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

Polarized training (PT)...Good for low volume rider?

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.

Polarized training (PT)...Good for low volume rider?

Old 01-21-21, 04:46 PM
  #51  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 17,481

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2950 Post(s)
Liked 864 Times in 652 Posts
Originally Posted by ZHVelo View Post
I see. Well personally I always do 2 HIIT sessions a week anyway and one long ride. Anything on top is bonus. In the summer maybe a very easy ride on Monday instead of complete rest. Maybe zone 2 on Wednesday instead of rest. Friday usually is always rest with Sunday the long ride. Saturday then would be a mix. long-ish ride with some climbing that comes along the route.

Doing 5 sessions a week and just 1 HIIT seems foolish. If you do less than 10 hours a week it is far better to make two session intense rather than stick to 80-20. I guess if in those 4 low sessions you have the time to really go long it might be different.
See my sig. Thing is, I'm getting good results, better than I have for years. I'm trying to go back to what I did many years ago, when I first got strong (for me), but perhaps with more of a PT structure to it. I find that continually recovering from daily rides is a good stressor which helps me recover during long rides. That means that I have to do enough each day to make recovering an issue, but not so much that I don't. The PT part is doing more time and less intensity on those daily rides. Obviously the necessary amount of training necessary to do that will vary with each rider. Pros need 20-24 hrs., I need 8-13, more is better but depends on the PNW weather.

Sunday has always been my hard day. In a couple months, I should be strong enough to get back back to doing 4-hour hilly Sunday rides with Z5 climbs, hard enough that I can't get off the bike or walk properly at the end of the ride. The rest of the week, moderate rides and pedaling drills, with weights after the moderate rides a couple days. No weights Friday or Saturday, moderate ride Friday, Saturday off, Monday usually a 3-7 hour zone 1 hike in the mountains, then back to pedaling drills on Tuesday. The Monday hike is my secret weapon. I had not recognized it as part of PT. Looks like we might have a good snowshoe day this coming Monday.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
Old 01-21-21, 05:20 PM
  #52  
ZHVelo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 614
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked 150 Times in 108 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
See my sig. Thing is, I'm getting good results, better than I have for years. I'm trying to go back to what I did many years ago, when I first got strong (for me), but perhaps with more of a PT structure to it. I find that continually recovering from daily rides is a good stressor which helps me recover during long rides. That means that I have to do enough each day to make recovering an issue, but not so much that I don't. The PT part is doing more time and less intensity on those daily rides. Obviously the necessary amount of training necessary to do that will vary with each rider. Pros need 20-24 hrs., I need 8-13, more is better but depends on the PNW weather.

Sunday has always been my hard day. In a couple months, I should be strong enough to get back back to doing 4-hour hilly Sunday rides with Z5 climbs, hard enough that I can't get off the bike or walk properly at the end of the ride. The rest of the week, moderate rides and pedaling drills, with weights after the moderate rides a couple days. No weights Friday or Saturday, moderate ride Friday, Saturday off, Monday usually a 3-7 hour zone 1 hike in the mountains, then back to pedaling drills on Tuesday. The Monday hike is my secret weapon. I had not recognized it as part of PT. Looks like we might have a good snowshoe day this coming Monday.
I guess yes, if your aim is that, then having more but shorter sessions and learning recover in between will work. But increasing your FTP and your Vo2 max will not happen that much if you don't push yourself.

That was my point, if you do 8-13 hours I can see that doing more Z2 will work. But if you just do 5-8 hours I am certain having two intense sessions will be a lot more beneficial.
ZHVelo is offline  
Likes For ZHVelo:
Old 01-27-21, 02:59 PM
  #53  
Branko D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked 96 Times in 61 Posts
The intended way to interpret 80/20 split is split of sessions, but it does bear in mind that the studied athletes were elite ones who often did two in a day. So, if you're doing 10-15 training sessions per week, then it's perfectly sensible to do 2-3 hard sessions and rest easy ones. I don't think any serious coach or Dr. Seiler would suggest that if you do three sessions per week that you only do intensity every second week, that'd be just silly.

