More recovery time as we age?
09-16-18, 06:09 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Ok. How old are you? How long have you been training? What kind of off the bike training do you do? How much sleep do you get? What's your diet? I'd bet you could get same results in 12-15 hrs of training per week.
I do agree that if you strictly train on the bike than it's hard to over train because once your body is adapted then cycling isn't a big strain on your system.
I do agree that if you strictly train on the bike than it's hard to over train because once your body is adapted then cycling isn't a big strain on your system.
I completely agree with the hours. Actually, now I get far better results at 8-10 hours of training, though I focus more on crits. But 14-16 hours a week probably would have been the sweet spot at that point, especially for racing in Europe.
But yes, you really have to push through over and over again to reach a point of overtraining, and then you have to keep going. Not a good experience.
Last edited by rubiksoval; 09-16-18 at 06:12 PM.
09-16-18, 07:17 PM
#27
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,127
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1340 Post(s)
Liked 2,482 Times
in
1,457 Posts
Generally, I am training for racing 4 to 5 times per week. There are at least 2 hard days however, all I do are intervals meaning that all workouts have a given duration and intensity.
With respect to recovery time, my training has been about the same for the last 10 years. Recently, I read Mathew Walkers Book - Why We Sleep. I have increased my sleep about 2,5 hours per week in addition to naps. That change has had a dramatic effect on my cycling power and recovery. I eat back to back hard days like candy where prior to adding sleep, they were more difficult.
In addition to cycling, I spend a lot of time in the gym strength training. I focus on the muscles that cycling does not work. Sometimes I work on leg strength but not before competitions. I think strength is a key metric in reducing fatigue and increasing performance and aids recovery.
With respect to recovery time, my training has been about the same for the last 10 years. Recently, I read Mathew Walkers Book - Why We Sleep. I have increased my sleep about 2,5 hours per week in addition to naps. That change has had a dramatic effect on my cycling power and recovery. I eat back to back hard days like candy where prior to adding sleep, they were more difficult.
In addition to cycling, I spend a lot of time in the gym strength training. I focus on the muscles that cycling does not work. Sometimes I work on leg strength but not before competitions. I think strength is a key metric in reducing fatigue and increasing performance and aids recovery.
Last edited by Hermes; 09-16-18 at 07:29 PM.
09-17-18, 08:00 AM
#28
Blast from the Past
I'll have to check out that sleep info Hermes, something I've been shorting for a long time. I've been training and racing for roughly 40 years, starting in my 20's and now 62, at a Cat 2 level.
The only area where I think I'm more vulnerable now is when I add in very intense work. As an example something like micro-intervals. I definitely need a bit more recovery after that type of session than in the past. Same for race efforts. If I don't it ends up being a wash, no real gains. I lean more towards days completely off the bike now rather than "recovery rides", but that is partly an other things in life decision.
Long Z2 stuff doesn't feel that much different if I don't let the ride creep into my 30 yo Z2, eat & hydrate
. Power zones are much different now of course. I'm down to somewhere around 8 hrs/week from 12-14, most of that due to demanding job and running a single parent home.
The only area where I think I'm more vulnerable now is when I add in very intense work. As an example something like micro-intervals. I definitely need a bit more recovery after that type of session than in the past. Same for race efforts. If I don't it ends up being a wash, no real gains. I lean more towards days completely off the bike now rather than "recovery rides", but that is partly an other things in life decision.
Long Z2 stuff doesn't feel that much different if I don't let the ride creep into my 30 yo Z2, eat & hydrate
. Power zones are much different now of course. I'm down to somewhere around 8 hrs/week from 12-14, most of that due to demanding job and running a single parent home.
09-17-18, 08:51 AM
#29
Voice of the Industry
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
I'll have to check out that sleep info Hermes, something I've been shorting for a long time. I've been training and racing for roughly 40 years, starting in my 20's and now 62, at a Cat 2 level.
The only area where I think I'm more vulnerable now is when I add in very intense work. As an example something like micro-intervals. I definitely need a bit more recovery after that type of session than in the past. Same for race efforts. If I don't it ends up being a wash, no real gains. I lean more towards days completely off the bike now rather than "recovery rides", but that is partly an other things in life decision.
