Speeds

[Nigelnaturist]

Just out of interest, what site are you uploading to that states your average grade? Im using RideWithGPS, Strava, Garmin Connect and Endomondo but none of them have that stat as far as I can see.

You don't need it from a site heightclimbed/distance, it's easier in metric but works in imperial, for example if you climb 100m in 10km 100/10,000 you end up with 1/100 or 1%, your overall grade if you start and end at the same place is always 0 as you go down as well, this is just an idea for me as to how well I am improving, or an idea as to how difficult the ride was, though there is more to how difficult a ride was than just the climbing.
Most of my rides are between 0.8% and 1.1% or 42ft per mile and 58ft per mile of climbing over the ride.
You can work this out even without a gps unit if you plot your ride on rwgps ect. (though the heights vary) take the height and do the maths, it's what I did so I have some idea of improvement since I started in June

 

[Nomadski]

Ah, I always do a circuit so my ascent and descent are identical.

EDIT: Waitaminute! I can just work this out by using the total ascended and ignoring the descended yes?

So I climbed 618 meters in 88.51km....0.69% average? Which is 27.17 ft per mile?

 

[Iain M Norman]

You mean the RideLondon in August right?

Well you've only got 9 hours, so you need to stay above 12mph.

16mph / 20 kph target for training would be plenty enough.

 

[nickyboy]

You don't need it from a site heightclimbed/distance, it's easier in metric but works in imperial, for example if you climb 100m in 10km 100/10,000 you end up with 1/100 or 1%, your overall grade if you start and end at the same place is always 0 as you go down as well, this is just an idea for me as to how well I am improving, or an idea as to how difficult the ride was, though there is more to how difficult a ride was than just the climbing.
Most of my rides are between 0.8% and 1.1% or 42ft per mile and 58ft per mile of climbing over the ride.
You can work this out even without a gps unit if you plot your ride on rwgps ect. (though the heights vary) take the height and do the maths, it's what I did so I have some idea of improvement since I started in June

As we generally ride loops I prefer to think of the average grade as being up a long hill and back down again. Therefore in your example of 42ft per mile, that would be the equivalent of cycling up a 1.6% grade and then turning round and going back down.
FWIW I average about 95ft per mile so mine is 3.6%.....not many flat bits around here. It certainly gives me a different perspective when my 60 mile ride is the equivalent of climbing a 30 mile 3.6% hill and then coasting back down again!

 

[SquareDaff]

Don't worry about averages - by all means do some distance rides at what you decide to be a decent pace but work on intervals and technique. Your average will then increase without you even realising it. But if you need a target - my average speed on the flats is around 19-20mph - through in hilly terrain and it'll be in the 15-17mph range. But that's now- when I first started I was more than happy with 12-14mph.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

As we generally ride loops I prefer to think of the average grade as being up a long hill and back down again. Therefore in your example of 42ft per mile, that would be the equivalent of cycling up a 1.6% grade and then turning round and going back down.
FWIW I average about 95ft per mile so mine is 3.6%.....not many flat bits around here. It certainly gives me a different perspective when my 60 mile ride is the equivalent of climbing a 30 mile 3.6% hill and then coasting back down again!

It's all a bit subjective really, as it's difficult to astatine the correct elevation data, the three sites I generally use all give different data. though rwgps and gpsies are closer than strava (well according to the recorded elevation) rwgps is generally higher than recorded though not always, I dont use gpsies much but it's much the same, strava always knocks off about 25-30% or more. I use rwgps for elevation v.a.m. and watts (though I know this is wrong) but what it does do is give an idea of improvements, and consistence ( I can work out v.a.m. myself but my spread sheet is quite large as it is.)
Suppose I better go and fix the avg grades, though I still prefer to think of it as the avg grade I climbed over the whole ride.
I know Glossop, I lived in New Mills as a kid and went to school in Buxton. I used to ride round there as a kid on a 5 speed racing bike when in my teens (something I acquired and did up).

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Don't worry about averages - by all means do some distance rides at what you decide to be a decent pace but work on intervals and technique. Your average will then increase without you even realising it. But if you need a target - my average speed on the flats is around 19-20mph - through in hilly terrain and it'll be in the 15-17mph range. But that's now- when I first started I was more than happy with 12-14mph.