For the time crunched rider, I feel it makes more sense to retain 2 intense rides per week and one longer easy ride per week as a sort of minimum barebones training plan and cut away the easy ones; treat 80/20 more as a guideline to aspire to - if you can throw in extra rides or runs, then do them easy.

Personally, I try to do two hard sessions in a week, depending where I am in my training one of those might be actually a threshold session or I might only do one hard session during the week, and the weekend long ride I'll often throw in a 45 minutes to a hour and something at 90-ish%, which makes for about two-three rides with some intensity in a week, and I'll do three-four more easy rides or runs which are strictly zone 1. Not quite the 80/20 split in terms of sessions although approaching it in terms of time in zone, but that's about what is practical with only 6 rides/runs per week. If I could cram in more training (and without feeling overly tired when I do), more of it would be at Z1, though.

Last edited by Branko D; 01-28-21 at 01:37 AM.
Branko D is offline  
Likes For Branko D:
Old 02-01-21, 07:19 PM
  #54  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,549

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1143 Post(s)
Liked 1,008 Times in 635 Posts
I didn't think I posted in this.......

80/20 is # sessions. 90/10 is minutes. It doesn't work for me as I use a Trainingpeaks 6 zone setup, not "three" with the breathing thing. If I HAD to pick what that would look like for me, I'd probably get the whole concept wrong and say my 90/10 on time in zones would split at Z3.

Either way, when folks talk about doing Z2 rides..............I feel like most folks I follow around town here don't really do Z2 rides. Either they're riding tempo for less time OR riding Z1 for a long time. So either too hard or too easy. But, that's an aside. I only mention that to say if you're going to ride Z2, don't waste time barely getting there. Go ahead and do it. Also for sweetspot, go ahead and do it. Don't do the cute little 10min sets for only 30min total. Accumulate an hour of sweetspot in one workout. 3x20, 2x30, 1x60....whatever.

If you've got 6hrs a week at 10% that would be only 36min of 360min a week at Z4 and up. That sounds a little weak for me. Not enough. And 6hrs a week is a very typical "time crunched" rider. My avg below was 72min per week Z4 and above. Literally double the 10%.

Last 28 days TP says for me (I didn't bother to make those total 100%, you get the idea):

Z1: 5hrs = 22% (true Z1 recovery from intervals usually, or warmup/cooldown)
Z2: 6.75hrs = 29% (most of this is upper Z2, not lower end)
Z3: 6.6hrs = 28.6% (most of this time is mid/upper Z3.........intentional sweetspot, not lower Z3)
Z4: 3hrs = 13% (intentional Z4 interval time)
Z5: 1.3hrs = 5.7% (intentional Z5 interval time)
Z6: 0.5hrs = 2.2% (screwing around chasing Zwift sprint jerseys and hammering randomly for fun)

Last 3 weeks is more volume than that. Week 1 in that 4 week figure was an "off week" with two rides.
burnthesheep is offline  
Old 02-01-21, 08:05 PM
  #55  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,415

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2601 Post(s)
Liked 1,396 Times in 698 Posts
Interesting. I just checked my last 30 days. Looks quite different from years past since there are no group rides or race prep (which drives up both Z1 and Z6).

For the classic zones
Jan 2020
Z1: 6.19%
Z2: 46.7%
Z3: 32.2%
Z4: 10.7%
Z5: 2.54%
Z6: 1.68%

Compared to Jan 2017:
Z1 at 21.3%
Z2 at 34%
Z3 at 22%
Z4 at 14.3%
Z5 at 4.6%
Z6 at 3.7%
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 02-03-21, 06:07 AM
  #56  
ZHVelo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 614
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked 150 Times in 108 Posts
Originally Posted by burnthesheep View Post
I didn't think I posted in this.......

80/20 is # sessions. 90/10 is minutes. It doesn't work for me as I use a Trainingpeaks 6 zone setup, not "three" with the breathing thing. If I HAD to pick what that would look like for me, I'd probably get the whole concept wrong and say my 90/10 on time in zones would split at Z3.

