Training and General Tips For a Relatively Fit Beginner
 

I was once a runner and due a bad accident my running days are over. I was a sub 4:0X miler and mid 14s 5k'er prior to my injury. I'm 10lbs over racing weight at 6'0 158lbs. Now I've been biking for about 3 months after a year of no exercise. I did retain some cardio and what I lost is coming back quickly. However my biking legs are terrible and I'm slow because of it. I naturally want to spin at >100rpm and I can't sustain a HR as long as I should before my legs give out. (by feel, no HR monitor)

Up until now I have been riding without purpose, but recently I've had the itch to train. I don't have any concrete goals other than the fun of improving. (and to beat that cocky SOB at the local group ride). But lets just say a 40k TT is my target race.

I'm willing to put in about 60min/day and a weekend ride of 120min or so. I'm already riding an hour or so a day but just riding, nothing specific. Obviously I'll never be fit to compete in any 2+ hour races with that amount of time, but that's ok.

I assume training is structured similarly to running? Any key differences? This thread has been helpful on common workouts.

Any ideas on the best way to get my biking legs to catch up to cardio? My gut says a lot of vo2 intensities will help.

Also, how much improvement can I reasonably expect over the next 6months to year? I realize it varies but a guess is appreciated. Currently 20mph for 60min is a tough ride. A month ago I did a 10mi TT in 29:00 o&b with 15mph wind (from weather report)

You might find this recent thread helpful.

Cycling uses the legs differently from running. Spinning is a good strategy, but if you want to build leg strength, ride up hills, mainly seated, at cadences of about 60 rpm.

As far as training being structured similarly to running is concerned, I guess so if you were a middle-distance runner who trained speed as well as stamina. It sounds like you can ride for about 8 hours per week. I'd suggest a couple of interval sessions, one of extended 20-minute intervals at the sort of level of effort you'd run 5000 metres, and one of 1minute intervals at the highest intensity you can sustain. Throw in a "tempo" ride of an hour at a runner's 10k level of effort, and make the rest of your rides pretty easy, cruising speed stuff.

If you have any useful hills you might ditch the sprint interval session and incorporate some hard hill repeats into your (otherwise pretty relaxed) 2-hour weekend ride.

If you're riding 20 miles in an hour you're pretty fit. Start to train systematically and you can expect significant improvements, though 8 hours per week is pretty much the minimum if you want to get fit for racing. Were you to set yourself a goal of 40k in an hour, that would be a great achievement in a year. Riding at 25 mph requires almost twice the power of riding at 20 mph, because wind resistance means that the power required varies with the cube of your speed.

I'd strongly recommend a HR monitor, it makes the interval workouts much easier to perform consistently.

You lost me a little here. 5k effort is usually somewhere between 14-20 min for a runner in good shape depending on how good they are. I'm not following how you could do 20 min intervals at 15 min race pace effort. Unless you mean doing 2-5 min repeats for 20 total minutes.

Same thing for the 10k effort stuff. If 10k effort is a 35 minute effort, riding for an hour at that pace seems impossible; again unless you mean breaking it up into 10-15 min chunks.

Sorry if I'm being dense and missing the point.

Sorry, you're not being obtuse, I am. I'm thinking of the pace I would run 5k on a training run, not race pace. Same for 10k. Difficult to describe the parallels between running and cycling, as I've just demonstrated.

Essentially a "tempo" hour is HR zone 3, the sort of pace that will leave you tested but not exhausted after an hour. And the 2x20 minute intervals should each leave you feeling that you could have gone harder, but not much...

Does that help?

EDIT: It occurs to me that you ex-runners might find some useful expertise in the triathlon forum. Those guys/gals will be better able to talk about the running/cycling transition than I am.

I am used to %LT, %HR, %VO2. I think the disconnect comes in the duration you are used to. A 15min race is considered a sprint in cycling, although still highly aerobic. The lack of penalty for added mass on flats just doesn't give the little guys a chance...

