Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Training & Nutrition
Reload this Page >

Nutrition Math

Notices
Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

Nutrition Math

Old 09-25-19, 08:17 AM
  #1  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,576

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked 103 Times in 67 Posts
Nutrition Math

This is mostly curiosity, rather than something that I need for my personal cyclling.

As I understand things my body can store about 2000 calories worth of 'readily accessible' glycogen in various places.

When I ride I burn through (power meter measured) anywhere from 700 to 900 calories per hour. Since that does not include base metabolic requirements, add another 50'ish cal per hour.

My body can metabolize fat for use in turning pedals, but that is a relatively slow/inefficient process. When I am doing my 750 to 950 cal per hour cycling, roughly half of that comes from fat metabolism (I have no idea where I got that figure, but I have had it in my mind for a while).

So if I go out and ride for 5 hours at a total of 800 cal per hour, 400 cal/hour of that comes from fat. That leaves 400 cal/hour to come from my glycogen stores which by this (questionable) analysis is about 5 hours.

So I really don't need any extra nutrition for a 5 hour ride. I have never tried that, but I doubt it. So where are the errors in my analysis?

Thanks.

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 09-25-19, 08:33 AM
  #2  
OldTryGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: SW Fl.
Posts: 5,142

Bikes: Day6 Semi Recumbent "FIREBALL", 1981 Custom Touring Paramount, 1983 Road Paramount, 2013 Giant Propel Advanced SL3, 2018 Specialized Red Roubaix Expert mech., 2002 Magna 7sp hybrid, 1976 Bassett Racing 45sp Cruiser

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 889 Post(s)
Liked 432 Times in 290 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
This is mostly curiosity,..............So I really don't need any extra nutrition for a 5 hour ride. I have never tried that, but I doubt it. So where are the errors in my analysis?..............
Dr. George Sheehan's "We are each an experiment of one."

TRY IT, your analysis might be spot on. caveat --- be prepared for a MAJOR BONK.

A couple of weeks ago I road a very easy 100+ miler. Consumed minimal liquids, 1 banana, 2 gels some M&M's. Being 69 now, prostate cancer on a drug that reduces glycogen production, testosterone supplementation due to castration, I do not have the muscle or caloric store I once had and can feel it during a ride. If I were currently whole and healthy, I believe a 100 miles with hydration but without food consumption would be possible.
OldTryGuy is offline  
Old 09-25-19, 09:11 AM
  #3  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,576

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked 103 Times in 67 Posts
It might well be useful to just start riding (water only) and ride until you bonk. This would be both illuminating and without a doubt more fun than an FTP test :-)

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 09-25-19, 10:33 AM
  #4  
hubcyclist
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,030

Bikes: 2017 Raleigh RX 1.0, 2018 Specialized Allez

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked 450 Times in 240 Posts
This is a good topic, especially after another exchange I had with another poster in a topic about bonking where said poster was recommending some pretty astounding calories for someone who was struggling with a 70 mile ride (and who wasn't really trained for that sort of volume).

It might be because I enjoy eating off the bike that I try not to overdo it with on the bike stuff, especially for endurance stuff. As you said, I've seen that we store about 2000 calories of glycogen, not to mention that at lower intensities we use more fat.

As far as my experience, I've done pretty demanding 70 mile group rides with a 100 calorie fig bar, I did an 80 mile casual group ride where I did a lot of the pulling with an iced coffee (with some skim milk) when we made a cafe stop. I've done a couple of solo 100 mile rides this summer over a little over 5hrs (about 3600kj each) taking in 800-900 calories on the ride (trying to be conservative). Oh, and I did a 150mile gravel race that was 5600kj and I took on about 2600 calories lol (I could have done a bit better on that one). I think in harder situations the caloric demands go up and taking on up to 90g carbs per hour becomes more critical. But I think casual cyclists who by virtue of being slower (lower watts=lower kj) have fewer caloric demands believe they have to subscribe to this high end carb consumption (even on up to 3hr rides).

