Ride slow, lose weight, get faster!

[toaster]

Wondering if this philosophy jives with other's ideas about base training?

Let's say you ride easily within your aerobic range, work on smooth pedal stroke, never spend more than 30 seconds or so in discomfort while riding, diet sensibly, work on mobility/stretching, lots of rest, get loads of miles and time on the bike at this level and generally make a goal of losing that weight you claim is your nemesis.

Now, after 6 weeks of this, you are slower yet leaner. Then you begin some intensity, add speed, drop the total mileage in favor of intervals and because of the time working on a good smooth pedal stroke (like TiDesigns recommends) you start to improve.

Wouldn't this be ideal?

There was an article recently that had four groups of cyclists, one group did a certain amount of hours on the bike and dieted. Another group did the same hours but did sprint intervals (strength training), then another dieted and did the hours and the sprint intervals, and the last group just rode the same hours with no dieting or sprint intervals.

Which group do you think improved power to weight ratio the most?

[Fixed]

bro sounds like a good plan for older fitness cyclist too
cheers imho

[Frankwurst]

Which group do you think improved power to weight ratio the most?

The group that powered down some beers after the ride. :beer:

[AngryScientist]

what you describe is a classic base training plan no? this is what's always worked for me, both as a runner and cyclist.

so which group won?

[Fixed]

my brain says the group that lifted and rode
my soul says the easy cats
cheers

[toaster]

Which group won?

Well, the losers were the group that dieted and did strength training and the group that did neither dieting or strength training.

The group that only dieted and the group that only added strength training improved power to weight ratios.

This tells me that it makes sense to get lean and lighter first then add intervals after you've maintained a leaner weight for a while.

[Louis]

get loads of miles and time on the bike at this level

Of all the limited resources in my life, lack of time is without a doubt the single most important issue. Assuming I don't win the lottery and can quit my job (a safe bet, since I don't play) this limitation will remain.

So, like most folks, I have limited time to ride, especially during the week. I may be wrong, but I've always felt that if I have 1.5-2 hours to ride and I'm just poking along at 120 bpm I'm probably not improving a whole lot. Consequently, during the time I do have available I try to push myself as much as is reasonable for me, harder on the hills, so they serve as as sort of interval workout, and consider it a day. That way it's fun and hopefully good for me, enough that I do improve over time without it becoming a chore or something I dread.

[RPS]

The group that only dieted and the group that only added strength training improved power to weight ratios.
How did they define “power”? A short burst of “power” for a few seconds, or ability to maintain “power” for longer periods which involve endurance?

I’d expect different results depending on objectives and testing methods.

[wc1934]

what you describe is a classic base training plan no? this is what's always worked for me, both as a runner and cyclist.

so which group won?

Yep - LSD - long, slow, distance

[doofus 2.0]

the answer lies in how much time you have to train during the week.

if you have 20 hours to ride your bike, then go out for 4hrs a day, 5 days a week, and ride at 60% of your functional threshold during that time.

if you have 10-12 hours a week, or less, you are better off riding at 90%+ of FTP 4-5 days a week.

I was doing the latter last fall, and raised my FTP from 320 to 335 in 10 weeks. that 320 was low for me -- I had an ankle injury playing with the dog in July that set me back for the rest of the year -- but a similar program last year took me from 330 to 340.

all that said, the best form I had in races last year came from a few weeks of riding 18+hrs. nothing beats time on the bike.

[false_Aest]

How did they define “power”? A short burst of “power” for a few seconds, or ability to maintain “power” for longer periods which involve endurance?

I’d expect different results depending on objectives and testing methods.

Word, good question.

Also depends on the type of riders. Even Ed (TiD) mentions how different types of riders get different gains (Unless I mis-read a post of his).

I'd also like to know what these riders did before they got into the study. In other words, if they're newbies they might progress differently than someone with 5 years of SoCal riding (riding year round w.out a real goal might end up being 25,000+ of base)

[dekindy]

Which group won?

Well, the losers were the group that dieted and did strength training and the group that did neither dieting or strength training.

The group that only dieted and the group that only added strength training improved power to weight ratios.

This tells me that it makes sense to get lean and lighter first then add intervals after you've maintained a leaner weight for a while.

It depends the type of riding that you are doing, doesn't it?

Additional weight has a very small percentage impact on the watts required to maintain speed on the flats. So increasing power is much more relevant than weight loss for flat land riders.

For hill climbing the additional wattage required by additional weight is much more significant than for riding on the flats so it makes more sense to concentrate on losing weight rather than gaining power.