Either way, when folks talk about doing Z2 rides..............I feel like most folks I follow around town here don't really do Z2 rides. Either they're riding tempo for less time OR riding Z1 for a long time. So either too hard or too easy. But, that's an aside. I only mention that to say if you're going to ride Z2, don't waste time barely getting there. Go ahead and do it. Also for sweetspot, go ahead and do it. Don't do the cute little 10min sets for only 30min total. Accumulate an hour of sweetspot in one workout. 3x20, 2x30, 1x60....whatever.

If you've got 6hrs a week at 10% that would be only 36min of 360min a week at Z4 and up. That sounds a little weak for me. Not enough. And 6hrs a week is a very typical "time crunched" rider. My avg below was 72min per week Z4 and above. Literally double the 10%.

Last 28 days TP says for me (I didn't bother to make those total 100%, you get the idea):

Z1: 5hrs = 22% (true Z1 recovery from intervals usually, or warmup/cooldown)
Z2: 6.75hrs = 29% (most of this is upper Z2, not lower end)
Z3: 6.6hrs = 28.6% (most of this time is mid/upper Z3.........intentional sweetspot, not lower Z3)
Z4: 3hrs = 13% (intentional Z4 interval time)
Z5: 1.3hrs = 5.7% (intentional Z5 interval time)
Z6: 0.5hrs = 2.2% (screwing around chasing Zwift sprint jerseys and hammering randomly for fun)

Last 3 weeks is more volume than that. Week 1 in that 4 week figure was an "off week" with two rides.
So you actually do 51/49 with about 6 hours / week.

Which is what I think is right, if you do 20+ hours, yea sure, get that volume in by doing low intensity. But if you just do 6 hours spread over 3 sessions, I do not believe 2 low 1 high is better than 1 low 2 high. Given the hours that 2nd low session will be too short (I can't find the link right now but the guideline for time spent in different zones is what at least 2 or 2.5 hours in zone 2?).
ZHVelo is offline  
Old 02-03-21, 07:46 AM
  #57  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,549

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1143 Post(s)
Liked 1,008 Times in 635 Posts
Originally Posted by ZHVelo View Post
So you actually do 51/49 with about 6 hours / week.

Which is what I think is right, if you do 20+ hours, yea sure, get that volume in by doing low intensity. But if you just do 6 hours spread over 3 sessions, I do not believe 2 low 1 high is better than 1 low 2 high. Given the hours that 2nd low session will be too short (I can't find the link right now but the guideline for time spent in different zones is what at least 2 or 2.5 hours in zone 2?).
I tend to be of the opinion that if you're doing Z2 it needs to be at least 90min. And 90min is if you can ride literally non-stop. No stop signs, no pauses whatsoever. So indoors. Outdoors I'd say 2 hours. Since outdoors you'll have to pause, slow, or stop at some point. I feel that continuous steady work for a long period is needed.
burnthesheep is offline  
Old 02-03-21, 09:10 AM
  #58  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,241
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 804 Post(s)
Liked 279 Times in 176 Posts
Originally Posted by burnthesheep View Post
No stop signs, no pauses whatsoever.
I don't know if you're familiar with the normalized power algorithm, but there's a reason it uses a 30 second rolling average. The time course for changes in the controlling metabolic processes is of that order so changes in effort much less than that have minimal effect on the overall load. In other words, for a given average power, having slowed or stoped for a few seconds really doesn't matter.
asgelle is offline  
Likes For asgelle:
Old 02-03-21, 01:02 PM
  #59  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,549

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1143 Post(s)
Liked 1,008 Times in 635 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
I don't know if you're familiar with the normalized power algorithm, but there's a reason it uses a 30 second rolling average. The time course for changes in the controlling metabolic processes is of that order so changes in effort much less than that have minimal effect on the overall load. In other words, for a given average power, having slowed or stoped for a few seconds really doesn't matter.
Never knew that, thanks!

Most of my stops on the outdoor rides are 30sec or less. I try to tailor my route that way to avoid any busy 4-lane stoplight crossings to keep it short stops.
burnthesheep is offline  
Likes For burnthesheep:
Old 02-03-21, 08:10 PM
  #60  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,415

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2601 Post(s)
Liked 1,396 Times in 698 Posts
Originally Posted by burnthesheep View Post
I tend to be of the opinion that if you're doing Z2 it needs to be at least 90min. .
With the exception of my weekend rides, most of my weekly rides are under an hour. I typically do 30-40 minutes in the a.m. and 30-40 mins in the p.m.