I remain convinced that a lot of cyclists "bonk" because of being undertrained for certain levels of endurance as opposed to any major nutritional deficiencies on rides. I obviously believe folks need to fuel for the demands of a ride, but I also think some folks who might be trying to use cycling for weight loss might be frustrated that they're not making a dent in their weight because they take on as many calories as they're expending on a ride (and eat off the bike as if they burned off a ton).

Anyhow, I'm interested in the topic, I think there has to be a reasonable counterbalance to the "eat a ton" mentality that I think is overused.
hubcyclist is offline  
Old 09-25-19, 12:48 PM
  #5  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,699
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 988 Post(s)
Liked 276 Times in 168 Posts
I would guess a few things are a bit off in your analysis:
1. You probably burn less than 1/2 the calories from fat.
2. You probably have less than 2000 calories available. I've read that it is closer to 1500, but either way, some of that is stored as glycogen in muscles that aren't being used for cycling, and thus isn't really accessible.
3. You're performance will suffer long before you run out of glycogen completely.
OBoile is offline  
Likes For OBoile:
Old 09-25-19, 12:49 PM
  #6  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,587

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 1,032 Times in 649 Posts
FWIW, make sure those are power meter KJ and not calories.

If those are KJ per hour, time to sign up for some stuff. As 900 KJ an hour outdoors is around 250w average power per hour. I say outdoors because outdoors you're not going to be putting out 250w nonstop. Some will be less for downhill and other stuff, some more. So you'd be averaging perhaps up to 275 to 300w for all the time you're making up for going less in an hour to make up the difference.

I find the calorie estimates to be dubious. I go strictly by KJ.
burnthesheep is offline  
Likes For burnthesheep:
Old 09-25-19, 01:00 PM
  #7  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,699
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 988 Post(s)
Liked 276 Times in 168 Posts
Originally Posted by burnthesheep View Post
FWIW, make sure those are power meter KJ and not calories.

If those are KJ per hour, time to sign up for some stuff. As 900 KJ an hour outdoors is around 250w average power per hour. I say outdoors because outdoors you're not going to be putting out 250w nonstop. Some will be less for downhill and other stuff, some more. So you'd be averaging perhaps up to 275 to 300w for all the time you're making up for going less in an hour to make up the difference.

I find the calorie estimates to be dubious. I go strictly by KJ.
IIRC the total KJ burned is very close to the total number of Calories burned as well. Basically the ratio of KJ to kcal is very close to the ratio of the amount of mechanical force being generated to the total amount of work being done as most of the energy you expend is wasted as heat. Because of that, I pretty much only look at the KJ and use that to estimate the number of Calories.
OBoile is offline  
Old 09-25-19, 01:57 PM
  #8  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,689
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1943 Post(s)
Liked 192 Times in 142 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
This is mostly curiosity, rather than something that I need for my personal cyclling.

As I understand things my body can store about 2000 calories worth of 'readily accessible' glycogen in various places.

When I ride I burn through (power meter measured) anywhere from 700 to 900 calories per hour. Since that does not include base metabolic requirements, add another 50'ish cal per hour.

My body can metabolize fat for use in turning pedals, but that is a relatively slow/inefficient process. When I am doing my 750 to 950 cal per hour cycling, roughly half of that comes from fat metabolism (I have no idea where I got that figure, but I have had it in my mind for a while).

So if I go out and ride for 5 hours at a total of 800 cal per hour, 400 cal/hour of that comes from fat. That leaves 400 cal/hour to come from my glycogen stores which by this (questionable) analysis is about 5 hours.

So I really don't need any extra nutrition for a 5 hour ride. I have never tried that, but I doubt it. So where are the errors in my analysis?

