This

No, i meant it to say that quads are very involved as the big pushing muscles in cycling. the piece about calves/ankles is to draw contrast to running, where they play a big role in propelling the runner as far as "pushing" is concerned, while the quads are playing a supporting role.

There is your problem. You've been doing base for 2 years. Do you know your max hr?

On the other hand you can train and train and train and train and train and train until your Sidis fall off and if you're a 23 mph TT guy it's not going to make you a 27 mph TT guy. Maybe it will push you up to 25 mph. A 10% improvement at any level is huge, and it can even elevate you to the next level (say from Cat 4 to Cat 3), but will it push you up into Cat 2 territory? That's not very likely. So it's really both, but at the end of the day the kid that comes out on his crappy Sears bike and sneakers and solo's in to win the Cat 4 race is going straight to Cat 1/2 within a year or two, and the dedicated guy who finished 10th in the same race with his CF wheels and PM will struggle mightily to get to Cat 3, if he ever gets there at all. Of course the latter guy got dropped in his first couple of Cat 4/5 races, so for him that's big progress.

There's always a bigger fish. Always.

I think the advice of riding with a group is probably your best way of increasing your speed. I noticed that you live in Orange County, California. We have several groups that you could ride with on a Saturday or Sunday.

Here are a few:

http://www.canyonvelo.org/index.cfm
http://www.ocrebels.com/
http://www.ocw.org/
http://www.bikeirvine.org/

There is a difference in experience between these clubs. If you do decide to ride with a club, I would start with the Bicycle Club of Irvine. They are less structured and ride mostly for fun and exercise. The Velos, on the other hand, are fast competitive riders that are either professionals or close to it.

I'm fundamentally confused. 19:00 for a 5k isn't that great. maybe a decent benchmark, but if you run regularly at all, that's just ok.

genetics do play a large role in everything sports (and learning, but we don't talk about that)

I'm built like a long distance runner (read:scrawny) but biking is wayyyy more fun.

You're slow because you think you're slow.

My advice is to ride harder and to stop comparing yourself to other people.

You're faster than a whole bunch of people who don't ride as much or push themselves as hard as you do.

Yes. It's all genetics.

How much you train, and how you train has nothing to do with your fitness.

I disagree that the differences from training are that small. They are HUGE. Most people simply don't train hard enough.

When I was a pure runner, I plateaud for 15 years at what I thought was hard training, running 5 miles per day (45-60 mins/day) with sprints, 6x/week.

Little did I know it would take up to 15 miles per day 7 days per week (2.5 hrs per day average of running - that would probably equal 3-4 hours of cycling per day - I often trained twice per day) over a 2 year period to break through.

Went from a solid runner at top 25% to a very good amateur, top 2%. I'm sure that if I kept at it that seriously another few years, I could have become a regional age group champion - which seemed absolutely impossible to me given that in high school, I was so untalented that I didn't even count as a scoring member of a crappy HS x-country team.

I agree that it's a mighty struggle for someone who has been stuck at Cat4 for awhile to get up to Cat3/Cat2, but before you count him out, he/she better be logging at LEAST 2.5 hours per day on the bike, 7 days per week - or closer to 3-4 hours per day on the bike, and be doing this for a minimum of 2 years, preferably 4+.

I highly doubt you'll find too much Cat5 fodder for guys training on a disciplined schedule with this kind of volume. Regardless of genetics.

Oh great, another genetics vs. training debate. The super-fast guys have genetics and training. You won't go all the way without both. Cat 1s are basically unpaid pros, for all intents and purposes. They are freaks of nature.

As the years go by the internet has gradually turned into the misinformation superhighway. BF is a good example of this.

My suggestion (if you really want to know some of the legitimate science behind bicycle performance) is to leave this place, and go do some real study on it.

Isn't that the cycling build too?

May i ask how you were able to juggle 21 hours of physical exercise/week with work or study? During a good week, i can devote 7 hours during weekdays and 7 hours on the weekend, and i have barely enough time left for my studies. 21 hours seems almost unimaginable. Also, how did you get used to doing doubles for your running? I don't think i can recover fast enough in 12 hours. Many thanks in advance.

Cycling will help you run uphill faster. If you run xc, it will be a big help.

I never trained 20+ hrs per week. Peaked at about 18, possibly 20, and most of the time it was 14-16hrs/week.

The key is to put in time during the weekdays - so you can go hard on the weekends! Figure 2-3 hrs per day on weekdays. It's completely doable, even for the busy - my schedule is likely busier than most on this forum (medical field) and thought it was hard, I got used to it. Wake up at 4-5AM if you must, combine commutes with workouts, and don't waste any time. If you want it, you can definitely squeeze in 2-3hrs a day, even on busy days.

