Plain "old school" Training

[Lovsexy4]

I'm not really sure what my power-to-weight ratio is, but I can tell you that I'm very powerful on hills.
I've never had a problem will hills and I climb them very well. I live in an area called Temple Hills MD.
Any where you ride around here you have to climb. This is my strong suit. I can push this 240lbs over any hill with no problems. I ride with guys that are between 23-45 years of age, and between 124-270lbs and will be waiting at the top of the hills waiting on most of them. Some of these hills are around a quarter and a half to some being about a mile long. All of my rides and training rides consist of at least 10 rolling hills per ride. We have more hills than flats in this area. I know the elevations on two of the rides are 1770 feet over 46 miles and 2403 feet over 63 miles.

[asgelle]

Any where you ride around here you have to climb.

Well I guess that depends on your definition of climbing. The highest point in Maryland is 3360 ft. We often do a climb that rises 5,000 ft in 23 miles. My short weeknight ride climbs 2,000 ft in 20 miles. That includes a 2.2 mile climb rising 1,000 ft.

[SSP]

I'm not really sure what my power-to-weight ratio is, but I can tell you that I'm very powerful on hills.
I've never had a problem will hills and I climb them very well. I live in an area called Temple Hills MD.
Any where you ride around here you have to climb. This is my strong suit. I can push this 240lbs over any hill with no problems. I ride with guys that are between 23-45 years of age, and between 124-270lbs and will be waiting at the top of the hills waiting on most of them. Some of these hills are around a quarter and a half to some being about a mile long. All of my rides and training rides consist of at least 10 rolling hills per ride. We have more hills than flats in this area. I don't know the elevations on any of them, though I could find out.

Hmmm...sounds kind of fishy to me. In general, skinnier cyclists are much faster going up hill. At 5' 9" and 240 lbs, you are far into the "Obese" category. If you are consistently the first one up the hill then I can assure you that you're riding with a pretty slow group. And if you were to lose a bunch of weight, you would undoubtedly get much faster on the bike (except, perhaps, going down hill ).

And, FWIW, it sounds like your typical route has about 35 feet of climbing per mile...that qualifies as "rolling" terrain, not "hilly".

By way of comparison, I'm 7 years older than you, and my ride yesterday was 63 miles, with 3500 feet of climbing (56 feet of climbing per mile). With only a couple of stops, I averaged just over 18 mph solo.

As for training techniques - right now I'm just building base and getting back into the bike. I've only been on my new ride for 3 weeks, after a 4 week layoff due to being hit by a car while I was riding 40 mph down a winding canyon road. I employ a mix of "old school" (ride lots, ride hard), with "new school" (structured intervals, hill repeats, diet, etc.).

[Lovsexy4]

Hmmm...sounds kind of fishy to me. In general, skinnier cyclists are much faster going up hill. At 5' 9" and 240 lbs, you are far into the "Obese" category. If you are consistently the first one up the hill then I can assure you that you're riding with a pretty slow group. And if you were to lose a bunch of weight, you would undoubtedly get much faster on the bike (except, perhaps, going down hill ).

And, FWIW, it sounds like your typical route has about 35 feet of climbing per mile...that qualifies as "rolling" terrain, not "hilly".

By way of comparison, I'm 7 years older than you, and my ride yesterday was 63 miles, with 3500 feet of climbing (56 feet of climbing per mile). With only a couple of stops, I averaged just over 18 mph solo.

As for training techniques - right now I'm just building base and getting back into the bike. I've only been on my new ride for 3 weeks, after a 4 week layoff due to being hit by a car while I was riding 40 mph down a winding canyon road. I employ a mix of "old school" (ride lots, ride hard), with "new school" (structured intervals, hill repeats, diet, etc.).

Why does this sound fishy...There is nothing general about cycling. Some of us big guys have lots of power and are very skilled. There is nothing slow about our group. My up hill pace is about 11 to 15mph.
Solid. You think little skinny guys are the only guys who can climb well. We don't listin to the normal. Some of our rides have an elevation of 1770 feet on a 46 miler and 2300 feet on a 63 mile run. And yes, I can get up to about 42 to 43 mph gown down hill on some of our hills. Yes baby...we have hills here.