Long Z2 stuff doesn't feel that much different if I don't let the ride creep into my 30 yo Z2, eat & hydrate. Power zones are much different now of course. I'm down to somewhere around 8 hrs/week from 12-14, most of that due to demanding job and running a single parent home.
The only area where I think I'm more vulnerable now is when I add in very intense work. As an example something like micro-intervals. I definitely need a bit more recovery after that type of session than in the past. Same for race efforts. If I don't it ends up being a wash, no real gains. I lean more towards days completely off the bike now rather than "recovery rides", but that is partly an other things in life decision.
Long Z2 stuff doesn't feel that much different if I don't let the ride creep into my 30 yo Z2, eat & hydrate
. Power zones are much different now of course. I'm down to somewhere around 8 hrs/week from 12-14, most of that due to demanding job and running a single parent home.Thanks
09-17-18, 09:16 AM
#30
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,127
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1340 Post(s)
Liked 2,482 Times
in
1,457 Posts
I'll have to check out that sleep info Hermes, something I've been shorting for a long time. I've been training and racing for roughly 40 years, starting in my 20's and now 62, at a Cat 2 level.
The only area where I think I'm more vulnerable now is when I add in very intense work. As an example something like micro-intervals. I definitely need a bit more recovery after that type of session than in the past. Same for race efforts. If I don't it ends up being a wash, no real gains. I lean more towards days completely off the bike now rather than "recovery rides", but that is partly an other things in life decision.
Long Z2 stuff doesn't feel that much different if I don't let the ride creep into my 30 yo Z2, eat & hydrate. Power zones are much different now of course. I'm down to somewhere around 8 hrs/week from 12-14, most of that due to demanding job and running a single parent home.
The only area where I think I'm more vulnerable now is when I add in very intense work. As an example something like micro-intervals. I definitely need a bit more recovery after that type of session than in the past. Same for race efforts. If I don't it ends up being a wash, no real gains. I lean more towards days completely off the bike now rather than "recovery rides", but that is partly an other things in life decision.
Long Z2 stuff doesn't feel that much different if I don't let the ride creep into my 30 yo Z2, eat & hydrate
. Power zones are much different now of course. I'm down to somewhere around 8 hrs/week from 12-14, most of that due to demanding job and running a single parent home.
09-17-18, 09:35 AM
#31
Senior Member
No way. Overtraining is rare. Most people do not come even close to overtraining.
It took me months of 23-29 hour weeks to overtrain, and then took months and months to partially recover from and nearly a year to fully recover from.
Now overreaching and plateauing and even burning out (temporarily for some, permanently for a few) certainly happens more often. But physical overtraining, not so much.
It took me months of 23-29 hour weeks to overtrain, and then took months and months to partially recover from and nearly a year to fully recover from.
Now overreaching and plateauing and even burning out (temporarily for some, permanently for a few) certainly happens more often. But physical overtraining, not so much.
09-17-18, 09:48 AM
#32
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,535
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
And from what I understand, your body gives you -numerous- warnings along the way that you'd have to entirely ignore in order to overtrain yourself. I think older cyclists are much more likely to injure themselves from not allowing enough recovery time, and injuring oneself is not the same as overtraining. I use TrainingPeaks and their PMC (Performance Management Chart) to judge my training status. The first step I notice when when my ATL (Acute Training Load) is getting a little high is that I'll wake up one morning and just not be very enthusiastic about riding that day.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
09-17-18, 09:48 AM
#33
Blast from the Past
I'll try a rough estimate, HR Z2 for me has been similar to Power Z2. At 35 I did a lot of Z2, roughly 42x16 or 15 on the flats, so somewhere around 20-21 mph (210-220W roughly). That would put my FTP back then at best 290W & at 150 lbs just a tick over 4 W/kg. Nothing earth shattering, about what you would expect for a field fodder 2.
240W FTP is the best I've tested recently so down 16% in raw watts. Most of what I've read says around .5% per year so I'm tracking pretty close to that, although it has not felt like a steady decline. My current Z2 target is 160-180.
09-17-18, 09:59 AM
#34
Voice of the Industry
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
My license says I am, although performance wise not really close. I can't give a direct comparison. I've only been training with power the last 3 years or so and never really thought about it all that much.
