# Don't understand training jargon



## Stonechat (18 Jan 2014)

HI

Signed up for London to Brighton for British Heart Foundation
There training schedule for intermediate cyclists is here

http://www.bhf.org.uk/pdf/intermediate cycling training schedule.pdf

Can someone explain what those intervals mean?
I have really just cycled and never trained to date though I have done 40 miles (on a hybrid) and road bike is on its way.


----------



## cyberknight (18 Jan 2014)

Intervals are normally where you go full gas for a set number of seconds then rest or hill intervals where you do similar but up a hill ?


----------



## Dusty Bin (18 Jan 2014)

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12749048

That plan is a bit OTT for a 60 mile bike ride to be honest. All you need to do in order to complete L2B is just ride your bike IMO. Many people won't even have done that, and will still get round...


----------



## Ernie_RBR (18 Jan 2014)

Interval training is an excellent way to improving your fitness level / CV ...On your training programme 30/30 means go flat out for 30secs and then rest / go easy for 30secs .. I try and do 1 interval sessions every other week one at 45 /45 and 60/60 .. Hope this helps ..


----------



## Stonechat (18 Jan 2014)

OK sure my garmin (500) could help here but not really used to it yet


----------



## Kies (18 Jan 2014)

Intervals make more sense on a turbo or rollers


----------



## Stonechat (18 Jan 2014)

Well I don't have a turbo
Will try to do something like it anyway


----------



## 400bhp (18 Jan 2014)

Dusty Bin said:


> http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12749048
> 
> That plan is a bit OTT for a 60 mile bike ride to be honest. All you need to do in order to complete L2B is just ride your bike IMO. Many people won't even have done that, and will still get round...



wayyyyyyy OTT

In fact I'm struggling to see the point.

The object is to finish isn't it?

Weird. Sounds like someone doesn't understand cycling to me and has just assumed general fitness can be translated to a bike.


----------



## 50000tears (18 Jan 2014)

The training plan is also set up poorly. Hills sessions followed by a hard ride the day after and intervals the day after that! Where is the balance?


----------



## Dusty Bin (18 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> The training plan is also set up poorly. Hills sessions followed by a hard ride the day after and intervals the day after that! Where is the balance?



Some of the back to back sessions are hard - but they're not particularly long, so I don't really have a problem with that. The plan is viable as a training schedule, but it is also well OTT just to complete L2B. Certainly if you are a new cyclist, I would be looking at something a bit less ambitious...


----------



## 50000tears (18 Jan 2014)

Dusty Bin said:


> Some of the back to back sessions are hard - but they're not particularly long, so I don't really have a problem with that. The plan is viable as a training schedule, but it is also well OTT just to complete L2B. Certainly if you are a new cyclist, I would be looking at something a bit less ambitious...



They may not be long for what an already fit cyclist would undertake but given that the people doing it are likely to be far less fit, due to them "training" for a 60 mile ride, it does not look balanced to me. I know after a hard hills session I need an easy day or even a rest/recovery ride day.

Also sprint intervals need to be done fresh not after two days training. Otherwise you will never get to the intensity needed to affect your VO2 max, which is normally the purpose of doing them.


----------



## Stonechat (18 Jan 2014)

Thanks for the feedback - well will do my thing - the distance is a bit more than I have done but doesn't faze me, climbing is more that I do normally so need to up my performance there


----------



## Dusty Bin (18 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> Also sprint intervals need to be done fresh not after two days training. Otherwise you will never get to the intensity needed to affect your VO2 max, which is normally the purpose of doing them.



Sorry, I don't agree. By definition, sprints are anaerobic - not Vo2 max. Given that in a race situation you are most likely to be sprinting at the end of a race, then it does no harm to do them on less-than-fresh legs. There are no sprint intervals in that program anyway. The shortest interval is 30/30, which may be hard, but it's not anaerobic.


----------



## 50000tears (19 Jan 2014)

Dusty Bin said:


> Sorry, I don't agree. By definition, sprints are anaerobic - not Vo2 max. Given that in a race situation you are most likely to be sprinting at the end of a race, then it does no harm to do them on less-than-fresh legs. There are no sprint intervals in that program anyway. The shortest interval is 30/30, which may be hard, but it's not anaerobic.



