# Quickest way to get faster?



## Hont (6 Apr 2009)

I returned to cycling just over three years ago after being hopelessly unfit and sedentry. Getting faster was relatively easy then as I started from such a low base.

Last summer, though, my average speeds (over 30-40 miles on undulating terrain) increased by about only 1.5 mph despite (for me) a lot of time in the saddle (typically 90-100 miles per week).

Due to odd working hours I typically only have a couple of hours in the morning to spare. What I would really like to do is increase my speed over these two hours (it's more fun and you get to vary the route the further you go), so I was wondering what's the best way to achieve this?

Do I do intervals or just try and go as fast as I can and gradually increase the distance I do at this speed?

Any advice welcome.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Apr 2009)

Hi
I think some form of Interval Training would help most in building speed and endurance.
There have been many articles in the mags recently (see Cycling weekly) and Bike Radar might have some archived Cycling Plus articles.
A Joe Beer articles might help:
http://www.cptips.com/intervl.htm
http://www.cptips.com/intervl.htm
Or
http://www.trigeeks.ca/begin006.htm

I like the Swedish stle Fartlek approach:
http://www.bodyresults.com/E2FartlekIntervals.asp

I like Fartlek because it's easy to combine with a normal ride, i.e sprint between x point and y point and then spin until the next sprint marker, you can make it up as you go along and that makes it flexible and fun. Make sure you warm up properly first!


----------



## jimboalee (7 Apr 2009)

"added to your training program only after you have a solid aerobic base of 500 miles of steady pedaling (if not, you increase the risk of injury from pushing too hard,too quickly.)"

Most important.

This means you need to increase your Respiratiry Exchange by performing aerobic sessions, BEFORE any HR intervals.


----------



## mickle (7 Apr 2009)

Have your position on the bike analized. I was able to reduce one beginner triathlete's on the bike time by fifteen minutes by overhauling his ergonomics. An extreme case I know but it does show the potential.

Individual fitness aside, by reducing drag you'll go faster. Start with the big one; aerodynamic drag, and then move on to rolling resistance and then drive-train efficiency.


----------



## tyred (7 Apr 2009)

Once you've got the bike fit and all of that sorted, I would have thought all you could do is practice, increase mileage and work on your fitness.


----------



## cisamcgu (7 Apr 2009)

Cycle down hill ?


----------



## Hont (7 Apr 2009)

Thanks for the replies all. And thanks for the links Foodie - some good reading there which gave me some ideas for intervals whilst out on the regular ride. 

I did notice that I was going faster when I was lightest, but I haven't got much weight to lose so ideally I want to up my power.

I have been thinking about getting my position on the bike looked at, anyone have any recommendations on who does this in the Birmingham/North Worcester area?


----------



## HLaB (7 Apr 2009)

cisamcgu said:


> Cycle down hill ?


You beat me to it


----------



## montage (7 Apr 2009)

jimboalee said:


> "added to your training program only after you have a solid aerobic base of 500 miles of steady pedaling (if not, you increase the risk of injury from pushing too hard,too quickly.)"
> 
> Most important.
> 
> This means you need to increase your Respiratiry Exchange by performing aerobic sessions, BEFORE any HR intervals.



500 is a solid base? I have been told 3000 before - a large difference! :S


----------



## Eat MY Dust (8 Apr 2009)

I've heard the 3000 miles as well.

People may disagree with this, but since I've taken up running seriously I've noticed a big improvement in my cycling.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Apr 2009)

User3143 said:


> Ride a recumbent for 1500 miles then notice the amount of power you have. I've built more muscle on my legs in the last six months that I've had the trike then in nine years that I've had my road bike.



Can I ask? Do you apply power round the whole pedal rev?

I rode a recumbent once and it was an easier, more fluid action to pull the pedal toward the butt.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Apr 2009)

montage said:


> 500 is a solid base? I have been told 3000 before - a large difference! :S



I was quoting from Joe Beers publication.

I have heared 10 years mentioned on a couple of occasions. 

Definitely six months of 200 km per week would be nearer to the mark for a steady improvement of lung capacity.


----------



## montage (8 Apr 2009)

jimboalee said:


> I was quoting from Joe Beers publication.
> 
> I have heared 10 years mentioned on a couple of occasions.
> 
> Definitely six months of 200 km per week would be nearer to the mark for a steady improvement of lung capacity.



Recently knew somebody who went on a Joe Beers camp in Lanzerotte(spelling  ) and it sounds like that advice is sound enough. 10 years? Sod that....I have been riding around 3 months now, ever increasing the amount I am doing (now training 5 times a week) which means that I fall short of this 6 month bas fitness guideline....however there are so many variable, i.e. fitness prior to cycling (I've done about 2 years of running so that contributes to the base fitness surely) and age (the younger you are, the quicker you can gain/loose fitness?)....My personal advice with base fitness would be based on recovery time - do you take two days off the bike after a brisk 50 miler or are you fine the next day?

I'm no expert, but you can definately _feel_ when you have a good base fitness. After 500 miles you should have adjusted enough to the bike and developed enough stamina for those longer rides.

At the end of the day, if you want to go faster, pedal harder. Practise makes perfect.


----------



## montage (8 Apr 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Can I ask? Do you apply power round the whole pedal rev?
> 
> I rode a recumbent once and it was an easier, more fluid action to pull the pedal toward the butt.



But what about the hills?


----------



## mickle (9 Apr 2009)

montage said:


> At the end of the day, if you want to go faster, pedal harder.



Wrong. If you want to go faster, pedal faster shurley? Pedalling harder is a good way to destroy a perfectly good set of knees.


----------



## jimboalee (9 Apr 2009)

mickle said:


> Wrong. If you want to go faster, pedal faster shurley? Pedalling harder is a good way to destroy a perfectly good set of knees.



Even wronger.

To go faster, agreed, you must pedal faster. But how do you increase your cadence? By an initial increase in push on the pedal until you are pedaling at the new cadence.


----------



## mickle (9 Apr 2009)

Gears old chap, _gears_.


----------



## fossyant (9 Apr 2009)

Ride and push yourself....use a cadence of between 80 and 100 rpm. Commute if you can by bike. Also try climbing hills - depends upon where you live..but we have some nice ones round here - you have to get fit or you suffer loads...


----------



## jimboalee (10 Apr 2009)

fossyant said:


> *Ride and push yourself*....use a cadence of between 80 and 100 rpm. Commute if you can by bike. Also try climbing hills - depends upon where you live..but we have some nice ones round here - you have to get fit or you suffer loads...



Four words. Simple, isn't it.


----------



## Alex (15 Jun 2009)

Eat MY Dust said:


> People may disagree with this, but since I've taken up running seriously I've noticed a big improvement in my cycling.



Thats very interesting. I am considering taking up running to compliment my cycling cos im terrible at at it!


----------



## montage (16 Jun 2009)

The good thing about running is that it is much harder to take it easy. I for one can never ever walk when I go out for a run.....oh the shame of it!.....but with cycling, if shattered you can allways.....just go slower and still look dignified to the average joe.

Running is brilliant for TTing I find.....same sort of effort.


----------