Anyway, I'm not necessarily looking for how to structure a week of training. I guess what I'm after is a more general direction to go given a high end CV starting point but weak legs. I can piece together some specific workouts based on that direction and google.

Lmaster, I just saw your other thread. looks like we are in the same boat.

Edit: I'll certainly check out the tri forums.

Edit2: yes a sub hour 40k would be nice. I've got the fuel delivery, just need the engine.

If you're used to %LT, get the HR monitor. It'll help a lot.

And as a little guy (weightwise, anyway) the hills may be your friend. Think about road racing as well as time-trialling.

The big difference between racing and TTs is that threshold power is no longer the principal determinant. What kills racers is the repeated surges, banging up to VO2max and then having to recover at speed before the next surge comes along. Bear that in mind when you're thinking about training regimens.

That's good to know. Vo2 paces have always been my strength, although how well the transition is made remains to be seen.

The past two weeks, since starting "training" and just winging it, I have done 2:00 hill repeats (4-7%) , 8x5:00hx3:00e, and two 60:00 progressive rides (easy up to >LT), plus recovery rides of course. My quads have been in a constant state of soreness.

Classic response of runner-turned-cyclist. And of cyclist-turned-runner, for that matter. When I go running in the winter I practically have to walk downstairs backwards for a week or so, my quads moan so much. Eccentric vs concentric contractions, or so they tell me...

Yes, it does, quite clear now what you mean, thanks!

I like to build strength and anaerobic endurance on the bike by doing hill repeats in a gear that I have a hard time turning over by the end of a 1 km hill. I'm 195 lbs and find 53/21 is usually the right gear for the job, YMMV of course.

I wind up to 35-40 kph on the approach and try to keep the gear turning over as long as I can while staying seated. Once the real cadence is done I grind it out as long as possible while staying seated and transition to standing once I can't grind it out in the saddle any longer.

Turn around at the top, coast down and spin easy for 5-10 minutes and then repeat. I do 2-3 one day a week in the early season and progress to 5 or 6 as strength and recovery allows. When it gets easy go up a gear and keep at it.

Hills are good natural builders of anaerobic power. But power means speed, also on hills. What you are doing, trying to go up te hill in the heaviest gear possible is not the best exercise for anaerobic power. You would be immediately faster up the hill if you would use lower gears and that means you are producing more power.

The main point of that workout is actually strength which is why I said for strength and anaerobic endurance.

It's a training exercise and as such I'm not trying to set records going up the hill, I'm building power. Thought the OP might benefit from it since he (she?) said his legs were lagging behind his cardio.

I get what you were saying CharlyAlfa. Low cadence w/ higher force (but lower total power) to work on max leg strength. Seems like it would be useful for acceleration and that last push at the top of a hill when you don't want to downshift.

You sound much like me a long time ago except you were/are clearly a faster runner (more focused on shorter distances) and already as fast or faster biker than I ever was. FWIW, I pretty much never raced on the track and rarely raced less than 10K (34:50 10K PR and 2:42 marathon PR although I'll swear that I had a sub 2:40 in me in 1984 until it turned up super hot).

My judgment is that it takes 6 to 9 months to pretty much get your 'bike legs' to mostly (not completely) there. In no order here is what I observed when I transitioned.

1) The general training principles are the same

2) Biking requires a MUCH broader range of effort vs. the running that I was doing. Biking has all these surges, hills are often an important element of the race, etc

3) If you have the time you can do a larger volume of work on a bike vs. running (before over-training issues bring you down)

4) I did a couple times per week doing heavy leg presses on an incline board. I think that was very helpful in biking - I can't know for sure but I don't think it would have been as helpful in running

I would guess that you would benefit from extending your long ride (to say 3 hours) if that is possible - even if only occasionally. I was always at my best in long steady efforts but it sounds like VO2 max kind of stuff is more your thing. So biking is probably a good fit for you. Good luck.

dave

I'll give you that sub 2:40 marathon :). I've never raced beyond 10k, but I know so many factors are involved most people never hit the time they are actually in shape for.