1 hr per day is for weekend warriors - unless you're a gifted monster, don't expect to have any particularly strong results with that low a training volume.

Keep in mind that lots of amateur triathletes training for Ironman, and not even coming close to placing in their age group, train this much. It's pretty typical volume for an IM competitor.

Elite pro runners ALWAYS run doubles. They never run over 22 miles at a time. Run AM + run PM. Swimmers do, too. Cyclists less so because there's not as much need to avoid the pounding or joint strain (swimmers shoulder).

I know for me in running, to get this fast, I felt a bit beat-down all the time. I nearly always ran on tired legs, even hard workouts. It wasn't overtraining - but I had to be extra careful to ensure that I wasn't. If you haven't pushed into this territory for a long period of time, you're nowhere near your potential, but it may take years to get strong enough to even attempt it successfully.

Date a fast girl:thumb:

I think what you meant to say is Cat 1s that win are are freaks of nature. Doesnt take any good genetics to ride the draft of a 100 pros for any distance, just some solid training and a small body that can find a nice hiding spot in the draft. I know several. Put them in a TT and they ****e.

Yup.

You probably don't realize that to become a cat 1, you have to beat other cat 1s and pros. There are very few cat 2 only races. They are almost all Pro/1/2.

That's why Waterrockets, as gifted as he is, is downgrading back to a 3. Although he can destroy your typical cat 3, he just can't compete with the Pros and 1s.

Since we're going down this road again...

Genetics is the Alpha factor. The maximum potential that you can realize through training is dictated by genetics. However, so is what you are capable of for a given level of training. What I mean is that there is not a world-class cyclist hiding underneath your current performance, waiting to be unleashed. However, with more varied and smart training, you likely CAN get a lot faster than you are now.

...on < 8 hours a week, you mean.

But yeah, what a dumb statement. You need to place well to get to Cat 1 in the first place, and besides... if you think that anyone can just hang onto a racing pro peloton, why don't you give it a try and let us know how that goes? :rolleyes:

(That's for peterot, not umd)

i think the op thinks that he is fast compared to the average joe, but in reality he is not. a 5k between 18-19 minutes is not fast at all and probably both the boy an the lady would beat him on the run if they liked running. put it this way my dad is close to 50 and was active when he was like 30 and younger and a couple of days ago i forced him to run a mile all out and he ran in @ 6:10 not bad for a 50year old guy. i do not know about you guys but both cycling and running use the same leg muscles just in a different proportions. when i used to do t&f my coach always enphasize on driving my knees and pushing with my claf and quads in a single fluid motion. i am pretty light @145lbs and i am able to outsprint most riders i have riden with in medium to short hills that average 5-10%. eventhough i have medium cadence when my right pedal is at 6 my right is pulling the bike up so much that sometimes i skid.

you skid?

Based on what?

agarose2000, grazie grazie for your input. it gives me something to strive toward.

yes that is when i am really trying to compete with the guy next to me. it is not that hard when your bike is sub 15lbs and you try to putt all your power down on every pedal stroke. this is the way that i do it. first attack the hill at 20mph and coast a little downshift and take 2 light pedal strokes and the full gas though both tha pulling and pushing it is not that hard. on my other bike a trek 2.1 which is 5lbs heavier but has those paired spokes i can make the wheel rub against the chainstays.

damn.

Diagnosis: your pedal stroke is crap. You're not skidding it with your sheer awesome power, you're still pushing down at the bottom of the stroke and partially unweighting the rear wheel as a result. It's a matter of technique. Sir Chris Hoy damn well keeps HIS rear wheel planted at >2k watts on boards; no reason you can't do the same with your merely mortal power on asphalt.

you're really harshing someones skidiliciousness there...


if i had that much unbridled awesomeness at my beck and call, I'd ride right through the internet and skid on your keyboard.

I dont know waterrockets but calling a guy "gifted" that is downgrading from 2 to 3 cause he cant hang is a ******** joke. I am sure he is a great cyclist but the term gifted is usually used for the elite.

I dont know the path every single Cat 1 took to get to where they are and either do you. All I know is that a few guys that race in the Pro/1/2 field are not genetically superior. They will never win a Pro/1/2 race or place in the top 10 and they are basically on for the ride. Besides racing the local crit and TT series I dont keep tabs on the lates developments in upgrading points and amateur rules. However, when I used to race xc mountain bikes I remember that the Junior Experts would go directly to the Elite field when they came of age and I always remember think that it was a ******** joke that these average juniors could fast track to Elite without doing anything of note.