I have to agree, though I am not at those speeds (and I suppose it depends what you call hilly). In Nov over similar terrain to this month I averaged 12.89mph ( a little less climbing but slightly longer rides) avg 35.87miles per day ridden and 48.33ft/mile gain over the ride, last month 13.53mph over avg of 28.28mile per day ridden and 50.22ft/mile gain this month so far 14.23mph 27.25 miles per day ridden and 50.08ft/mile gain, but I am happily doing 17-18mph on the flat (though it's usually slightly up or down around here, unless I go east where it is flat, and i find that a little boring these days)
This might help explain it better, the difficult is derived from the climbybike formula.
The other thing to note is the increase in gear length.

 

[Rob3rt]

Don't worry about averages - by all means do some distance rides at what you decide to be a decent pace but work on intervals and technique. Your average will then increase without you even realising it. But if you need a target - my average speed on the flats is around 19-20mph - through in hilly terrain and it'll be in the 15-17mph range. But that's now- when I first started I was more than happy with 12-14mph.

The usual recommendation, but a poor one. Someone new to cycling should generally steer clear of interval training, especially high intensity intervals. For most people new to cycling, time on the bike (more of it) is the best form of training. Pretty much all miles are quality miles in the beginning stages.

 

[SquareDaff]

The usual recommendation, but a poor one. Someone new to cycling should generally steer clear of interval training, especially high intensity intervals. For most people new to cycling, time on the bike (more of it) is the best form of training. Pretty much all miles are quality miles in the beginning stages.

If the OP was new to "fitness" I'd agree - but their comments suggest a base level of fitness that they're trying to build on.

 

[Rob3rt]

It doesn't matter, they are new to cycling. A sport which has different demands to other sports.

An inverse example, take a cyclist with a good level of fitness, they decide to take up running. They generally will not feel all that taxed aerobically because they have a good level of fitness, but it is not running specific fitness, so they will over do it, what do they end up with? A whole host of muscular, connective tissue or joint damage.

Same goes transitioning from other sports to cycling, albeit maybe less dramatic due to it not being a load baring sport. When you perform outside of your limits, you must ensure that you maintain form else you increase injury risk and other problems, for someone who is not adapted to the sport, even with a good level of fitness, their ability to maintain good form will in most cases be poor as this requires specific fitness.

It takes time on the bike to develop the specific fitness required. Only when you have developed a good base of cycling specific fitness should you start to include high intensity interval training into your workout rotation.

Ultimately, only the OP will be able to decide when he/she thinks the required specific fitness has been developed, but I would urge anyone to give it a little longer than they think they need. People are way too keen to undertake advanced training techniques (magazines and forums perpetuate this) etc, it might make you faster short term, but long term it will likely cause injury, chronic fatigue and overtraining.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Same goes transitioning from other sports to cycling, albeit maybe less dramatic due to it not being a load baring sport. When you perform outside of your limits, you must ensure that you maintain form else you increase injury risk and other problems, for someone who is not adapted to the sport, even with a good level of fitness, their ability to maintain good form will in most cases be poor as this requires specific fitness.

Is this why I dont seem to lose any improvements I have made, if I take a week or so off other than an increased heart rate.

 

[Rob3rt]

Is this why I dont seem to lose any improvements I have made, if I take a week or so off other than an increased heart rate.

1st we might need to clarify what I mean by form in this context.

Form in the context I was referring to means such things as, maintaining correct posture and smooth pedal motion on the bike, i.e. avoiding transitioning from a still upper body and smooth pedal rotation when fresh to rocking side to side, slumping and pedalling squares when fatigued. If you can not maintain correct form (to within a tolerance) when you become fatigued, then you may as well stop. A good example is a weight lifter doing barbell curls, good form would be to have a very still upper body and to lift the weight in a controlled steady way, when they cease to be able to curl the weight up while keeping their posture still and start swinging the weights around using the body motion to swing the weight up rather than actually lifting it with their biceps, they have forfeited their form in favour of feeding their ego.