6 to 9 months I can deal with. That puts my "getting used to it" phase ending around early next spring. I'm hoping to show some large improvements. Hopefully my sub-pro level running background gives me better odds.

Heavy leg presses or squats are kindof not wise for me now. Both knees were destroyed in my accident mentioned in my first post. Stability under heavy load is an issue, making risk of further injury high. A meniscus tear caused by doing squats is the straw that broke the camels back and put me on the bike. Ironically enough the squats were an effort to strengthen quads and therefore stability.

Anecdote of the day: Yesterday out on my ride I met up with a gentleman out on the road, about 55yo, shorter, heavier, and powerfully built. The only other biker in town so I've seen and talked to him before. He was on the rest interval of a 2x30min workout, so i jumped in with him on his second set for company. Immediately when we started the interval I found myself struggling to keep up, losing ground on the slight downhills. On the ups I would catch him again, although likely putting out more effort to do so. After about 15-20min i'd had enough. Cycling is an interesting sport, the bike is the great equalizer it seems. Luckily my ego is secure and not hurt too bad :).

Given that history, the squats/leg presses are out. I would not view them as mandatory anyway. And it might indicate that care in trading off gearing vs. the inclines that you face is wise. But you are probably already headed in that direction as you call yourself a spinner.

Virtually all my running was without a HRM as it was before that timeframe, although I would occasionally stop and do a 'manual sampling' just to know. I bought my first HRM about 9 months into cycling. Two more comments.

1) My sense of things is that my 'proper HR' when running is 5 to 10 bpm higher than cycling, for whatever reason.

2) I have always found it so easy to just go 'way the heck too fast' early in a whatever bike race - I mean like crazy fast. It just isn't something that I would do when running. I never understood that and I never felt the need (other than curiosity) to know my HR when running. When cycling I somehow need this information (????) just to keep myself from doing something stupid.

dave

Except that you're really never anywhere near your max leg strength. Run the numbers. Even say you're putting out 600W at 50 rpm with a 165mm crank arm. Those numbers will maximize the amount of force your putting out, and I'd bet it's not all that much force.

Think about it - on a bike, you're going to have to output that force hundreds if not thousands of times. It can't be anywhere near your max strength, otherwise you couldn't do it that often. In fact, it's far enough from your max strength that your max strength pretty much doesn't matter except in extreme situations - a standing start in some track events, maybe the first second or so of a sharp acceleration - MAYBE.

Yeah, low cadence/high force can do a lot for you, but one thing it's not going to do is improve your max leg strength. Muscular endurance? Yeah. Ability to climb? Yeah.

FWIW, I ran some numbers (I assume they are correct - the calculations are not complicated) with the following parameters.

RPM - 60
crank - 172.5mm
PowerOut - 600w

The average force required here is 125 pounds. It seems reasonable to me (based on my own uninformed opinion which is based on my own cycling which is hardly something to be admired) to think that out of the saddle lugging up a hill requires a peak force of 3x the average. So that comes out to 375 pounds.

Probably not a max output but 'not all that much force' doesn't seem to apply either. Or maybe I made an error here. I spent about 3 minutes on the problem.

dave

OK. Agree that max leg strength was a bad term to use. I was trying to be generic since I'm very new to cycling. However what you're saying is not what I intended it to mean.

So lets provide an example with something I'm familiar with. In running, speed is not determined by peak force to the ground, but how quickly a force can be applied. You want you ground contact time (ct) to be small, and the only way we can apply a large force is through a longer ct. Now when you do plyometrics like bounding, bunny hops, skipping for height, etc. the force is greatly increased but ct greatly increases, turnover decreases (and speed along with it obviously). Sounds like it fits with what we are talking about.