I've done this for years (my commutes in the past were about 40 mins) and can easily accumulate CTLs in the 90s with this.

It's what I'm currently doing now in my quest for 10 MJ each week. Last week I did 11 rides for 11 hours total, the week before I did 10 rides and 11.5 hours. Currently at 5 rides and 3 hours for this week.

I go with the idea that consistent riding beats any specific duration for general fitness and race fitness that involves shorter duration races.
rubiksoval is offline  
Likes For rubiksoval:
Old 02-04-21, 09:35 AM
  #61  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,549

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1143 Post(s)
Liked 1,008 Times in 635 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
With the exception of my weekend rides, most of my weekly rides are under an hour. I typically do 30-40 minutes in the a.m. and 30-40 mins in the p.m.

I've done this for years (my commutes in the past were about 40 mins) and can easily accumulate CTLs in the 90s with this.

It's what I'm currently doing now in my quest for 10 MJ each week. Last week I did 11 rides for 11 hours total, the week before I did 10 rides and 11.5 hours. Currently at 5 rides and 3 hours for this week.

I go with the idea that consistent riding beats any specific duration for general fitness and race fitness that involves shorter duration races.
That makes sense. I think I'm confusing what I'm currently doing due to necessity with effectiveness. Out of necessity right now it works better for me to do fewer but longer than 1hr workouts.

If I can score a dedicated Zwift device, I could gain 40min 3x per week before work. Right now I share a computer with the kid's remote school needs. So can't bump into that.
burnthesheep is offline  
Old 02-04-21, 01:30 PM
  #62  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 17,481

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2950 Post(s)
Liked 864 Times in 652 Posts
Being a current practitioner of the thread topic, I'll also post my times and percentages, following other's examples:
The bike work is all on my resistance rollers, no outdoor riding, following a structured plan.

Last 28 days TP says for me:

Power, thus bike only:
Z1: 5:13, 32% (I did no recovery rides. This is cool-downs and warm-ups)
Z2: 7:09, 43.7% (most of this is mid to upper Z2, not lower end)
Z3: 1:19. 8.01% (most of this time is moving between zones or warmup)
Z4: 2:15. 13.7% (intentional Z5 interval time, plus see discussion below)
Z5: 0:27, 2.73% (intentional Z5 interval time was 0:48 @105% - since Coggan has the 4-5 limit right there, about half winds up in Z4, half in Z5)

HR, what Seiler originally investigated. I record HR for everything, so this includes bike + walking, strength, and snowshoeing.
Z1: 7:53, 33%

Z2: 12:25, 51.9% (most of this is upper Z2, not lower end)
Z3: 2:42. 11.3% (some of this time is moving between zones or warmup, most is lower end, doing my 94% muscle tension intervals)
Z4: 0:43. 3.22% (intentional interval time, mostly in power Z5)
Z5: 0.09.= .6% (4 X 4' X 2' intervals, so HR lags power quite a bit)

Discussion of the 2:15 of bike zone 4 work:
:23 of this Z4 time is working at about my putative FTP and about 0:21 while doing Z5 intervals. The rest is while riding at 94% FTP at 52 cadence with breathing and HR in upper HR Z2, lower Z3, but breathing below VT1. What to count this as? I do this once a week during Build 1, January and February. It does build climbing endurance. I note that Basso, back in the Lance days, did this at 386w and 45 cadence. He rode OK. At the watts I use, I'll work up to doing 2 X 25-30 X 10-15, once a week. The day after, I usually do ordinary Z5 intervals. Basso was about at FTP, so I'm taking my cues from him, having found no one else with equivalent experience.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 02-04-21, 08:28 PM
  #63  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,415

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2601 Post(s)
Liked 1,396 Times in 698 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Basso was about at FTP, so I'm taking my cues from him, having found no one else with equivalent experience.
What Basso was doing was likely pointless.,.

https://www.velonews.com/training/do...ke-you-faster/

And...doper...