I'll try a rough estimate, HR Z2 for me has been similar to Power Z2. At 35 I did a lot of Z2, roughly 42x16 or 15 on the flats, so somewhere around 20-21 mph (210-220W roughly). That would put my FTP back then at best 290W & at 150 lbs just a tick over 4 W/kg. Nothing earth shattering, about what you would expect for a field fodder 2.
240W FTP is the best I've tested recently so down 16% in raw watts. Most of what I've read says around .5% per year so I'm tracking pretty close to that, although it has not felt like a steady decline. My current Z2 target is 160-180.
I'll try a rough estimate, HR Z2 for me has been similar to Power Z2. At 35 I did a lot of Z2, roughly 42x16 or 15 on the flats, so somewhere around 20-21 mph (210-220W roughly). That would put my FTP back then at best 290W & at 150 lbs just a tick over 4 W/kg. Nothing earth shattering, about what you would expect for a field fodder 2.
240W FTP is the best I've tested recently so down 16% in raw watts. Most of what I've read says around .5% per year so I'm tracking pretty close to that, although it has not felt like a steady decline. My current Z2 target is 160-180.
09-17-18, 03:12 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
And from what I understand, your body gives you -numerous- warnings along the way that you'd have to entirely ignore in order to overtrain yourself. I think older cyclists are much more likely to injure themselves from not allowing enough recovery time, and injuring oneself is not the same as overtraining. I use TrainingPeaks and their PMC (Performance Management Chart) to judge my training status. The first step I notice when when my ATL (Acute Training Load) is getting a little high is that I'll wake up one morning and just not be very enthusiastic about riding that day.
I don't put much stock in the PMC. I use it only as conversation points and comparisons because lots of other people use it, but it doesn't influence my training much at all. In fact, I podiumed a crit last month with a +36 TSB and a CTL 40 points lower than it's ever been during race season.
Just so much more to training than those numbers (which can also be easily manipulated through specific workouts if one were inclined).
09-18-18, 03:28 AM
#36
Voice of the Industry
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
My license says I am, although performance wise not really close. I can't give a direct comparison. I've only been training with power the last 3 years or so and never really thought about it all that much.
I'll try a rough estimate, HR Z2 for me has been similar to Power Z2. At 35 I did a lot of Z2, roughly 42x16 or 15 on the flats, so somewhere around 20-21 mph (210-220W roughly). That would put my FTP back then at best 290W & at 150 lbs just a tick over 4 W/kg. Nothing earth shattering, about what you would expect for a field fodder 2.
240W FTP is the best I've tested recently so down 16% in raw watts. Most of what I've read says around .5% per year so I'm tracking pretty close to that, although it has not felt like a steady decline. My current Z2 target is 160-180.
I'll try a rough estimate, HR Z2 for me has been similar to Power Z2. At 35 I did a lot of Z2, roughly 42x16 or 15 on the flats, so somewhere around 20-21 mph (210-220W roughly). That would put my FTP back then at best 290W & at 150 lbs just a tick over 4 W/kg. Nothing earth shattering, about what you would expect for a field fodder 2.
240W FTP is the best I've tested recently so down 16% in raw watts. Most of what I've read says around .5% per year so I'm tracking pretty close to that, although it has not felt like a steady decline. My current Z2 target is 160-180.
At some point did you correlate your HR zones to Power zones? Or...do you do a basic interpolation about wattage based upon speed? e.g. 20-21 = 210-220w
I am wondering if you based your speed to wattage estimate upon what you now know based upon riding with a power meter? You mention you are 150 lbs and I presume you punch a pretty small hole in the air and why your watts are so low for 20-21 mph and you arrived at this correlation based upon watts displayed on the bike compared with mph computer reading and could make this backward extrapolation to zones you rode to when you were 35?
Reason I ask the above and am interested in your numbers as we are close to the same age and you reference your training zones have changed. I am trying to get a sense of how you determined this based upon change to training with power later in life versus what I presume was training to HR earlier.
Thanks
PS: I find I recover slower based upon sustained higher efforts than years past which comports with the article I referenced. Body doesn't recover as fast with age perhaps in addition to training to zone targets moving as well. If you think about it, adhering to your 35 y.o. Z2 training at age 62 is going to tax your body more and hence promote a greater need for rest. Or, conversely as you note, you train to lower power zones now. Only conclusion to draw from that and please correct me if you disagree is...if you train to lower zone power, you are going to have less net fitness which of course agrees with the fact that with age we decline on some level in terms of our ability to sustain high power over time. This is why we see no 45 y.o.'s in the TdF independent of how hard they train. They just can't recover with that level of high exertion. So it stands to reason that training to lower zones will make the historic A ride more challenging for the aging amateur.. I have this discussion with older riders participating in the A group ride. Older riders tend to be more collectively 'wiped out' by the exertion level of that ride even though they can keep up and therefore take longer to recover as compared to years past.