Thanks.

dave
What is your FTP? That is ~200-300w avg for 5 hours. At Z2 you might be close to 50% fat oxidation, but at close to 100% FTP(~90% V02max) you are almost 0% fat. The distribution of the ride will dictate that percentage. There are certain programs that will estimate that based on your distribution in zones assuming your fat burning capabilities are avg. As others already pointed out the number is closer to 1500g as intramuscular glycogen is not transportable like liver glycogen. You can also get some glycogen replenishment even while fasted from gluconeogenesis of glycerin freed from triglyceride(fat) oxidation. A well trained cyclist can probably do a 5 hour ride fasted, and a pro tour rider can probably do that at 2-300W, but unless your FTP is north of 300W it is unlikely you can do so at that avg power.
redlude97 is offline  
Likes For redlude97:
Old 09-25-19, 02:47 PM
  #9  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,576

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked 103 Times in 67 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
What is your FTP? That is ~200-300w avg for 5 hours. At Z2 you might be close to 50% fat oxidation, but at close to 100% FTP(~90% V02max) you are almost 0% fat. The distribution of the ride will dictate that percentage. There are certain programs that will estimate that based on your distribution in zones assuming your fat burning capabilities are avg. As others already pointed out the number is closer to 1500g as intramuscular glycogen is not transportable like liver glycogen. You can also get some glycogen replenishment even while fasted from gluconeogenesis of glycerin freed from triglyceride(fat) oxidation. A well trained cyclist can probably do a 5 hour ride fasted, and a pro tour rider can probably do that at 2-300W, but unless your FTP is north of 300W it is unlikely you can do so at that avg power.
I suspect that you are correct - my guess at fat burning percent is probably way off (and probably varies greatly depending).

Regarding my FTP a few years ago when I measured it (20 min test) it was around 260. But I hit age 70 soon and back in 2018 I had a 6 month period of half or less my normal riding, my fitness fell off a cliff, and now despite going back to former training levels, 260W is and will remain a memory. I seem to be a solid 15W (maybe even 20) less than I was in 2017.

I did a couple of 30 minute Fartlek sessions the other day and they were both neither easy nor 100% of what I could do. And they both came out at 425'ish KJ per half hour (850KJ per hour). Back in 2016 I did a solo century at 820 KJ/hour - like I said - memories only.

dave

Last edited by DaveLeeNC; 09-25-19 at 04:00 PM.
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 09-25-19, 02:51 PM
  #10  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,576

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked 103 Times in 67 Posts
Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
IIRC the total KJ burned is very close to the total number of Calories burned as well. Basically the ratio of KJ to kcal is very close to the ratio of the amount of mechanical force being generated to the total amount of work being done as most of the energy you expend is wasted as heat. Because of that, I pretty much only look at the KJ and use that to estimate the number of Calories.
I believe that the conversion factor from KJ to KCal is roughly equal to the metabolic efficiency of a typical person, so they tend to cancel out and KJ expended tends to be roughly calories burned.

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Likes For DaveLeeNC:
Old 09-25-19, 03:52 PM
  #11  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,689
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1943 Post(s)
Liked 192 Times in 142 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
I suspect that you are correct - my guess at fat burning percent is probably way off (and probably varies greatly depending).

Regarding my FTP a few years ago when I measured it (20 min test) it was around 260. But I hit age 70 soon and back in 2018 I had a 6 month period of half or less my normal riding, my fitness fell off a cliff, and now despite going back to former training levels, 260W is and will remain a memory. I seem to be a solid 15W (maybe even 20) less than I was in 2017.

I did a couple of 30 minute Fartlek sessions the other day and they were both neither easy nor 100% of what I could do. And they both came out at 425'ish watts per half hour (850W per hour). Back in 2016 I did a solo century at 820 KJ/hour - like I said - memories only.

dave
I assume you meant kj and not watts. That is a pretty good pace for a century, how much nutrition did you consume?
redlude97 is offline  
Old 09-25-19, 04:01 PM
  #12  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,576

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked 103 Times in 67 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
I assume you meant kj and not watts. That is a pretty good pace for a century, how much nutrition did you consume?
Yes - I meant KJ (and I fixed that) - thanks.

It was December so I took 2 water bottles and drank none of it. 2 Cliff's Bars was it for nutrition. IIRC I didn't eat all of the 2nd, but not positive regarding that.