Yeah 30/30 is a slightly awkward intensity structure to pigeonhole accurately. At least for me. Understand the point of a sprint being at the end of big miles when competing. Don't know whether that makes practicing them when tired correct or not though.


----------



## Stonechat (19 Jan 2014)

I just want to 
1 Improve my general endurance
2 Improve hill climbing

Both have been improving anyway under my regime of increasing length rides with hill content
Today (On the hybrid soon to be usurped by Felt Z95) I did 44 miles including about 1590 feet of climbs im 3 1/2 hours.
Pretty tired by the end though.


----------



## Rob3rt (20 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> The training plan is also set up poorly. Hills sessions followed by a hard ride the day after and intervals the day after that! Where is the balance?



Consecutive hard training days have been found to be very effective by many people.


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

Exactly! Three hard days followed by a rest day is a great structure.

30/30 (seconds! sustained for 3 sets of 10 minutes ideally) is definitely a sprint work out, but it's completely inappropriate for someone who wants to improve their aerobic base. 3 x 10 (minutes!) or 2 x 20 (again minutes!) would be far far more useful.


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Jan 2014)

If you accept the definition of a 'sprint' as a 100% effort, then 30 sec is too long for a sprint interval.


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

I am not sure I do accept that definition. I would say any effort that is in the neuromuscular zone - Zone 7 in the Coggan terminology. Variable from athlete to athlete, but for me anything up to 2 minutes can be in that zone. I do have a rather high fatigue resistance profile, which means that while my absolute sprint power is not great, I can sustain sprints for longer.

But 30 seconds is definitely a sprint for most.

Defining things as 100% effort is confusing, as I can put out more at 1 second than 5 seconds and that in turn is more that 15 seconds. Which duration is 100% then?


----------



## totallyfixed (20 Jan 2014)

Hey guys, you are turning this into a tech fest which is of no use whatsoever to stonechat. For those of us involved in racing it's all very interesting but we are in a minority and so of very little interest to most on CC. In any case there are very few absolutes in the human body and having been involved in coaching / training and competing for more years than I care to remember if there is one thing that I have learnt, it is that everyone is different and will respond in different ways to exercise. 
All the OP really needs to do at this stage is longer rides and push a bit harder when they feel able to. The real trick is to do something most days, even if it isn't much, fitness will increase noticeably. The training plan is clearly nonsense. When the road bike comes, hill climbing will feel much easier, particularly out of the saddle. You could steal a march on most by learning to ride on the drops for a few minutes at a time, it saves a lot of energy particularly if you are on someone's wheel / into the wind. Most of all don't worry, I'll bet there will be hundreds who will struggle more than you, enjoy yourself!


----------



## 50000tears (20 Jan 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Consecutive hard training days have been found to be very effective by many people.



The point I was making was that whilst 3 days hard training may work well for the already fit, as a training method for those "building" to be able to cycle 60 miles it is too much.


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> The point I was making was that whilst 3 days hard training may work well for the already fit, as a training method for those "building" to be able to cycle 60 miles it is too much.



Well no, the principles of overload and recovery apply the same to the fit and the unfit. It's just that the unfit will have lower absolute loads. Taking it easy just perpetuates staying unfit.


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> I am not sure I do accept that definition. I would say any effort that is in the neuromuscular zone - Zone 7 in the Coggan terminology. Variable from athlete to athlete, but for me anything up to 2 minutes can be in that zone. I do have a rather high fatigue resistance profile, which means that while my absolute sprint power is not great, I can sustain sprints for longer.
> 
> But 30 seconds is definitely a sprint for most.
> 
> Defining things as 100% effort is confusing, as I can put out more at 1 second than 5 seconds and that in turn is more that 15 seconds. Which duration is 100% then?



I don't see anything confusing about defining a 100% effort. I would define '100% effort' as the absolute hardest effort you can muster, regardless of sustainability. In reality, it probably won't be sustainable for much longer than 10-15 secs and it's not really trainable in any meaningful sense.

Do you think Usain Bolt could sustain his 100m pace for two minutes? I don't...


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

Dusty Bin said:


> I don't see anything confusing about defining a 100% effort. I would define '100% effort' as the absolute hardest effort you can muster, regardless of sustainability. In reality, it probably won't be sustainable for much longer than 10-15 secs and it's not really trainable in any meaningful sense.
> 
> Do you think Usain Bolt could sustain his 100m pace for two minutes? I don't...