Aerobic, aerobic, aerobic.

My favorite pithy adage:

In general, pedaling slowly only makes you better at one thing: pedaling slowly.
rubiksoval is offline  
Likes For rubiksoval:
Old 02-05-21, 04:13 PM
  #64  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 17,481

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2950 Post(s)
Liked 864 Times in 652 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
What Basso was doing was likely pointless.,.

https://www.velonews.com/training/do...ke-you-faster/

And...doper...

Aerobic, aerobic, aerobic.

My favorite pithy adage:
I understand the reasoning. The problem is that it works. The other problem is researcher and sales bias. VeloNews like to go against the grain a bit. Though the article text minimized it, there are two studies, one which shows a positive effect of low cadence intervals, and one of which does not.

I'll discuss the positive one first, though it's the second study to which the article refers. In the positive study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ng_Performance
researchers had the subjects perform a series of explosive sprints, either at high or low cadence. Performance improved more among the low cadence subjects. The reason performance improved more among the low cadence subjects was that this was done on an erg, not on the road, so the low cadence subjects experienced maximal muscle loading during their entire effort, though the abstract doesn't say how long these efforts were. I give these researchers some credit, because these low cadence sprint drills are exactly what track cyclists do after several weeks of strength training.

The study with negative results:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907705/
showed that the low cadence subjects performance decreased during the 12 week study period while the group performing 90' of moderate cycling at their freely chosen cadence had a performance increase. The study doesn't mention what the 2 groups of riders did for training, other than the studied efforts. It does not say that their training was the same. In fact, looking at the results not mentioned in the abstract, one sees that the major difference between the two groups was that the low cadence group trained at a lower HR intensity than did the freely chosen cadence group. This anomaly is not discussed. The study goes on to mention previous studies by other researchers which showed a positive result from low cadence training:
https://edzo.info.hu/images/TTcycling.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ng_time-trials
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25542416/

My take on these two studies, looking at my own experience is that what works for low cadence training is to work the leg muscles to near exhaustion on the last interval. The sprint intervals in the positive study would do that, but the 6' intervals in the negative study would not. Low cadence intervals at moderate HR effort need to be long enough to exhaust the muscles, i.e. over that 12 week program working up from 2 X 15 to at least 2 X 30 or even 2 X 45, whatever the individual subject could handle. Hence Bosso on the Volterra.

I would note that low cadence work is aeobic, totally aerobic. I'd like to see someone get their HR to Z5 at 50 cadence. I am below AeT, as were the subjects in the negative trial.

And by the way, they were all dopers back then. As Anquetil said: “You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water.” Those who felt they had a chance to increase their income by placing higher or getting more salary made investments in drugging. Merckx was high a kite on amphetamines when he rode his hour record, etc.

Yeah, it's a long response, but humans are complicated. Aerobic work so far this week on the rollers + a walk:
Sunday: 4 X 4' X 2" 105% + Z1 1:01
Monday: 13 ea. 2' one-legged intervals 50%, alternating 50-55, 80-85 + Z1 1:01
Tuesday: 2 X 15' X 8' MT 94% 52 cadence + Z2 1:00
Wednesday: 4 X 4' X 2' 105% + Z1 1:00
Thursday: Neighborhood walk Z1 1:05
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 02-05-21, 06:54 PM
  #65  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,549

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1143 Post(s)
Liked 1,008 Times in 635 Posts
Forgive me if any of this is BS, but I'm throwing out some random guesses here. I don't know any of this to be fact.

-Back in the day folks rode 53/39 with like 5 cogs in the back, none of them a 28, often not a 25 or a 23..........maybe a 21???? If that's the tool you've got you're going to have to use it. Nobody rode 50t fronts with a 28 or even 30 in the back.

-I thought the dope of choice back in the day was anabolics and strychnine? Those I thought tended towards more muscular stuff? So, low cadence would work? Those the days before EPO.

-EPO and blood doping working on the heart/lung engine and seems to me it would have driven more cadence to optimize usage of those cheats. Did folks spin at those high of cadences pre-Lance?