[doofus 2.0]

there are two lactate points

the first is the concentration of 2mml -- the aerobic threshold, the highest sustainable power for long durations while still using fat as the primary source of fuel. think of it as the highest sustainable power for a 4-5hr ride (a fit rider can do 3-3.5 hrs at low tempo watts...but stretching that to 4hrs+ is another matter).

the second is the 4mml point -- what became known at the "anaerobic threshold" in the 80s, but which is best called the second lactate turnpoint.

you can raise FTP by large volumes of training at the first turnpoint, or by regular interval work at just below the second turnpoint. the best approach, if you have enough time, is to follow a classic periodization model of 8-12 weeks of high volume training at the first turnpoint, then 8-12 weeks of high volume training with 2-3 weekly sessions at the second turnpoint.

if you have a powermeter and WKO+, one general approach is to look at how much time you have available for training and then aim for 700TSS (the Training Stress Score metric in WKO+) per week. 100TSS/day is a recurring number that has come up on the google wattage forum as the minimum for developing a high level of fitness. how you get there depends on time, current fitness, experience, stress levels...etc...etc...

one size doesn't fit all....

for what it's worth

http://crankzombie.blogspot.com/2010/12/winter-training-thoughts.html

[toaster]

How did they define “power”? A short burst of “power” for a few seconds, or ability to maintain “power” for longer periods which involve endurance?

I’d expect different results depending on objectives and testing methods.

Power to weight went up. Velonews had an excerpt from Racing Weight Quick Start Guide book that described this study.


http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/training-center/lose-that-holiday-gut_154994

[Larry]

Man.... you guys are tough! In this cold I have started walking briskly for 2 miles a day. Life after 50 is not like 40. :beer: and wine

[soulspinner]

Wondering if this philosophy jives with other's ideas about base training?

Let's say you ride easily within your aerobic range, work on smooth pedal stroke, never spend more than 30 seconds or so in discomfort while riding, diet sensibly, work on mobility/stretching, lots of rest, get loads of miles and time on the bike at this level and generally make a goal of losing that weight you claim is your nemesis.

Now, after 6 weeks of this, you are slower yet leaner. Then you begin some intensity, add speed, drop the total mileage in favor of intervals and because of the time working on a good smooth pedal stroke (like TiDesigns recommends) you start to improve.

Wouldn't this be ideal?

There was an article recently that had four groups of cyclists, one group did a certain amount of hours on the bike and dieted. Another group did the same hours but did sprint intervals (strength training), then another dieted and did the hours and the sprint intervals, and the last group just rode the same hours with no dieting or sprint intervals.

Which group do you think improved power to weight ratio the most?


The old Italian racing community knew this decades ago, just sayin :beer:

[dsb]

Having just read Fitzgerald's 'Quick Start Guide' my take on what he said is:

-HIT w/o weight loss = +W/kg
-weight loss w/o HIT = +W/kg
-HIT + weight loss = same W/kg, but the most weight loss ...

Some other points in his book:

-increased protein intake during dieting is good/necessary...
-fasted low intensity cardio helps w/ fat loss and nutrient partitioning ...

I have found both of these to work for me.

I still can't get my head around the CHo recommendations that he makes (not just him, but most sport nutritionist types...) i.e. for 14 - 19 hrs of weekly training he recommends 4-4.5 g/lb CHo (Pg. 24, Racing Weight Quick Start Guide) which for a 175 lb person is 787.5 g of CHo or 3150 Kcal of just CHo ... Per day!

Maybe that's my problem, I don't eat 3150 Kcal a day, let alone 3150 Kcal of Cho ....

Dave

[Ray]

I prefer to just ride slow. The losing weight and getting faster I'll leave to others... :cool:

-Ray

[PETER REID]

Now is the time to spin a lower gear, burn fat, stay in the aerobic range, build those base miles.

For me i am riding the rollers using a 76" gear daily 30 min - 1hour daily because I don't like riding when its icy and cold out.

Staying warm inside.

peter

[Ti Designs]

It all sounds so easy, and yet I have such a hard time keeping my riders on the program. Humans have this work ethic - hard work gets you places, right? So they start out in the fall saying they're gonna do base mileage, but a month and a half into it they're thinking "screw this, I need to ride hard to get faster" and the base mileage plan goes out the window. It's even harder when you ride with groups 'cause someone is always gonna light it up and the whole group puts it in the big ring and goes after them - my theory that guys in lycra can't think. It's very hard to say "It's January, I don't need to go that fast". I've done this for years, I'm now twice as old as most of the people I ride with, I can't afford to screw up my own training 'cause they feel the need for speed at the wrong time of year. I get dropped a lot in the winter - I'm OK with that. When it gets warm and fast takes on a whole new meaning, I'll be the one doing the dropping - I'm OK with that too.