OK my 1 s power is 1200w, my 5s is 1050, my 15s is 890 so which of those is 100% that I should be training at for 'sprint'? I think getting hung up defining sprint as 100% is limiting that's all I am saying.

As to UB - the answer to your question is no. He can however sustain it for 200m. He is also thinking of doing 400m. But that is no longer a sprint distance by your definition.


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> As to UB - the answer to your question is no. He can however sustain it for 200m. He is also thinking of doing 400m. But that is no longer a sprint distance by your definition.



400m is not a sprint distance by anyone's definition - because it is an event with a significant aerobic element, not just a sprint. Anaerobic efforts tend to run out of steam beyond 15-20 secs.


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

Dusty Bin said:


> 400m is not a sprint distance by anyone's definition - because it is an endurance event, not a sprint. Anaerobic efforts tend to run out of steam beyond 15-20 secs.



3 to 5 minutes is the commonly accepted duration for anaerobic efforts. 400m is absolutely not an endurance event. Sorry Dusty but I totally disagree with your use of definitions in this case.


----------



## TheJDog (20 Jan 2014)

When I do 30 second intervals I do them full tilt and really really tail off - the last 15 seconds is usually pitiful, the last 5 seconds you would think I was already in my rest phase if it wasn't for the expression on my face.


----------



## Rob3rt (20 Jan 2014)

There won't be a bunch sprint in a sportive.


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

I wouldn't bet on it though


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> 3 to 5 minutes is the commonly accepted duration for anaerobic efforts. 400m is absolutely not an endurance event. Sorry Dusty but I totally disagree with your use of definitions in this case.



It's not my definition, just look it up for yourself. 'Anaerobic' literally means 'without oxygen' - in other words, an effort which relies totally on muscular performance, as opposed to aerobic capacity.


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

Dusty Bin said:


> It's not my definition, just look it up for yourself. 'Anaerobic' literally means 'without oxygen' - in other words, an effort which relies totally on muscular performance, as opposed to aerobic capacity.



I don't need to look it up, the image I posted is the trainingpeaks definition. If you want to have an argument with Andy Coggan be my guest but I am going with his definition, as is pretty much everybody else.

Zone 7 is the sprint zone, also known as neuromuscular power. Almost universal consensus that this begins at around 150% of FTP. I can sustain 150% for just over two minutes. YMMV.


----------



## Rob3rt (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> I don't need to look it up, the image I posted is the trainingpeaks definition. If you want to have an argument with Andy Coggan be my guest but I am going with his definition, as is pretty much everybody else.
> 
> Zone 7 is the sprint zone, also known as neuromuscular power. Almost universal consensus that this begins at around 150% of FTP. I can sustain 150% for just over two minutes. YMMV.



FTP set too low?

Edit: Nevermind, I made a booboo!


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> FTP set too low.


 
Come on Rob, you know better than that.


----------



## Rob3rt (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> Come on Rob, you know better than that.



See edit!


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> I don't need to look it up, the image I posted is the trainingpeaks definition. If you want to have an argument with Andy Coggan be my guest but I am going with his definition, as is pretty much everybody else.
> 
> Zone 7 is the sprint zone, also known as neuromuscular power. Almost universal consensus that this begins at around 150% of FTP. I can sustain 150% for just over two minutes. YMMV.



Look, you can call it 'anaerobic' if you like. It might be a convenient description for that zone (given that he had to call it something), but it doesn't alter the fact that it isn't strictly anaerobic. I'm just going by the dictionary definition and Dr Coggan's training zone titles have yet to influence the OED definitions panel...


----------



## vickster (20 Jan 2014)

totallyfixed said:


> Hey guys, you are turning this into a tech fest which is of no use whatsoever to stonechat. For those of us involved in racing it's all very interesting but we are in a minority and so of very little interest to most on CC. In any case there are very few absolutes in the human body and having been involved in coaching / training and competing for more years than I care to remember if there is one thing that I have learnt, it is that everyone is different and will respond in different ways to exercise.
> All the OP really needs to do at this stage is longer rides and push a bit harder when they feel able to. The real trick is to do something most days, even if it isn't much, fitness will increase noticeably. The training plan is clearly nonsense. When the road bike comes, hill climbing will feel much easier, particularly out of the saddle. You could steal a march on most by learning to ride on the drops for a few minutes at a time, it saves a lot of energy particularly if you are on someone's wheel / into the wind. Most of all don't worry, I'll bet there will be hundreds who will struggle more than you, enjoy yourself!