[Carbonfiberboy]

lol 15mph is nothing? doh! Its my first season of cycling ever. I'm 26 and 5'3 weighing 160lbs. I was so proud of myself that I did a 15mph avg pace in an hour of riding. I was cruising at 18-20mph on flats. I'm really seriously thinking of training super hard this summer and getting into competitive cycling.

I know almost nothing about cycling other then I want to return to my glory days of being athletic when I was 18. What is the average mph that champion amateur riders ride? I'm also pondering every day on whether I should be splurging on technologies to help me reach my goal such as having the proper clothes, shoe, Garmin 305 with HR/Cadence, and trainers.

I have the clothes, shoes, and trainer. I'm pondering away day and night on whether to get the Garmin 305 if it would improve my game and continue my interest. The cost of this sport is so expensive .. I think I spent closed to $2k within the last 2 months. I have put on 250+ miles and hours on the trainer and I feel a lot of improvements already.

Pretty funny thread, huh? Good for you. Champion amateur riders? I rode with a guy last weekend who rode over 470 miles in 24 hours on a rolling to hilly course. That's what fast is. If you can average 18 mph on a 50 mile course with 50' of climbing per mile, you're doing darn good. Good enough. You do that, you can ride with anybody. And it's totally doable. It takes years to build strength and speed, so get after it, don't get discouraged, and have fun. It's a lifetime sport.

It is an expensive sport. Simplest and cheapest Polar HRM will do fine for now. Cateye Astrale computer with cadence. Find a bike club that has group rides you can go on. Have fun.

As far as the OP's point, I disagree. As soon as I got serious about riding, I got an HRM and a bike computer. They've been a huge help. Now I ride 400-800 miles/month and am starting to do rando rides. Training smarter is not a bad thing. Trying to measure each other's whatevers over the internet is pretty funny. I ride with a guy who has no instrumentation whatsoever. He can drop me on any steep hill, however. What's he need it for? Me, I need it. I've dropped him on a couple of hills this spring, for the first time. I intend to work on doing it again. Whaddya bet, I start dropping him and he shows up with an HRM. It's an arms race.

[SSP]

Why does this sound fishy...There is nothing general about cycling. Some of us big guys have lots of power and are very skilled. There is nothing slow about our group. My up hill pace is about 11 to 15mph.
Solid. You think little skinny guys are the only guys who can climb well. We don't listin to the normal. Some of our rides have an elevation of 1770 feet on a 46 miler and 2300 feet on a 63 mile run. And yes, I can get up to about 42 to 43 mph gown down hill on some of our hills. Yes baby...we have hills here.

It sounds fishy because I've ridden tens of thousands of miles, with thousands of other cyclists (FWIW, I've crossed the Continental Divide in Colorado 10 times, have ridden Alpe d'Huez, done some racing, etc.).

And even though there's occasionally a big guy who's strong, it's quite uncommon. It's a lot more common to see a 5' 6" 140 lb guy flying up the hill than somebody who's 100 lbs heavier.

[moto367]

Does somebody need a nap?

[UmneyDurak]

I'm not really sure what my power-to-weight ratio is, but I can tell you that I'm very powerful on hills.
I've never had a problem will hills and I climb them very well. I live in an area called Temple Hills MD.
Any where you ride around here you have to climb. This is my strong suit. I can push this 240lbs over any hill with no problems. I ride with guys that are between 23-45 years of age, and between 124-270lbs and will be waiting at the top of the hills waiting on most of them. Some of these hills are around a quarter and a half to some being about a mile long. All of my rides and training rides consist of at least 10 rolling hills per ride. We have more hills than flats in this area. I know the elevations on two of the rides are 1770 feet over 46 miles and 2403 feet over 63 miles.

Not to be rude... but that would be considered a flatish ride.

[8Lives]

I'm not really sure what my power-to-weight ratio is, but I can tell you that I'm very powerful on hills.
I've never had a problem will hills and I climb them very well. I live in an area called Temple Hills MD.
Any where you ride around here you have to climb. This is my strong suit. I can push this 240lbs over any hill with no problems. I ride with guys that are between 23-45 years of age, and between 124-270lbs and will be waiting at the top of the hills waiting on most of them. Some of these hills are around a quarter and a half to some being about a mile long. All of my rides and training rides consist of at least 10 rolling hills per ride. We have more hills than flats in this area. I know the elevations on two of the rides are 1770 feet over 46 miles and 2403 feet over 63 miles.