Last edited by Campag4life; 09-18-18 at 05:48 AM.
09-18-18, 06:30 AM
#37
Senior Member
I know I take more recovery time now. Whether it is physical/aging (61yo) or mental (bc I am no longer on 24hr call/duties) is a toss up...some days my head tells me I'm still 35---those are the times I am extra careful. If I am training on a schedule (usually Mar-Jul), I make sure to schedule rest/recovery. That said, I try to do something physical everyday, but I don't ride back to back days (and certainly not high effort back to back days) very often.
Last edited by Stormsedge; 09-18-18 at 06:47 AM.
09-18-18, 06:34 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Center of Central CA
Posts: 1,582
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 897 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
I want to clarify that the OP does not mean to include recovery during rides in between hard efforts? Certainly that gets longer with age, but that's more a function of fitness.
And is most noticeable in very young riders, who often have the ability to do a full-on sprint, take only a few seconds to recover, and can go again just as hard.
And is most noticeable in very young riders, who often have the ability to do a full-on sprint, take only a few seconds to recover, and can go again just as hard.
09-18-18, 06:45 AM
#39
Blast from the Past
Yes, I trained with HR. The power was a SWAG, back then I didn't even look at speed on longer rides. Only time and HR. Numbers from now are actuals. I use WKO4 to crunch them (that's also where I looked at the comparison between my current HR Zones & Power Zones). The only non-SWAG comparison I can make is back then Z2 on flat ground was roughly 42x15, now it's 52x21.
Getting back to the OP. The point I was trying to make was that I don't notice a big difference in recovery from Z2 rides, IF I stick to the zone. You can't really do that on a group ride. I do feel like I need more rest after intervals at higher intensities for them to be adaptive.
Getting back to the OP. The point I was trying to make was that I don't notice a big difference in recovery from Z2 rides, IF I stick to the zone. You can't really do that on a group ride. I do feel like I need more rest after intervals at higher intensities for them to be adaptive.
09-18-18, 07:19 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Shawnee, KS
Posts: 273
Bikes: Bike Friday NWT, Rans Stratus, Cannondale R500, trek 720 multitrack, Rockhopper
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked 36 Times
in
22 Posts
At 73 I haven’t ever really trained I just ride to keep in shape and because I like to. What I have noticed as I aged, that it takes me two days instead of one to get over a hard ride, used to be after one day off I was good to go, now I am still tired the second day after also. I am still able to do multi-day tours but have to be careful not to over extend myself by keeping the miles down.
09-18-18, 08:14 AM
#43
Voice of the Industry
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
Yes, I trained with HR. The power was a SWAG, back then I didn't even look at speed on longer rides. Only time and HR. Numbers from now are actuals. I use WKO4 to crunch them (that's also where I looked at the comparison between my current HR Zones & Power Zones). The only non-SWAG comparison I can make is back then Z2 on flat ground was roughly 42x15, now it's 52x21.
Getting back to the OP. The point I was trying to make was that I don't notice a big difference in recovery from Z2 rides, IF I stick to the zone. You can't really do that on a group ride. I do feel like I need more rest after intervals at higher intensities for them to be adaptive.
Getting back to the OP. The point I was trying to make was that I don't notice a big difference in recovery from Z2 rides, IF I stick to the zone. You can't really do that on a group ride. I do feel like I need more rest after intervals at higher intensities for them to be adaptive.
And of course if you train to lower Z2 now that you are older, then you won't have the fitness of a more rigorous zone training and so aggressive group rides will be more taxing and require more recovery.
My thoughts..do you agree?
Last edited by Campag4life; 09-18-18 at 08:25 AM.
09-18-18, 08:22 AM
#45
Voice of the Industry
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
At 73 I haven’t ever really trained I just ride to keep in shape and because I like to. What I have noticed as I aged, that it takes me two days instead of one to get over a hard ride, used to be after one day off I was good to go, now I am still tired the second day after also. I am still able to do multi-day tours but have to be careful not to over extend myself by keeping the miles down.