Personally for cadence I avg about 85 to 90 for Z3 and below. Z4 and 5 I'll avg 95 to 100. VO2/sprint, always 100+ rpm. Often over 110.

The matchbook analogy comes into play. If you don't spend time training (building up the matchbook) you won't have many to burn in the race. And different races need different matches (or candles). A solo time trial needs a hot and long burning flare and maybe a pair of matches for a start, turnaround, and finish. A crit needs quite a few matches and a couple firecrackers, but no long burn flares. Triathlon needs three steady reliable candles.

Time crunched people don't have time for both the big aerobic base for more matches, and the matches themselves. So, choose the matches.
burnthesheep is offline  
Old 02-05-21, 07:02 PM
  #66  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,241
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 804 Post(s)
Liked 279 Times in 176 Posts
Originally Posted by burnthesheep View Post
Forgive me if any of this is BS, but I'm throwing out some random guesses here. I don't know any of this to be fact.
Given the complexity of human physiology, it shouldn't surprise you that a collection of random, uninformed guesses is uniformly incorrect.
asgelle is offline  
Old 02-05-21, 08:10 PM
  #67  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,549

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1143 Post(s)
Liked 1,008 Times in 635 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
Given the complexity of human physiology, it shouldn't surprise you that a collection of random, uninformed guesses is uniformly incorrect.
Spitballing sometimes fails on the spitballer.
burnthesheep is offline  
Old 02-07-21, 06:53 PM
  #68  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 17,481

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2950 Post(s)
Liked 864 Times in 652 Posts
Back to PT training . . .
My wife and I got our 1st Moderna shot on Thursday, so 3 days ago! This afternoon we went out in the shop to do our long moderate rides on our rollers and trainer. Warmup didn't go well and we wound up quitting after about 20 minutes or so. Our HRs and power were normal, but our breathing was not. Our lungs just didn't feel right, like we weren't getting enough air. I put it down to minor inflammation, a normal reaction to the vaccine. I think it's stupid to put additional stress on an organism that's having a strong immune response. We'll go out and have a go at it every day and see how we're doing.

Being my usual paranoid self, I sat down with my pulse oximeter. Oxygenation at 98%, no worries, it's just the vaccine.

So after you get your vaccine, you have to sit down under observation for 15' before they let you go. There were several people in the hallway, all of us waiting for clearance to go. I called it Happy Hallway. I may have never before been in the presence of that many extremely happy people in my life. My doctor said he cried in the car on the way home after his. As far as we know, no one has died of the virus after they've had their first shot.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 02-07-21, 08:17 PM
  #69  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,415

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2601 Post(s)
Liked 1,396 Times in 698 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
OTOH, rubik,asserts that cycling itself will make your legs strong, no need to do strength work. One of those two opinions is incorrect.


To clarify this quote since I can't in the other thread...

I assert that strength is not a limiter in cycling. I'm sure just about everyone that "trains" can do 500 watts. But why can hardly anyone not paid to ride a bike not do so for more than a few minutes? It's not a matter of strength.

Furthermore, while there are most certainly benefits to strength training, I also assert for those whose primary goal is cycling performance but do not have adequate time to both implement and recover from both, that on the bike training will give you more benefit.

I have never seen, read, or heard of anything that actually refutes either of those two.

For those purely chasing performance on the bike, it's disingenuous to assert that it will improve cycling more than actually working on specific intensities on the bike. Where's the evidence for that?

And I pointed this out years ago in one of these threads.... if strength training is so beneficial to performance, why is it only done in the offseason?

Give me Rider X doing 10-12 hours of on the bike work compared to Rider X doing 10-12 hours of strength training and on the bike work... I'll pick the former for performance every single day.

Last edited by rubiksoval; 02-07-21 at 08:22 PM.
rubiksoval is offline  
Likes For rubiksoval:
Old 02-07-21, 08:43 PM
  #70  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,415

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2601 Post(s)
Liked 1,396 Times in 698 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Ah. No evidence. So much stuff gets quoted and repeated so often on social media that one hardly knows what's true anymore . . . Whatever it might or might not say, it obviously does not reflect current knowledge or practice.
Here's a 10 year old Slowtwitch thread you may enjoy. Has quite a few people in it who know what they're talking about, with quite a few who don't.