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 09-25-19, 07:29 PM
  #13  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,699
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 988 Post(s)
Liked 276 Times in 168 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
I believe that the conversion factor from KJ to KCal is roughly equal to the metabolic efficiency of a typical person, so they tend to cancel out and KJ expended tends to be roughly calories burned.

dave
Isn't that what I said?
OBoile is offline  
Old 09-25-19, 07:44 PM
  #14  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,576

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked 103 Times in 67 Posts
Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
Isn't that what I said?
I was not sure what the phrase "the ratio of the amount of mechanical force being generated to the total amount of work being done" means. Well, to me it means 'force/(force x distance) which is 1/distance. Note that force * distance is energy.

So I restated it. To your question, I guess I don't know.

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 09-25-19, 07:54 PM
  #15  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,699
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 988 Post(s)
Liked 276 Times in 168 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
I was not sure what the phrase "the ratio of the amount of mechanical force being generated to the total amount of work being done" means. Well, to me it means 'force/(force x distance) which is 1/distance. Note that force * distance is energy.

So I restated it. To your question, I guess I don't know.

dave
total amount of work = total energy expended

mechanical force = amount of energy that actually goes into pushing the pedals.

So yeah, we're saying the same thing.
OBoile is offline  
Old 09-26-19, 04:22 AM
  #16  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,423

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2607 Post(s)
Liked 1,400 Times in 700 Posts
Originally Posted by hubcyclist View Post
. But I think casual cyclists who by virtue of being slower (lower watts=lower kj) have fewer caloric demands believe they have to subscribe to this high end carb consumption (even on up to 3hr rides).

I remain convinced that a lot of cyclists "bonk" because of being undertrained for certain levels of endurance as opposed to any major nutritional deficiencies on rides. I obviously believe folks need to fuel for the demands of a ride, but I also think some folks who might be trying to use cycling for weight loss might be frustrated that they're not making a dent in their weight because they take on as many calories as they're expending on a ride (and eat off the bike as if they burned off a ton).

Anyhow, I'm interested in the topic, I think there has to be a reasonable counterbalance to the "eat a ton" mentality that I think is overused.

Right. The slower you are (or the less watts you put out), the less energy used. Someone averaging 150 watts (still a lot higher than many recreational riders) is not going to be burning through a bunch of a calories.

As I mentioned before, a 276 watt average is 1000 calories an hour. Most people aren't even remotely close to that, and those that are are typically well aware of their nutritional demands.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 09-26-19, 05:33 AM
  #17  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,576

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked 103 Times in 67 Posts
Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
total amount of work = total energy expended

mechanical force = amount of energy that actually goes into pushing the pedals.

So yeah, we're saying the same thing.
OK - now I understand. Equating force with energy just isn't something that my mind accepts. But I got it now.

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 09-26-19, 06:37 AM
  #18  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,587

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 1,032 Times in 649 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
I did a couple of 30 minute Fartlek sessions the other day and they were both neither easy nor 100% of what I could do. And they both came out at 425'ish KJ per half hour (850KJ per hour). Back in 2016 I did a solo century at 820 KJ/hour - like I said - memories only.

dave
You're doing great hanging on to what you have, try not to feel discouraged.

As for the 425 per half hour, it doesn't really relate well to "per hour" because of the intensity and time to exhaustion curves. Even pretty well trained amateurs can't do the magic 95% of their 20min number. I'd guess most are in reality around 90%.

Using a few blocks of "all you can eat steady-state", you can raise the % of your threshold to which you're burning more fat. That's how pros sit out in the wind at Paris Roubaix for a few hours at the time at seemingly unGodly power levels. They've done enough SS work at that duration to work off of fat at a higher % of their ftp's.

Start at 3x15's with 5min rest. After a few workouts then do 2x20's. Then 1x40, then 1x60. You get the idea. Take a break, then do a higher intensity block. Repeat.
burnthesheep is offline  
Old 09-26-19, 07:05 AM
  #19  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,576

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked 103 Times in 67 Posts
See Detraining Experience/Question for some interesting context.

