I started doing the intervals I saw in Bicycle magazine this past month. I have to say I enjoy them and can also say that I'm the hardest working person in the gym every morning now. I do three of the four they recommended and my favorite is the 20 second speed, 10 second spin interval. They were very difficult the first time I did any of them, but now they are just a really good workout.

+1 on what Rick says

I am a great believer in the fact too many cyclist over think riding, mainly by being wannabe racers.

I ride what I want (a recumbent), where I want and and how fast I want. Since I dont ride in cold weather I gain weight during the winter. But by "just riding" during the summer I lose ten to fifteen pounds.

Naah.

Wannabe racer, moi?

The key is I want to ride further and faster than I can right now, hence the "training".

If I were retired and had no particular obligations I'd just ride. I don't have that luxury.

In that "training" ultimately constitutes pointless suffering, I find it existentially gratifying.

Your "fact" is questionable at best. The OP asked about sticking to a workout program and how is your answer, and those expressing the same sentiment helping him? Because some of you seem to only be riding for enjoyment does not mean everyone shares that with you. There are many who are doing this for more reasons than to just enjoy the scenery. Some of us wish to be faster, stronger, and bettering our health. While your lackluster riding may be working for you it likely will not work for everyone else.

+1 Black wallnut

OP- You established that you were a national class runner and I believe you know what is involved in the preparation of fitness and goals. Cycling is not much different than running. Some of us in the forum need to be in a race or environment where we are tested, while other’s like to ride around and smell the roses and have coffee and pie. It’s all good, as people get from cycling what they need/ want.

You state that climbing is a goal you wish to improve on. Just like running the training needs to address the desired outcome. If you are training for running a marathon a decent portion of your training will be on long distance runs with some longer intervals to improve overall speed. If the outcome is a sub 17’ 5K your intervals will be much more important and intense once you accomplish being able to run 5K. I don’t discount the length of intervals due to being 61 yrs old, but don’t expect to hit the same power numbers or intensity as young and strong guys. Think about it, would you only run for 30 minutes at race pace expecting to do well in a half marathon? The same holds true in cycling. If you want to do a 100 mile ride in 6 hours, training by riding around at a pace that feels good will not prepare you as well as a program that offers some sustained intervals at a pace that exceeds 19-22 mph.

Doing 4 x 10’ intervals will stress the body and system and in time there will be improvements. Cutting the intervals short will not blow up the workout if you went too hard and could not complete the workout. It takes a few times out to get used to meeting the interval parameters. After a while you just dial it in and consider it work to be done. The intensity of the 10’ intervals is important as you do them. What is the workout goal? If for climbing, are you in an overgear? Are the intervals at threshold HR? etc… Also, the total time doing the intervals is something to consider. A total of 40 minutes is short if your hill climb will exceed 1 hr or too long if the improvement you want is more short term due the hills being <1/2 mile and steep.

In my opinion most of the stuff in Bicycle Magazine is generic in that they try to marginalize everything into a “one size fits all” for several reasons in including putting everyone in the same mold. That really helps for the marketing of things being sold in the magazine.

As suggested you might get some good answers in the 50+ Masters Racing and Training Forum.

I like this idea. I keep meaning to grab that book, but never seem to - don't know if it's the Lance connection or if it just always slips my mind. Maybe it'll make its way onto my next amazon order. For me, I need to have a goal to shoot for or I'll get complacent and stop trying. So plans work for me. They don't work for everyone.

Last yr was my 2nd yr back on the road bike after a 13 yr layoff. I'm now 52. Did 9 wks (5 wks in early Summer; 4 wks in Fall) of structured hill intervals on some pretty tough climbs. Started reluctantly at about 70% effort as I didn't want to exacerbate meniscus tears that I have for life in both knees. Increased intensity to about 85-90% after 3 wks. Happily, no problems with knees. I even think that such strengthening of the leg muscles benefited my knees, providing more natural support. Such work also does wonders for body weight resulting in a leaner me for the rest of the year... as long as I eat sensibly most of the time. Of course, having raced for 10 yrs in the '80s, '90s (when I did intervals each yr) makes it easier to tolerate the suffering and pain of doing intervals now. I am a little concerned about possible overuse injuries now that my body is older.

Thanks to those replies that stayed on focus. My goals are to improve endurance and climbing which I think are fairly compatible. I use my heartrate monitor for all my workouts and focus on the intensity/heartrate targets.

My original question came from my need to vary track workouts to avoid injuries. It was hard to adjust to lower reps even when the results supported it. I've always been one to do 100% of the workout because that's what was written. Cycling as a replacement pursuit has given me a wiser approach to training, but I'm still looking to maximize my results. Cycling also seems to lack the violent onset of injuries like running, but I am concerned about staying ahead of overuse injuries.

That said, Allegheny Jet points out the need for the cumulative duration of the intensity of the workout to be compatible to the demands of the event. That's always made sense to me. Thanks again and ride safe.