09-18-18, 08:37 AM
#46
Blast from the Past
In bold, my counterpoint in response to your last post was...you lowered your Z2 with age. If you lowered your Z2 then it stands to reason your recovery wouldn't change.
And of course if you train to lower Z2 now that you are older, then you won't have the fitness of a more rigorous zone training and so aggressive group rides will be more taxing and require more recovery.
Does that make sense?
And of course if you train to lower Z2 now that you are older, then you won't have the fitness of a more rigorous zone training and so aggressive group rides will be more taxing and require more recovery.
Does that make sense?
I would agree an aggressive group ride with myself at 35 would be harder. Because 62 year old me would be riding at a much higher % of Threshold.
09-18-18, 09:05 AM
#47
Senior Member
Train smarter not harder. I think most people that are serious about a sport overtrain. Gains are made in recovery from rest and diet, gains aren't made from training for hours a day. I've been involved in various sports for 25+ years from cycling, martial arts, weights and team sports and I think people are just catching on.
this is probably getting too pedantic lol
Gains are a response to training, not resting. You rest to maximize the gains that are triggered by training.
09-18-18, 09:25 AM
#48
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,127
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1340 Post(s)
Liked 2,482 Times
in
1,457 Posts
My license says I am, although performance wise not really close. I can't give a direct comparison. I've only been training with power the last 3 years or so and never really thought about it all that much.
I'll try a rough estimate, HR Z2 for me has been similar to Power Z2. At 35 I did a lot of Z2, roughly 42x16 or 15 on the flats, so somewhere around 20-21 mph (210-220W roughly). That would put my FTP back then at best 290W & at 150 lbs just a tick over 4 W/kg. Nothing earth shattering, about what you would expect for a field fodder 2.
240W FTP is the best I've tested recently so down 16% in raw watts. Most of what I've read says around .5% per year so I'm tracking pretty close to that, although it has not felt like a steady decline. My current Z2 target is 160-180.
I'll try a rough estimate, HR Z2 for me has been similar to Power Z2. At 35 I did a lot of Z2, roughly 42x16 or 15 on the flats, so somewhere around 20-21 mph (210-220W roughly). That would put my FTP back then at best 290W & at 150 lbs just a tick over 4 W/kg. Nothing earth shattering, about what you would expect for a field fodder 2.
240W FTP is the best I've tested recently so down 16% in raw watts. Most of what I've read says around .5% per year so I'm tracking pretty close to that, although it has not felt like a steady decline. My current Z2 target is 160-180.
I suggest that with the numbers you provided, you could go on a periodized program starting with strength and adaption throwing in some races and build those numbers up, IMO, it is the goal that you set for yourself that matters and then believing in yourself and the goal. Take age out of the equation.
The problem I have with studies that quote a .5% degradation per year in performance is setting bar in the wrong direction.
09-18-18, 10:41 AM
#49
Voice of the Industry
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
I think you are looking at part of it backwards. Z2 is what it is, based on tested FTP. It changes even within a season. You don’t drive fitness up by arbitrarily changing the Zone. Particularly with low intensity you want progression of time in Zone, then test, then adjust the zone based on the new test. Rinse, repeat. Just as rigorous, but all the numbers are lower.
I would agree an aggressive group ride with myself at 35 would be harder. Because 62 year old me would be riding at a much higher % of Threshold.
We agree on your last comment in bold and why I believe more recovery is required after a high intensity group ride for an older rider.
09-18-18, 11:09 AM
#50
Blast from the Past
Instead of giving you a respectable for the numbers, I would say fantastic.
I suggest that with the numbers you provided, you could go on a periodized program starting with strength and adaption throwing in some races and build those numbers up, IMO, it is the goal that you set for yourself that matters and then believing in yourself and the goal. Take age out of the equation.
The problem I have with studies that quote a .5% degradation per year in performance is setting bar in the wrong direction.
I suggest that with the numbers you provided, you could go on a periodized program starting with strength and adaption throwing in some races and build those numbers up, IMO, it is the goal that you set for yourself that matters and then believing in yourself and the goal. Take age out of the equation.
The problem I have with studies that quote a .5% degradation per year in performance is setting bar in the wrong direction.