Sorry, but have to concur with the other posters on this one. Around here those are pretty flat rides. My warm up from my house is a 2.4 mile climb, about 600 feet. To start the ride. I did 32 miles yesterday, with 2,560 feet of climbing. Checking...a 19 miler last week on a pretty standard loop here was 1760 feet. You really need to be at the 80-100 feet per mile level to be considered "hilly". No wonder your power is more important than real climbing ability - which is probably why you do se well on them. On the flip side - I'd hate to have to go head to head with you on the flats!

[Pat]

Riding a bike with sneakers hurts my feet. And what makes you think having technology makes someone work less than someone without technology?

And, sorry, but a 15 mph pace is nothing to brag about. I can do that too and I am an overweight woman with medical problems.

I think you might be getting a bit litearal there. The point was that one does not have to get involved in new fangled stuff or the latest thing to be an effective, happy and fit cyclist. I can see how the new thing catches on. It is a good way to sell stuff. So there is an economic incentive and it drives much of the industry. Also many people buy into it.

As for shoes, I agree with you. Cycling specific shoes make a big difference. Like you, for me the pain of de feet is no fun on long bike rides and cycling shoes stop that.

[NomadVW]

Why does this sound fishy...There is nothing general about cycling. Some of us big guys have lots of power and are very skilled. There is nothing slow about our group. My up hill pace is about 11 to 15mph.
Solid. You think little skinny guys are the only guys who can climb well. We don't listin to the normal. Some of our rides have an elevation of 1770 feet on a 46 miler and 2300 feet on a 63 mile run. And yes, I can get up to about 42 to 43 mph gown down hill on some of our hills. Yes baby...we have hills here.

It sounds fishy because if you're the first one to the top on all the hills, climbing @ 15mph top speed, your average speed should be higher. I'm not saying you're not the strongest of all your mates.

Here's why we think it sounds fishy. Say you're doing 15 mph up 5%. At your weight, no wind we're talking 376 watts. Let's consider you doing that for an hour - sustainable. (I'm making an assumption that this is not actually the case, as your avg speed is 15 mph overall, which would be a much smaller power requirement) That puts you at most around 3.5 watts/kg for an hour. Your training plan isn't working when comparing it to a lot of other riders.

I'm not saying it's not working for you. But I'd be willing to stake a claim that says guys training your "old school" way will typically (though not necessarily always) get out-trained by the guys doing it the "new school" ways.

My read on the thread is that you like to ride and ride for the enjoyment without feeling attached to the gadgets. Many of us ride not just for being on the bike. Many of us ride because we specifically want to train a specific skill set. I like having all the tools I can have at my disposal to make the most of my limited training time. That's fun for me.

[Lovsexy4]

I don't know how we got here, but I will concur to a point...I don't live in an area where we climb hills that most would consider mountains. My original thread point was that one does not have to get involved in new fangled stuff or the latest gadgets and gizmos to be an effective cyclist. NOTE: Some of you keep bringing up my touring or cruising speed of 15mph as my avg speed. I ride at this speed during longer rides of 65-100 milers only when I'm working on endurance and distance. My avg speed is about 18mph more or less on some rides. Now, Once again, I'm not anti-technology in anyway. I have just made it a personal part of my many years of training and riding, not to get caught up in all the new school ways of doing it. The way I approach all the sports that I'm involved in..., I play Flag football, Hiking and Mountaineering. I'm also a freestyle kickboxer. From a training perspective, I have always been uncommon and considered "Old Schooled" to most. I have pushed my bikes through the boundaries of Banff and Jasper National parks in western Alberta, Cananda, I have attemped the Montezumas's Revenge in CO, finishing more than half of the 234 mile, 35,000 feet of climbing over 200 miles at altitudes from 9000 to 14270 feet. Out of the three centuries that I ride per year, I ride the Mt. Mitchell Century in Spartanburg, SC every May.
The first 72 miles have 4500 feet of climbing. At about 40 miles in you have about 1000 feet of vertical climbing in less than a mile. Finishing the last 27 miles that gain 6500 feet to the finish line. I've finished a respectable 7.2 hours. I have also done 100 miles in Wichita Falls, TX., where the temps were 106 degrees. In my 47 years I have gotten around a bit. I have rode my bike all over the U.S., many times over. I have finished many centuries with just a couple of bananas, some Ice tea and wearing sandals.
I don't need structured training methods, gels, HR monitors, Top of the line bikes and machines.
And I have no problem hanging with most..."Not All"...who totally can't survive without them.
Again, I challange many of you to just give them up for one month, and ride totally by your gut.
Free yourselves from tech, just for a little while. And see how you feel afterwards.
Just One Month. Can You? Will You?