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

Which dictionary?

*Anaerobic exercise* is an exercise intense enough to trigger lactic acid formation. It is used by athletes in non-endurance sports to promote strength, speed and power and by body builders to build muscle mass. Muscle energy systems trained using anaerobic exercise develop differently compared to aerobic exercise, leading to greater performance in short duration, high intensity activities, which last from mere seconds to up to about 2 minutes.[1][2] Any activity lasting longer than about two minutes has a large aerobic metabolic component.[
Anaerobic metabolism, or anaerobic energy expenditure, is a natural part of whole-body metabolic energy expenditure.[3] Fast twitch muscle (as compared to slow twitch muscle) operates using anaerobic metabolic systems, such that any recruitment of fast twitch muscle fibers leads to increased anaerobic energy expenditure. Intense exercise lasting upwards of about four minutes (e.g., a mile race) may still have a considerable anaerobic energy expenditure component. Anaerobic energy expenditure is difficult to accurately quantify, although several reasonable methods to estimate the anaerobic component to exercise are available.[2][4][5]


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

vickster said:


>



It may be a widely held belief on these boards that one must not repeat, deviate or in any other way challenge the audience beyond what is easily digestible by the original poster. I personally consider that to be a fairly boring and limiting way to propagate seemingly endless rehashing of same old truisms. So whistle away, but I am going to spend my time here in a way that interests me.


----------



## jay clock (20 Jan 2014)

Agreed, massively OTT and going to terrify many intermediate cyclists


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> Which dictionary?



Let's not get into 'dictionary wars' - I'm using a fairly standard definition of the word 'anaerobic'. Your cut n paste above is not incompatible with that definition, incidentally...


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

Dusty Bin said:


> Let's not get into 'dictionary wars' - I'm using a fairly standard definition of the word 'anaerobic'. Your cut n paste above is not incompatible with that definition, incidentally...



Alright, but can I now refer to 30 second efforts as sprints?


----------



## 50000tears (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> Well no, the principles of overload and recovery apply the same to the fit and the unfit. It's just that the unfit will have lower absolute loads. Taking it easy just perpetuates staying unfit.



Whilst the absolute loads will be different the ability to recover from them will also differ. As your body gets used to the stresses placed on it it's ability to recover quicker improves and is sped up. This is why tour riders can do 150k+ stages across multiple days where we could not.

As a further example I did a tough ( for me) hill rep training on Friday which I still felt in my heavy legs on my Sunday ride. Now this was one of the very few hill sessions I have done so expected the achy legs. But I know that once I have finished the planned 6 week block of training including 2 hill rep sessions a week my body would have adapted to allow quicker recovery.

I personally would love nothing more than doing these sessions every day, but if my body cannot recover and adapt quickly enough then I am actually slowing progress and risking injury.


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> I personally would love nothing more than doing these sessions every day, but if my body cannot recover and adapt quickly enough then I am actually slowing progress and risking injury.



old saying - "the more you train, the more you can train"


----------



## 50000tears (20 Jan 2014)

Dusty Bin said:


> old saying - "the more you train, the more you can train"



Exactly, I am finding this for sure. I hate having to take rest days and look forward to not having to. Getting there though!


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> Whilst the absolute loads will be different the ability to recover from them will also differ. As your body gets used to the stresses placed on it it's ability to recover quicker improves and is sped up. This is why tour riders can do 150k+ stages across multiple days where we could not.
> 
> As a further example I did a tough ( for me) hill rep training on Friday which I still felt in my heavy legs on my Sunday ride. Now this was one of the very few hill sessions I have done so expected the achy legs. But I know that once I have finished the planned 6 week block of training including 2 hill rep sessions a week my body would have adapted to allow quicker recovery.
> 
> I personally would love nothing more than doing these sessions every day, but if my body cannot recover and adapt quickly enough then I am actually slowing progress and risking injury.



No just the loads. The ability to recover is proportionally constant.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> No just the loads. The ability to recover is proportionally constant.



This is simply not correct.

I used to do a lot of running and trained myself to a point whereby I could sometimes go out twice day. Doing so in the first few weeks of taking up running would have led very rapidly to overtraining. Are you trying to suggest the muscle ache in my legs over the weekend was imagined or that it should just be ignored?