While the force doing bounding is not maximal at all, and not as large as say doing squats, it still recruits a good bit more muscle fibers than even full out sprinting and does it in a more sport specific way than weights. This trains you CNS and muscles to pull from greater pool of fibers. Now obviously once you have gained access to those fibers they need to be trained for endurance. The idea is that with a greater pool of fibers it is more likely that when the kick starts you will be able to call on more un-fatigued fibers than the guy next to you, and reach a larger percent of your fresh maximum speed. For sprinting it is useful for acceleration phase when ct is lower but force is higher. It has not been shown to increase max speed.

Seems like it would be useful for accelerating to cover a break, a finish sprint, or hills, whether the force applied is maximal or not. The idea may or may not be applicable to biking, but that was my thoughts.

120 lbs is indeed the average force required to do 600W @ 60 RPM. But 600W is a lot, a 185lbs person would need a 20% grade to do 6.5 mph at 600W. So in practice, if you can do 600W, you are not struggling up a hill doing 60 RPM at running speeds. For all real life purposes, you do not need but a fraction of your body weight in strength to go up any hill.

Interesting comparison, at first glance it does look like bounding is to running as low cadence/high torque drills would be to cycling. I think there is an important difference, with running it is not just about the force that propels you forward. For that forward force it seems like the same principles apply as for cycling, long term power is generated from high cadence/low torque. The other component of running is the jumping up and down, in order to be fast you want to increase your stride and that comes from jumping higher in the air, I think that this is where bounding helps. This up and down motion has much more a characteristic of short explosive high force burst. It needs to be applied at every step so increasing the cadence does not help to jump higher, you really need to apply more force.

Needles to say that cycling does not have this component.

But considering the facts that you can only (for the most part) push with one leg at a time and the fact that peak power (within a single revolution) is certainly higher than average power, I would say that you do (on an instantaneous basis) sometimes exert forces that are closer to your maximum leg strength than "never anywhere near your maximum leg strength".

dave

I'm not claiming any benefits of the low cadence high torque drills, just like discussing this type of stuff.

Plyo drills may not be good comparison, but not for the reason you state. Jumping higher in the air is anti-running. Running coaches work to minimize vertical movement as much as possible since it is wasted energy.

Vertical oscillation is minimal at all speeds, does not change much with running velocity and in many cases decreases. Watch how level their heads stay in these videos. (100m dash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH-3cHxXAK0 vs 10k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvqAIl_Ydiw ) Increasing stride length (at a constant cadence) is simply a byproduct of increasing velocity while maintaining a minimal vertical movement. A bouncy runner is an inefficient runner and a common problem in untrained folks.

The plyos are for fiber recruitment, which then have to be trained for endurance. Primary benefits for endurance runners are not maximum force production. We're talking high end anaerobic capacity for short duration where aerobic power is just too weak, like the final sprint or a hilly 5k. It's a small tool for any highly trained person trying to squeeze out those last few seconds. Untrained runners shouldn't' worry about it.

One benefit that is not applicable is increases in mechanical efficiency (form, elastic energy return, etc. ).

Maybe I shouldn't be talking about running since that is something I don't know much about. It does seem like the up and down movement is to be minimized.

I did find this interesting article by Andy Coggan: Why we don't use strength-endurance anymore ? aboc Cycle Coaching

It seems like low cadence drills are used in cycling also, but the experts disagree on the benefits. Coggan's view is that they don't add much to cycling performance. Forces applied during these drills are at most 50% of 1 rep max, in the gym this is considered a warmup. He also writes about the fiber recruitment and claims that even without these drills, athletes will start transforming fast twitch into slow twitch muscles and he questions if these drills actually use the fast twitch muscles enough to be able to make a difference.

Good info in that article, It makes a good case against those types of workouts. I'm inclined to agree. (I wasn't going to try them anyway since I'm so new, just regular riding is providing plenty of workout)

That's the frustrating thing I've found with physiology! Many times there are just not enough measurable variables to actually study something conclusively. Leading to lots of theories, disagreements, and fads. Like the importance of ones' VO2 max that has since been shown as not so important. Disclaimer: I'm no physiologist, just like reading about it.