Joe

[8Lives]

Read my post above - I think your reasoning contains a fallacy. Using some technology doesn't reduce "feel" or "gut', it improves it. If you used some additional tools, you would probably be a better cyclist. I am 47 too, but I don't cite all my athletic accomplishments (including 3 ironmans) to support my points.

And gels? Are you actually saying that proper nutrition on a ride can go out the window too?

Old School = Luddite?

[UmneyDurak]

I don't know how we got here, but I will concur to a point...I don't live in an area where we climb hills that most would consider mountains. My original thread point was that one does not have to get involved in new fangled stuff or the latest gadgets and gizmos to be an effective cyclist. NOTE: Some of you keep bringing up my touring or cruising speed of 15mph as my avg speed. I ride at this speed during longer rides of 65-100 milers only when I'm working on endurance and distance. My avg speed is about 18mph more or less on some rides. Now, Once again, I'm not anti-technology in anyway. I have just made it a personal part of my many years of training and riding, not to get caught up in all the new school ways of doing it. The way I approach all the sports that I'm involved in..., I play Flag football, Hiking and Mountaineering. I'm also a freestyle kickboxer. From a training perspective, I have always been uncommon and considered "Old Schooled" to most. I have pushed my bikes through the boundaries of Banff and Jasper National parks in western Alberta, Cananda, I have attemped the Montezumas's Revenge in CO, finishing more than half of the 234 mile, 35,000 feet of climbing over 200 miles at altitudes from 9000 to 14270 feet. Out of the three centuries that I ride per year, I ride the Mt. Mitchell Century in Spartanburg, SC every May.
The first 72 miles have 4500 feet of climbing. At about 40 miles in you have about 1000 feet of vertical climbing in less than a mile. Finishing the last 27 miles that gain 6500 feet to the finish line. I've finished a respectable 7.2 hours. I have also done 100 miles in Wichita Falls, TX., where the temps were 106 degrees. In my 47 years I have gotten around a bit. I have rode my bike all over the U.S., many times over. I have finished many centuries with just a couple of bananas, some Ice tea and wearing sandals.
I don't need structured training methods, gels, HR monitors, Top of the line bikes and machines.
And I have no problem hanging with most..."Not All"...who totally can't survive without them.
Again, I challange many of you to just give them up for one month, and ride totally by your gut.
Free yourselves from tech, just for a little while. And see how you feel afterwards.
Just One Month. Can You? Will You?

Joe

Yes I can, Yes I had, and no I won't. If just riding around works for you thats great. You also training for different type of stuff then some people. Doing a century with couple bananas, and ice tea might have worked, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Even "old school" made an attempt at better nutrition. I agree with a previous poster. There is a basic flaw in your argument that somehow technology takes away the "gut feeling". It doesn't. It just gives you more information to consider and analyze, and it lets you get the most out of your work outs. Quality over quantity.

[Lovsexy4]

Read my post above - I think your reasoning contains a fallacy. Using some technology doesn't reduce "feel" or "gut', it improves it. If you used some additional tools, you would probably be a better cyclist. I am 47 too, but I don't cite all my athletic accomplishments (including 3 ironmans) to support my points.

And gels? Are you actually saying that proper nutrition on a ride can go out the window too?

Old School = Luddite?