I think form in the context you refer to (correct me if I am wrong here) is your ability to perform at your highest level. This is best thought of in terms of stress balance. If you consider 2 factors, long term stress and short term stress. Long term stress is the accumulative load placed over a long period of time (say a rolling month, or 30 days), this changes slowly and can be likened to fitness, as your long term stress increases, your fitness increases (generally speaking, without getting into a complex debate). Short term stress, is indicative of your current fatigue, this changes much more quickly (calculated say, on a rolling 7 day period), you will become fatigued quickly and recover quickly from workout to workout, week to week etc. Stress balance is the balance between long term and short term stress. As long term stress trends slowly and short term stress trends much more quickly, if you reduce workload for a week, your long term stress (indicative of fitness) falls slowly, but your short term stress drops like a stone, thus your stress balance (which is indicative of your form, or ability to perform to a high level) increases sharply, so despite a small loss in fitness, your performance will be maintained or even increased due to the reduction in short term stress, this is a key concept for training periodization.

So, having typed all of that, form as explained in the latter context, does of course, explain the trend you have observed.

If this is unclear, happy to try to clarify and points.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

So, having typed all of that, form as explained in the latter context, does of course, explain the trend you have observed.

If this is unclear, happy to try to clarify and points.

Thanks Rob, it's pretty clear. I do have a rolling 7 a 30 day sheet (also 90day) though not as informative as the weekly or monthly ones, though to be honest, there is no consistent pattern to routes or days I go out, so they are really just info on the previous 7, 30 days ect..

this is 30 days

Ignore the cad info readings of 42.31 and 55.71 cadence sensor was playing up.
I also realise these figures are only a general guide.

 

[Rob3rt]

To clarify, it is not the load per week or the load per month as your spreadsheet reports but a rolling window, i.e. today's data goes in, whether it is a rest day (0 TSS) or an activity, it does not matter, and the value from 30 days ago drops out (i.e. it is an average stress score for the current day and the previous 29 days, rather than the average per calender month). Then the average TSS for the window is computed in a format TSS/d. This is long term stress. Same goes with the short term stress, but instead of the window being 30 days, it is 7 days, thus it fluctuates more. It updates daily and it does not care what route you did, just how hard you worked vs a reference point, and for how long you worked that hard.

It might be useful for you to google Training Stress Score (TSS). You will likely end up on Training Peaks, their info pages are pretty useful. You might also refer to any recent-ish training texts by Andy Coggan and Hunter Allen, particularly, "Training and Racing with a Power Meter".

In order to really use the TSS and the "Performance Management Chart" methods you need to have a baseline against which rides can be compared in order to determine relative intensity and thus training stress scores. Usually, this is something mostly used by power meter users but you could for example see what the maximum HR you can sustain for 1 hour duration is, then score all other rides against this baseline. It will be subject to more variance than power data but it is something to work with. It is a brilliant tool to apply if you are serious.

*TSS and Intensity factor (IF) is a Training Peaks metric, worked out using their own algorithms, but there are many variations on such a metric, bikescore for example as featured in the Golden Cheetah software.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

To clarify, it is not the load per week or the load per month as your spreadsheet reports but a rolling window, i.e. today's data goes in, whether it is a rest day (0 TSS) or an activity, it does not matter, and the value from 30 days ago drops out (i.e. it is an average stress score for the current day and the previous 29 days, rather than the average per calender month). Then the average TSS for the window is computed in a format TSS/d. This is long term stress. Same goes with the short term stress, but instead of the window being 30 days, it is 7 days, thus it fluctuates more. It updates daily and it does not care what route you did, just how hard you worked vs a reference point, and for how long you worked that hard.

It might be useful for you to google Training Stress Score (TSS). You will likely end up on Training Peaks, their info pages are pretty useful. You might also refer to any recent-ish training texts by Andy Coggan and Hunter Allen, particularly, "Training and Racing with a Power Meter".

In order to really use the TSS and the "Performance Management Chart" methods you need to have a baseline against which rides can be compared in order to determine relative intensity and thus training stress scores. Usually, this is something mostly used by power meter users but you could for example see what the maximum HR you can sustain for 1 hour duration is, then score all other rides against this baseline. It will be subject to more variance than power data but it is something to work with. It is a brilliant tool to apply if you are serious.

*TSS and Intensity factor (IF) is a Training Peaks metric, worked out using their own algorithms, but there are many variations on such a metric, bikescore for example as featured in the Golden Cheetah software.

The first row in each is the previous 7 or 30 days the following rows are for the preceding 7 days or 30 days, this sheet updates on the date rollover, so tomorrow it will include the fact I didn't go out today, (thus far).
This is a sample of the weekly one.

I need to look more into extracting the data in the spreadsheet as the rollover ones work they are a little cumbersome.