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 09-26-19, 12:02 PM
  #20  
canklecat
Me duelen las nalgas
 
canklecat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,771

Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel

Mentioned: 190 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4165 Post(s)
Liked 2,058 Times in 1,321 Posts
For fat burning last year I pretty much followed the tips from GCN videos. Worked for me. Well, before I was clobbered by a car. After that I didn't worry much about fat burning for the rest of 2018. I was just hanging onto base fitness until I could get back on the road bike.

Relatively easy pace, conversational -- or equivalent if I'm riding solo. I'll sing out loud for awhile to check my breathing. If I can't sing fairly normally (albeit badly), I need to slow down or gear down a bit.

I aim for a steady rate like that for an hour. Just water during the ride. Sometimes I'll do a fasting ride. As long as I keep it moderate and steady I'm fine with that, as long as I drink plenty of water.

I can't go by my heart rate monitor because my HR and BP are all over the place due to a wonky thyroid and pressure on my spine from busted up C1 and C2 vertebrae. I mostly use the Tickr for an indicator of trends over time, not as a guide for any particular ride. For decades I've occasionally taken beta blockers and ACE inhibitors for severe headaches (migraines, cluster headaches). Lately I've had to take them more often, sometimes a couple of times a week because my BP has been spiking to 160/90 too often. Usually it's around 110/60 or lower, but something has changed recently. So if I end up on BP meds full time I'll need to redo my baseline heart rate test. Without BP meds I'll briefly hit 160-164 bpm on peak efforts such as short, steep sprint-climbs, and average 140 bpm over 20-50 miles. But with BP meds the same perceived difficulty will register only 140-150 bpm peaks and 120-130 average.

So I go by perceived effort and breath control for those moderate steady efforts.

The past month I've slacked off on the diet stuff. Dropped to 147 lbs a few weeks ago, wasn't feeling great, had a persistent respiratory virus, and decided to give myself a break for awhile. I'm at 150 now. I might let it go until I hit around 155, then start over. I don't have any particular goals other than "get faster." Definitely no crits at my age. Might try time trials next year. Plenty of time to worry about peak fitness and optimal sustainable weight. At 5'11" I could get back up to 165 and still be within reach of dropping back to 150 within a few weeks. I cut way back on the beer, and have only one or two a month now instead of one or two a day. That was my main source of junk carbs. I still use a little sugar in coffee, eat an occasional cookie or bite of chocolate, but not much junk sugar and carbs. Keeps me around the 150-155 range without much effort.

BTW, a trick that helps me stay at a moderate, steady effort is to ride my hybrid instead of the road bikes. Soon as I'm on my road bikes I find myself turning every ride into a max effort workout. On the hybrid I'm psychologically conditioned to take it easier, since that's what I use for casual group rides. Works for me. I'll ride for an hour or three, easy pace, and finish without bonking. I'll be ravenously hungry but no blood sugar bonks.

I'm not really any stronger or faster than I was at 165. But it's easier to climb. Since we have mostly undulating terrain with lots of punchy sprint-climbs, over distance it looks like I'm faster. But I'm not. Only on those climbs. Same speed on the flat and downhill terrain.

Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC View Post
...I did a couple of 30 minute Fartlek sessions the other day and they were both neither easy nor 100% of what I could do...
Fartlek is my preference for outdoor training, if I'm not just riding aimlessly for base miles, fun or casually with friends. It emulates spirited group rides or races better than intervals. And it's difficult to apply formal interval training outdoors on most undulating terrain. So I do my timed intervals indoors on the trainer.

I compare my times on local segments with the faster guys my age (or women from the local pro teams -- hey, nothing wrong with a 60something guy trying to be as fast as a 20/30something woman, right?). I'm about equal to them on flat and downhill terrain, so I started putting in more effort on those punchy climbs. Maybe throw in a sprint on any relatively flat section. That pretty well mimics typical club rides. It's been helping.
canklecat is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.