I don't know if this has the specific bit asgelle is referring to as I haven't read through this entire thread yet, but there's a lot in there that goes along with stuff that's been posted on this site for a few years. The stuff from Alex Simmons is very interesting.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/S...61939/?page=-1
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 02-07-21, 09:07 PM
  #71  
cubewheels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,784

Bikes: A really old BMX bike, Phantom 20 kid's MTB, Jackal Mio Gravel Bike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked 363 Times in 292 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
I assert that strength is not a limiter in cycling. I'm sure just about everyone that "trains" can do 500 watts. But why can hardly anyone not paid to ride a bike not do so for more than a few minutes? It's not a matter of strength.
You're asserting that cycling only involves flats and mild gradients.

If you can't turn the pedals on very steep climbs, you're not going to make 500 watts, not even 10 watts, not unless you get off the bike and walk it uphill.

Training on very steep hills is already a form of strength training (on-the-bike strength training) by virtue of high resistance you must overcome on the pedals (unless you're using 3rd ring or some huge cogs at the back)
cubewheels is offline  
Old 02-07-21, 09:12 PM
  #72  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,241
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 804 Post(s)
Liked 279 Times in 176 Posts
Originally Posted by cubewheels View Post
You're asserting that cycling only involves flats and mild gradients.

If you can't turn the pedals on very steep climbs, you're not going to make 500 watts, not even 10 watts, not unless you get off the bike and walk it uphill.
I hear multigear bicycles are the latest rage now. They let the rider choose an appropriate gear ratio as the road gradient changes.
asgelle is offline  
Likes For asgelle:
Old 02-07-21, 10:25 PM
  #73  
cubewheels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,784

Bikes: A really old BMX bike, Phantom 20 kid's MTB, Jackal Mio Gravel Bike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked 363 Times in 292 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
I hear multigear bicycles are the latest rage now. They let the rider choose an appropriate gear ratio as the road gradient changes.
I can see the sarcasm.

I use 34 / 32 gears which is the smallest gear on my gravel bike on very steep gradients ~20%.

I was unable to do it sitted in the saddle before strength training. Now I can
cubewheels is offline  
Old 02-08-21, 01:27 AM
  #74  
ZHVelo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 614
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked 150 Times in 108 Posts
How has this thread also turned into a strength training thread?

I have seen some YouTube videos of talks/lectures on this topic via the algorithm, and my conclusion supports what I said above - if you have time to train 20+ hours like a pro in a week, yea sure, polarized is great. If you don't, HIIT is superior and if you do just 3 sessions a week or maybe 4, then 2 of those should be interval ones.

This also makes sense by simple logic, if you just do 3 sessions a week, then if you go for a 4:1 ratio that means every other week is a week without any intense session. There is no progressive overload at all.
ZHVelo is offline  
Old 02-08-21, 01:51 AM
  #75  
ZHVelo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 614
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked 150 Times in 108 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
Here's a 10 year old Slowtwitch thread you may enjoy. Has quite a few people in it who know what they're talking about, with quite a few who don't.

I don't know if this has the specific bit asgelle is referring to as I haven't read through this entire thread yet, but there's a lot in there that goes along with stuff that's been posted on this site for a few years. The stuff from Alex Simmons is very interesting.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/S...61939/?page=-1
Quickly had a gander at that, the following caught my eye -

"'Stronger' is not the correct term.

Unless she can produce 1400W, I am stronger/more powerful than her.

The thing is, she can produce higher w/kg (as I probably still produce more total watts at FTP) than I can over a sustained period. And the limiting factor in that is not strength or power.

The limiting factor (non ex phys degree speaking) is the body's ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles and do so aerobically."

I think most people here seem to agree with that if I understand the comments right, but there is one part that is missing. "ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles" is not the entire picture. What if your limiting factor is not how much O2 your heart and lung can get to the muscles, but how much they can use / take up. And strength training may or may not help with that. That was my hypothesis in the other thread when I created it.
ZHVelo is offline  

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.