----------



## Old Plodder (20 Jan 2014)

@Stonechat 
For what you are trying to achieve, you are going about 'training' in exactly the right way, increase your mileage, increase your efforts uphill.
If you don't know the route, the biggest hills are later in the day, so don't be tempted to 'blast' up any hills on the day; steady riding will see you get to the finish.


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> This is simply not correct.
> 
> I used to do a lot of running and trained myself to a point whereby I could sometimes go out twice day. Doing so in the first few weeks of taking up running would have led very rapidly to overtraining. Are you trying to suggest the muscle ache in my legs over the weekend was imagined or that it should just be ignored?



No. I'm suggestin that you are confusing yourself on volume, intensity and recovery rates.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> No. I'm suggestin that you are confusing yourself on volume, intensity and recovery rates.



I don't see how. You may just need to explain it better rather than just throwing random statements out there! 

If you are arguing that if the loads are proportionate then the recovery should be the same then you could have a valid point but does not recognise the way many train. It is easier for a newer rider to overload their training effort compared to a far fitter athlete so would need more time to recover for that reason. When I train, rightly or wrongly, I leave everything out there and am pretty wasted when I finish. It may be that less effort may allow me to train every day, but if I hold back then the need for my body to adapt would be far less so I would gain far less. I would rather push hard and force my body to adapt to what I expect of it. Then I can push even harder.

An interesting topic though and I wish that this forum had a lot more of this type of discussion and not certainly not less!


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> I don't see how. You may just need to explain it better rather than just throwing random statements out there!
> 
> If you are arguing that if the loads are proportionate then the recovery should be the same then you could have a valid point but does not recognise the way many train. It is easier for a newer rider to overload their training effort compared to a far fitter athlete so would need more time to recover for that reason. When I train, rightly or wrongly, I leave everything out there and am pretty wasted when I finish. It may be that less effort may allow me to train every day, but if I hold back then the need for my body to adapt would be far less so I would gain far less. I would rather push hard and force my body to adapt to what I expect of it. Then I can push even harder.
> 
> An interesting topic though and I wish that this forum had a lot more of this type of discussion and not certainly not less!



I'm happy to explain more but not on an iPhone . Once I get to a proper keyboard I'll expand.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (20 Jan 2014)

Stonechat said:


> I just want to
> 1 Improve my general endurance
> 2 Improve hill climbing
> 
> ...


I find the most effective way to improve at hill climbing, is to do lots of hill climbing. Just do it often, and consistently.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> I'm happy to explain more but not on an iPhone . Once I get to a proper keyboard I'll expand.



I actually want you to be able to show me that I am wrong so that I can fit more gut wrenching sessions in! Sadly I don't think I am though.


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Jan 2014)

victor said:


> I find the most effective way to improve at hill climbing, is to do lots of hill climbing. Just do it often, and consistently.



The most effective way to improve your hill climbing is to improve your aerobic fitness and sustainable power - which can be done on the flat if needs be.


----------



## Rupie (20 Jan 2014)

Way too technical a discussion for the most of us here !!!!!!!.............as it always ends up.


----------



## VamP (20 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> I actually want you to be able to show me that I am wrong so that I can fit more gut wrenching sessions in! Sadly I don't think I am though.



You are wrong, but it won't necessarily give you anymore scope for self punishment. It'll have to wait till tomorrow as a crying baby takes priority...


----------



## Stonechat (20 Jan 2014)

There are training plans on British Cycling wesite but they assume you have a heart rate monitor


fatmac said:


> @Stonechat
> For what you are trying to achieve, you are going about 'training' in exactly the right way, increase your mileage, increase your efforts uphill.
> If you don't know the route, the biggest hills are later in the day, so don't be tempted to 'blast' up any hills on the day; steady riding will see you get to the finish.


Blasting up hills and me don't go together


----------



## 50000tears (20 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> You are wrong, but it won't necessarily give you anymore scope for self punishment.



I am never shy of admiting when I am wrong so look forward to you showing me the error of my ways.



VamP said:


> It'll have to wait till tomorrow as a crying baby takes priority...



I certainly don't miss those days.