I have read your post, I don't think you have read my post or my responses carefully. For the fourth time to some of you folks...I NEVER STATED THAT USING TECHNOLOGY REDUCES "FEEL OR GUT"! I believe that I'm a good cyclist without it. You can't say to me nor prove to me that if I train using all the new school tech, that this will make me a much better cyclist. You are trying to compare my state of fitness to what?

I cited my athletic accomplishments as a point of reference to what someone had posted as a response to something I wrote early on. However, If I choose to do so what is the big deal? I'm proud of all the athletic accomplishments that I have acheived over the years. Hell, you should be too! I don't care if you share them here. Go for it! I'm interested in what other people have done. That's why I'm here. To share. To learn. And to answer the last part of your response, No I'm not saying you should throw proper nutrition out the window. But what you consider "Proper" nutrition for your training methods may not work for me. I do just fine with Grape Juice and Iced Tea on all of my rides. I'm 240lbs Solid. I have never bonked on a ride...Ever! I eat what I want on rides, mainly Bananas, Snickers, hummus and peta bread and jellybeans. Love all this stuff on and off the bike. Hell, If I weighed 200lbs or 175lbs, I would most likely be a real beast on the bike. This I will not argue. But I'm not in this sport to lose weight. I have been this weight for more than 10 years, give or take. And I carry it well. I'm a running back on my football team and played for the Boston College Eagles back in the 80's. I have always been a natural athlete. I have become a good cyclist without all the New school tech or common training methods that most have and still use today. And this seems to really piss some folks off! I and many of my friends have proved over and over, that you don't need all of these things to be a good cyclist. But if you must, and want to have them. NO PROBLEM! My awaking is....It's a want...Not a need.

[Lovsexy4]

Doing a century with couple bananas, and ice tea might have worked, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Who's to say that its not a good idea? If it works!!! And it does!!! Over and Over again!!!
Come on people!!!

[SSP]

I have read your post, I don't think you have read my post or my responses carefully. For the fourth time to some of you folks...I NEVER STATED THAT USING TECHNOLOGY REDUCES "FEEL OR GUT"! I believe that I'm a good cyclist without it. You can't say to me nor prove to me that if I train using all the new school tech, that this will make me a much better cyclist. You are trying to compare my state of fitness to what?

I cited my athletic accomplishments as a point of reference to what someone had posted as a response to something I wrote early on. However, If I choose to do so what is the big deal? I'm proud of all the athletic accomplishments that I have acheived over the years. Hell, you should be too! I don't care if you share them here. Go for it! I'm interested in what other people have done. That's why I'm here. To share. To learn. And to answer the last part of your response, No I'm not saying you should throw proper nutrition out the window. But what you consider "Proper" nutrition for your training methods may not work for me. I do just fine with Grape Juice and Iced Tea on all of my rides. I'm 240lbs Solid. I have never bonked on a ride...Ever! I eat what I want on rides, mainly Bananas, Snickers, hummus and peta bread and jellybeans. Love all this stuff on and off the bike. Hell, If I weighed 200lbs or 175lbs, I would most likely be a real beast on the bike. This I will not argue. But I'm not in this sport to lose weight. I have been this weight for more than 10 years, give or take. And I carry it well. I'm a running back on my football team and played for the Boston College Eagles back in the 80's. I have always been a natural athlete. I have become a good cyclist without all the New school tech or common training methods that most have and still use today. And this seems to really piss some folks off! I and many of my friends have proved over and over, that you don't need all of these things to be a good cyclist. But if you must, and want to have them. NO PROBLEM! My awaking is....It's a want...Not a need.

I congratulate and salute you on your cycling accomplishments. It's good that you're out there and staying fit.

But, clearly, you would be a much stronger cyclist if you:

a) trained more (100 miles per week is not very much).

b) lost a bunch of weight (at 5' 9", 240 lbs, you're quite obese, and probably dragging a whole lot of fat up those Maryland hills).


Many of us have spent much time and effort studying modern training techniques, and using those principles to help us to become better cyclists. Some of us are real "techies", and some of us have used things like HRM's to help with training (mostly, as Terry Morse said, to force us to slow down on "easy" training days). On the other hand, some of us just "ride lots" and "eat less" without a lot of structure to it (the basis of most old school training)

For you to come into the "Training and Nutrition" forum and insist that you have some secret formula for success and happiness seems kind of, well, arrogant.

