as possible in that system's zone 2. More easily said than done.

Edit: that system's zone 3 is the same as the conventional US zone 5: panting.

69chevy

Well I'm willing to have a look if you have a link.

The only way I could follow conventional HR training is to either ride at a lower cadence, avoid hills, or change my max HR to over 200 (which would be cheating unless I actually could get it that high).

Thanks

Drew Eckhardt 

I've yet to see anyone reputable basing their zone system on maximum heart rate which can't be predicted based on a formula, varies as a multiple of peoples anaerobic threshold which is relevant to training, and some people aren't fit or motivated enough to reach.

Everyone uses something around the lactate threshold heart rate, AeT anaerobic threshold, or VT2 ventilatory threshold 2.

Most use LTHR measured with a ramp test and blood draws or approximated like Friel's average over the last 20 minutes of a 30 minute time trial.

Chris Carmichael uses an alternate zone system based on a pair of 8-minute time trials.

Tangentially moving farther into Zone 5 (which Friel sub-divides) heart rate becomes less meaningful due to lag. Shorter intervals are done before it gets to where it would be in a steady-state.

20 minutes (second macro-cycle post-crash on a trainer)

10 minutes (pre-crash outdoors)

Drew Eckhardt 

Google "Polarized training" and "Stephen Seiler" who is the most popular proponent of it.

You'll find abundant material from reputable people in the usual places like the ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, the wattage google group and slowtwitch.com

Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance variables than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training

Polarized thread on slowtwitch with contributions from seiler himself

and plenty of anecdotal reports.

It even works better for people training only 5 hours a week (6.4 average, 1.4 standard deviation):
Six weeks of a polarized training-intensity distribution leads to greater physiological and performance adaptations than a threshold model in trained cyclists

wphamilton

Polarized Training FTW You'd posted some months ago about some improvements, and that's all that you said that you'd changed so ... VT1 for greater distances, maybe as simple as that.

except, I'm making note of the supplements anyway, just in case.

Drew Eckhardt 

You have a broader aerobic base so you stress your anaerobic system less. After 6000 base miles my lactate threshold heart rate increased from 164 to 168, and 4bpm is significant when you're working that hard.

You also lost a little weight. With 5% less power doubling endurance that's a big deal.

7-10 minute intervals past AnT/VT2 as hard as you can sustain once a week plus more volume below AeT/VT1.

Drew Eckhardt 

Anecdotally my rate of power increase seems to be about the same regardless of whether I ride anaerobic intervals once or twice a week, and mix in tempo rides or not.

OTOH I'm much faster on longer rides with more rides below my aerobic threshold, and those can be harder when I'm fresher from fewer hard rides.

That did wonders for my body composition too, with those miles not making me hungry and knocking off an extra 40 pounds of fat so I can climb like a mountain goat as I did nearly 20 years ago.