----------



## ayceejay (20 Jan 2014)

Cyril: What's the weather like where you are John?
John: Well Cyril first you have to understand that *Weather* is the state of the atmosphere, to the degree that it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy.[1] Most weather phenomena occur in the troposphere,[2][3] just below the stratosphere. Weather generally refers to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity, whereas climate is the term for the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.[4] When used without qualification, "weather", is understood to mean the weather of Earth.

Weather is driven by air pressure (temperature and moisture) differences between one place and another. These pressure and temperature differences can occur due to the sun angle at any particular spot, which varies by latitude from the tropics. The strong temperature contrast between polar and tropical air gives rise to the jet stream. Weather systems in the mid-latitudes, such as extratropical cyclones, are caused by instabilities of the jet stream flow. Because the Earth's axis is tilted relative to its orbital plane, sunlight is incident at different angles at different times of the year. On Earth's surface, temperatures usually range ±40 °C (−40 °F to 100 °F) annually. Over thousands of years, changes in Earth's orbit affect the amount and distribution of solar energy received by the Earth and influence long-term climate and global climate change.
Cyril: Thanks John where are you exactly?
John: An interesting question Cyril but what you must understand is that 
*Geography* (from Greek γεωγραφία, _geographia_, lit. "earth description"[1]) is the branch of knowledge that studies the lands, the features, the inhabitants, and the phenomena of the Earth.[2] A literal translation would be "to describe or write about the Earth". The first person to use the word "geography" was Eratosthenes (276–194 BC).[3] Four historical traditions in geographical research are spatial analysis of the natural and the human phenomena (geography as the study of distribution), area studies (places and regions), study of the man-land relationship, and research in the Earth sciences.[4] Nonetheless, modern geography is an all-encompassing discipline that foremost seeks to understand the Earth and all of its human and natural complexities - not merely where objects are, but how they have changed and come to be. Geography has been called "the world discipline" and "the bridge between the human and the physical science". Geography is divided into two main branches: human geography and physical geography/

Cyril: Whatever.


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Jan 2014)

Would have been better without the embedded wiki links, tbh.....


----------



## VamP (21 Jan 2014)

Whilst the OPs question was covered in the first few posts here, there are other aspects to this post - namely appropriate use of definitions and training vocabulary - that are of interest to some of us. Those that don't have an interest are free to go on and chat about winter tyres, puncture fairies, recovering from alcohol addiction and chain mickling somewhere else on the forum.


----------



## Stonechat (21 Jan 2014)

I am probably still trying to find my question and I think there are parts I still want to know
These training plans indicate more days of activity that I at present do

On short rides I can't include many hills, are there ways I can train to improve my abilities?
I would like to tailor some of these shorter trainings to benefit me


----------



## VamP (21 Jan 2014)

Stonechat said:


> I am probably still trying to find my question and I think there are parts I still want to know
> These training plans indicate more days of activity that I at present do
> 
> On short rides I can't include many hills, are there ways I can train to improve my abilities?
> I would like to tailor some of these shorter trainings to benefit me



How short (in time preferably)?


----------



## Rob3rt (21 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> This is simply not correct.
> 
> I used to do a lot of running and trained myself to a point whereby I could sometimes go out twice day. Doing so in the first few weeks of taking up running would have led very rapidly to overtraining. *Are you trying to suggest the muscle ache in my legs over the weekend *was imagined or that it* should just be ignored?*



Depends on the type of ache!


----------



## Rob3rt (21 Jan 2014)

Stonechat said:


> I am probably still trying to find my question and I think there are parts I still want to know
> These training plans indicate more days of activity that I at present do
> 
> On short rides I can't include many hills, are there ways I can train to improve my abilities?
> I would like to tailor some of these shorter trainings to benefit me



How does this grab you for a training plan:

Monday: Have a day off
Tuesday: Ride bike a bit
Wednesday: Ride bike a bit
Thursday: Ride bike a bit
Friday: Eat 2 pork pies, a toffee crisp and drink a pint of chocolate milkshake
Saturday: Ride bike a bit, eat a few more pork pies!
Sunday: Ride bike a bit further than on the other days


----------



## VamP (21 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> I don't see how. You may just need to explain it better rather than just throwing random statements out there!
> 
> If you are arguing that if the loads are proportionate then the recovery should be the same then you could have a valid point but does not recognise the way many train. It is easier for a newer rider to overload their training effort compared to a far fitter athlete so would need more time to recover for that reason. When I train, rightly or wrongly, I leave everything out there and am pretty wasted when I finish. It may be that less effort may allow me to train every day, but if I hold back then the need for my body to adapt would be far less so I would gain far less. I would rather push hard and force my body to adapt to what I expect of it. Then I can push even harder.
> 
> An interesting topic though and I wish that this forum had a lot more of this type of discussion and not certainly not less!