[Lovsexy4]

I congratulate and salute you on your cycling accomplishments. It's good that you're out there and staying fit.

But, clearly, you would be a much stronger cyclist if you:

a) trained more (100 miles per week is not very much).

b) lost a bunch of weight (at 5' 9", 240 lbs, you're quite obese, and probably dragging a whole lot of fat up those Maryland hills).


Many of us have spent much time and effort studying modern training techniques, and using those principles to help us to become better cyclists. Some of us are real "techies", and some of us have used things like HRM's to help with training (mostly, as Terry Morse said, to force us to slow down on "easy" training days). On the other hand, some of us just "ride lots" and "eat less" without a lot of structure to it (the basis of most old school training)

For you to come into the "Training and Nutrition" forum and insist that you have some secret formula for success and happiness seems kind of, well, arrogant.

No my friend, what is arrogant is the many negative and child like responses that you and others have posted about something I'm taking the time to share. Read carefully, I have not come here with a secret formula. I'm sharing successes and observations. You sound stressed. Maybe you're training to hard!
100 miles a week is just fine for me. Anytime you want to come to Maryland and ride with the "The Big Dogs" you are welcome to stay at my home. Anytime. Just let me know!

[8Lives]

For you to come into the "Training and Nutrition" forum and insist that you have some secret formula for success and happiness seems kind of, well, arrogant.

+1 Whether you realize it or not, there has been a thread of arrogance and "look how good I am" in your posts. I think we are all saying that a) good for you that you are having so much fun and feel good; b) your advice/challenge does not have a sound basis for others and c) you would probably be an even stronger cyclist if you used more tools (proper nutrition, data, etc.) - butif you are having fun than don't! Just don't tell others to emulate you.

I really don;t see anything child like in any responses, including mine. Negative? yes, because the consensus is that you are wrong. Hey, you wanted a debate!

[UmneyDurak]

Who's to say that its not a good idea? If it works!!! And it does!!! Over and Over again!!!
Come on people!!!

Nutrition science.

[Lovsexy4]

+1 Whether you realize it or not, there has been a thread of arrogance and "look how good I am" in your posts. I think we are all saying that a) good for you that you are having so much fun and feel good; b) your advice/challenge does not have a sound basis for others and c) you would probably be an even stronger cyclist if you used more tools (proper nutrition, data, etc.) - butif you are having fun than don't! Just don't tell others to emulate you.

I really don;t see anything child like in any responses, including mine. Negative? yes, because the consensus is that you are wrong. Hey, you wanted a debate!

If it is arrogant to share and discuss, than I'm the most arrogant person walking or riding!
"Look how good I am using non conformist methods. To ask a community to look at a point of view?
And for many of you to say..."You're Wrong"! This is not a right or wrong issue. This is a way of life that works for me and many others. None of you are in any postion to tell me I'm wrong. You can say...Hey that doesn't work for me! But to say I'm wrong and go on an all out assault and tell me I'm wrong.
Who are you? That's not right. Please tell me you get it now?
Wow!
Joe

[SSP]

If it is arrogant to share and discuss, than I'm the most arrogant person walking or riding!
"Look how good I am using non conformist methods. To ask a community to look at a point of view?
And for many of you to say..."You're Wrong"! This is not a right or wrong issue. This is a way of life that works for me and many others. None of you are in any postion to tell me I'm wrong. You can say...Hey that doesn't work for me! But to say I'm wrong and go on an all out assault and tell me I'm wrong.
Who are you? That's not right. Please tell me you get it now?
Wow!
Joe

When you make statements like this:

My observation is that many age group athletes get way too caught up in the gizmos and data...and they'd most likely get faster if they just put their nose to the grind stone and actually 'trained' a little harder...Like an old school athlete like myself.
Just a pair of sneakers and a bike.

You are implying that you have some sort of knowledge that the rest of us are overlooking. While it's true that just "putting nose to grind stone" is useful advice to some, many of us already do that...and much more. Many of us ride twice as much as you do, and watch our diets more closely than you (Team Snickers? ).