Right, I promised you to expand on this so here goes...

First a few definitions:
Volume - the amount of training that you do best measured in hours.
Intensity - how hard you train, best expressed a coefficient of your functional threshold power (FTP), where 1 hour of training at FTP gives you a coefficient of 1.
FTP - The average power (measured watts) that you can produce in one hour of absolutely maximal effort.
Recovery rates - the speed at which organism repairs itself following exercise. There is a mathematical formula that can be used to relate the recovery rate to your FTP, and I am happy to expand on that too, but don't want to lose you right at the beginning  Let's just say for now that the recovery rate has a half-life of around a week, and with small variations that is the same for all humans.

Now if you understand that the training load you can produce per hour is unique to you (pre-determined by your FTP), it becomes clear that your unique ability to dig yourself a training hole will be defined by your fitness. Your actual amount of fatigue is a function of volume and intensity of training that you have done in a week. The amount of recovery that you have had in a week is a function of time. The fitter you are the more you can train, but your recovery rate does not change. There is a formula that gives you a training score based on volume and intensity. An unfit person with FTP of say 200, can reach a training score of 100 in one hour of maximal effort training. The fatigue from that effort will clear away with a half life of about a week. A really fit person with FTP of 400 can reach a training score of 100 in one hour of maximal training. The fatigue from that effort will clear away with a half life of about a week. The really fit person will have won an Olympic time trial with that effort, while the unfit person will have covered 15 miles of undulating terrain, but it will take them both the same amount of time to fully recover. The fitter person will find it easier to dig themselves bigger training holes, and recover effectively - so called functional overreach. But they will not be recovering any faster than the unfit person.

Happy to expand on any points that are not clear.


----------



## VamP (21 Jan 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> How does this grab you for a training plan:
> 
> Monday: Have a day off
> Tuesday: Ride bike a bit
> ...




I like it! Can I hire you as a coach?


----------



## Rob3rt (21 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> I like it! Can I hire you as a coach?



Only if you promise to do the core workout I will set in week 3! This will prep you for squats in week 7!


----------



## Dusty Bin (21 Jan 2014)

Stonechat said:


> On short rides I can't include many hills, are there ways I can train to improve my abilities?



Riding hard on the flat is not too dissimilar to riding hard up a hill....


----------



## VamP (21 Jan 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Only if you promise to do the core workout I will set in week 3! This will prep you for squats in week 7!



Yerrbut, do I have to buy my own pork pies? Or can I get sponsored by Melton Mowbray?


----------



## Stonechat (21 Jan 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> How does this grab you for a training plan:
> 
> Monday: Have a day off
> Tuesday: Ride bike a bit
> ...


MIne probably goes like this
Mon Day off
Tues maybe very short ride
Weds about 8 miles
Thurs day off
Fri Day off
Sat Day off
Sun Ride as far as I think I can manage with some hills

At least one pork pie per week
So I do need help, it the better weather there are naturally more cycle, though I do have demands on my time
So I am wondering if the odd extra hour or so it the week can be used most profitable
It takes at least 20 minutes to get to hills


----------



## Rob3rt (21 Jan 2014)

Knowing nothing about your riding history (and I don't mean to insult or discourage) if I asked you how much riding you do and you told me the above I would probably assume you to be a beginner, and while I have no (cycling) coaching qualifications or authority with regards to telling you what to do, I would suggest you steer clear of interval training (or do it no more than once a week) and avoid intermediate training programmes since you will be lacking in the base fitness to be able to perform the intervals properly, with good form and at the intended intensity.

Instead I would recommend that you simply ride more. 3 days off in a row? Ride on at LEAST one of them days, preferably all 3. I would say, try to increase the frequency you ride up to 5 days a week. increasing the frequency at which you ride will have a big impact on your general bike fitness at your current level.


----------



## VamP (21 Jan 2014)

Stonechat said:


> MIne probably goes like this
> Mon Day off
> Tues maybe very short ride
> Weds about 8 miles
> ...



As others have said, you can train at any intensity on the flat, hills are not a requirement. An hour is a good block of training time, just riding at tempo for an hour would one good workout for you, given that your volume is generally very low, if you want more structure, you could do 3 x 10 minutes, going as hard as you can sustain (with effort!). That could be a second workout. If 8 miles is not your short ride, than I fear to ask how short the short ride is.


----------



## 50000tears (21 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> Right, I promised you to expand on this so here goes...
> 
> First a few definitions:
> Volume - the amount of training that you do best measured in hours.
> ...



Thanks for such a detailed post. Will re-read it a couple of times and pick up on other parts later.

For now can you explain the half life recovery time of a week and how if affects training in practice? Surely using my understanding of the basics of a half life you are suggesting that I would be half recovered from a full on effort in week, when in practice it would be a full recovery in less time. Maybe it was just a crude example but would appreciate a little more expansion. Cheers.


----------



## Stonechat (21 Jan 2014)

I may be underexaggerating, especially once better weather comes in.


----------



## VamP (22 Jan 2014)

50000tears said:


> Thanks for such a detailed post. Will re-read it a couple of times and pick up on other parts later.
> 
> For now can you explain the half life recovery time of a week and how if affects training in practice? Surely using my understanding of the basics of a half life you are suggesting that I would be half recovered from a full on effort in week, when in practice it would be a full recovery in less time. Maybe it was just a crude example but would appreciate a little more expansion. Cheers.



Calling it a half life may be confusing you, it's actually an exponentially weighted average period. The simple explanation is that the effects of a single training session last (measurably) for about 6 weeks. Now a single session in isolation will subjectively feel to you like it has passed in it's effect in a matter of a day or two, but don't forget that you are looking at the cumulative effect of multiple sessions, and that you are interested in the positive (fitness) as well as the negative (fatigue) effects of each session, and the cu 

For a more complex description, you would be best served by doing some reading around the principles used by performance manager software. Maybe start your reading here. Most training software packages have a Performance Manager module which is a representation of the balance of fatigue and training, in a graph form, showing you how they are interacting at any one time. They all have one thing in common, using 7 days as Short Term Stress weighted average period and 42 days as Long Term Stress weighted average period. Simply put, STS represents your fatigue, LTS your fitness. The gap between them gives you an indication of your form, although some understanding of the principles involved is required to interpret this information correctly.

Here by way of an example is my PM chart over the last few months, even without much interpretation skill, it's quite apparent that I was reaching a long form peak in October and November for the bulk of the season and specifically in time for the Regional Championships, and then with a burst of heavy training in December, another short peak in early January in time for the National Champs, followed by a tailing off in my resting month of January.


----------



## jay clock (22 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> blah blah blah, even without much interpretation skill, it's quite apparent blah blah blah
> 
> View attachment 36731



How to terrify people with a massively long scientific approach and a multi scale graph


----------



## Andrew_P (22 Jan 2014)

Forget all the training advice, unless you have an elite time to start say 6am you had better get training in strolling, from what I have heard you be walking the bike as much as riding it even up slight hills as so many people will struggle and dismount.


----------



## VamP (22 Jan 2014)

jay clock said:


> How to terrify people with a massively long scientific approach and a multi scale graph



I am answering a specific question. If you have an issue, speak to the mods. If you are terrified, go read about fairy visits. FFS.


----------



## Rob3rt (22 Jan 2014)

VamP said:


> They all have one thing in common, using 7 days as Short Term Stress weighted average period and 42 days as Long Term Stress weighted average period.



Unless you modify the periods.


----------



## VamP (22 Jan 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Unless you modify the periods.



Well, yeah, but even those modifications will be in the order of a few days. Basically 5 to 9 days for STS and 38 to 48 for LTS. The point is that there is little individual variation, and what there is, is mainly age related.

I'm hardly a spring chicken and I run mine at 7 and 42.


----------



## 50000tears (22 Jan 2014)

Thanks Vamp I will do some study on this later on after work and evening training.

Any further discussion I will start a new thread for as I feel we are hijacking Stonechat a little here. 

I am very interested in the technical side of training even if others are not. Surely there has to be a firm place for it in the training sub-forum of a cycling site!?!


----------



## VamP (22 Jan 2014)

You would have thought so wouldn't you?


----------