As for "old school athletes" - old school training emphasized riding lots, and eating less. It sounds like your training is deficient in both areas.

As for "sneakers"...most of us know that that's bad advice. They're bad for performance, bad for foot and ankle comfort, and a disaster in the style department (and even "old school athletes" wore appropriate footwear).

[8Lives]

Everyone supports you doing what you enjoy. And there may be just a touch of arrogance when you live in a fairly flat area and use 'hill smasher" in your name. Just sayin...

[merlinman]

Your "challenge" to use "old school methods" has no credibility. You cite no evidence that would cause anyone to take your approach seriously. Your "personal" experience is not evidence - your "performance" would be a regress for many of us. You cite no studies or anything which shows that a group or people who used more "modern" approaches improved their performance by reverting to old school. In fact it flies in the face of all the performance data of people who move to more modern methods (look at the studies of performance improvements in people who train using power), It flies in the face of all the pros who train this way and perform better. I am really happy that you like what you do and your approach and that it works for you. If you come to this forum and say just that - more power to you. But when you shout that we should all try this - because "it works" - you open yourself to challenge. Your approach and your "challenge" is not credible. But if it makes you happy to follow this - I am all for it for you.

[merlinman]

here's another thing I found on the cycling forum on power training. It uses an old fashioned thing called "math". The 3 numbers after each person's name are threshold power output, weight in kilograms, and watts per kilo. Watts per kilo is the metric you can use to see how you stack up against others - basically force and weight produce velocity.

To use an example - a mid category 3 roadie has a watts/kilo of about 4.00. I'm 50yo and right now am at 3.5 watts per kilo (good Cat 4). I produce 281 watts at threshold and weigh 75 kilos (165 lbs). You are 110 kilos and for you and I to be equivilent on a ride or climb you'd have to produce 455 watts of threshold power. If you look at the list below you can see that no one produces that much power - even the exceptional ones.

So I'd rather stick with training methods which have proven results or look at new ones which use evidence that is supportable.



the holster 370 67 5.52
Camoscio 340 62 5.48
scotmart 385 72 5.35 19:58 (47:21 on a 37.8km course)
musher 340 64 5.31
clausfod 414 78 5.307
bigmatt 396 75 5.28
joemw 354 68 5.20
whoawhoa 320 62.5 5.12
gvanwagner 325 64 5.08
c.walton 325 65 5.00
BullGod 340 69 4.93
musher 318 65 4.89
PSUCycling 324 67 4.83 Cat2 (U.S.)
Markster 335 70 4.79 19:57 51:55
2007 bikeguy 340 72 kg 4.71 W/kg, 12 minute power 400 (+?) w @ 100 rpm
Dirtcoach 305 65.6 4.65
postal_bag 345 75 4.6
gonzalovilaseca 310 68 4.56
kennethn 320 70.3 4.55
JohnMeyers 350 77 4.54
rmur 380 85 4.47 (PT Pro)
NomadVW 345 77 4.48
peterpen 290 65 4.46
zaskar 280 63 4.44
midbunchlurker 275 62 4.43
joule 266 60 4.43
HammerHead 300 68 4.41
rouleur 315 72 4.38
Thorman 340 78 4.36
rmur 370 85 4.35 (PT Pro, ~380W on SRM)
Chowderm 325 75 4.33 52:19
Lazy Llama 286 66 4.33 13.3 mi TT, 30:12
dshep27283 345 80 4.31
PaulMD 297 69 4.30
RobM 312 73 4.27
2006 bikeguy 315 74 4.26 corrected for weight
cadence230 280 4.24
bikeguy 315 72 4.38 5 km rolling TT, 7:15; standard, no aero bars, after 90k
andoveradi 322 76 4.23
mattv2099 314 75 4.19
grebletie 272 65 4.18 Cat 4 (U.S.)
Stanette 313 75 4.17
Atsic 252 61 4.13
yzfrr11 310 75 4.13
Xav 318 77 4.13
pledac 285 69 4.13
Spunout 280 68 4.12
RapDaddyo 325 80 4.06
velobob 310 77 4.03
jack.hutchinson 285 71 4.01
PeterWright 280 70 4