Base mileage is all about the inner strength to stick with it.

[RPS]

Power to weight went up. Velonews had an excerpt from Racing Weight Quick Start Guide book that described this study.


http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/training-center/lose-that-holiday-gut_154994
Sorry, I don't see what or how they tested. Or who they tested. :confused:

Obviously less fat usually means more power-to-weight unless you lose more power than weight, which is hard to do for normal people unless they take dieting to an extreme.

[dsb]

Sorry, I don't see what or how they tested. Or who they tested. :confused:

On page 2 of the book Fitzgerald references:

W.R. Lunn, J.A. Finn, and R.S. Axtell, "Effects of Sprint Interval Training and Body-Weight Reduction on Power to Weight Ratio in Experienced Cyclists", Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23, no.4 (July 2009): 1217-24.

In the text he states that the test was done at Southern Connecticut State Univ. using 34 cyclists split into 4 groups over 10 weeks. The 'sprint interval-training' group did the intervals twice a week and gained 10% in W/kg, the 'weight-loss' group gained 9.3% in W/kg with an average loss of 11 pounds. Fitzgerald doesn't say how much weight the interval + weight loss group lost, but comments that the loss was 'significant' ...

Dave

[Pete Serotta]

Ti is one of the best sources I know for someone to be the best they can in cycling. YEP!!!!

Pete


It all sounds so easy, and yet I have such a hard time keeping my riders on the program. Humans have this work ethic - hard work gets you places, right? So they start out in the fall saying they're gonna do base mileage, but a month and a half into it they're thinking "screw this, I need to ride hard to get faster" and the base mileage plan goes out the window. It's even harder when you ride with groups 'cause someone is always gonna light it up and the whole group puts it in the big ring and goes after them - my theory that guys in lycra can't think. It's very hard to say "It's January, I don't need to go that fast". I've done this for years, I'm now twice as old as most of the people I ride with, I can't afford to screw up my own training 'cause they feel the need for speed at the wrong time of year. I get dropped a lot in the winter - I'm OK with that. When it gets warm and fast takes on a whole new meaning, I'll be the one doing the dropping - I'm OK with that too.

Base mileage is all about the inner strength to stick with it.

[Beeb]

"It's January, I don't need to go that fast"

Amen to that + time on the bike makes you better. Although I'm assuming that my 20 mile loaded commute prob doesn't count much toward base miles.

[RPS]

Humans have this work ethic - hard work gets you places, right?
Are you a Republican? ;)


Sorry, couldn't resist. Back to bikes. :)

[rockdude]

the answer lies in how much time you have to train during the week.

if you have 20 hours to ride your bike, then go out for 4hrs a day, 5 days a week, and ride at 60% of your functional threshold during that time.

if you have 10-12 hours a week, or less, you are better off riding at 90%+ of FTP 4-5 days a week.

I was doing the latter last fall, and raised my FTP from 320 to 335 in 10 weeks. that 320 was low for me -- I had an ankle injury playing with the dog in July that set me back for the rest of the year -- but a similar program last year took me from 330 to 340.

all that said, the best form I had in races last year came from a few weeks of riding 18+hrs. nothing beats time on the bike.

Doofus gets it!

[BCS]

if you have 10-12 hours a week, or less, you are better off riding at 90%+ of FTP 4-5 days a week.

Specifically, with this time frame, what workouts do you recommend to combat monotony and also avoid excessive fatigue. Are you staying in the "Sweet Spot" or going above Threshold?

(Free coaching advise appreciated)

[Fixed]

ride your bike cos it is fun stop riding when it isn't
imho
cheers
want to get fast motor pace

[doofus 2.0]

Specifically, with this time frame, what workouts do you recommend to combat monotony and also avoid excessive fatigue. Are you staying in the "Sweet Spot" or going above Threshold?

(Free coaching advise appreciated)

It all depends on the physiology, experience, and overall stress load of the cyclist -- there's no silver bullet or golden rule here.

In general, work at 90-94% of FTP is moderately stressful for experienced riders who are all-rounders to TT'ers. For a pure sprinter, this kind of training may result in a heavier fatigue load than you would want in the base period. I consider 90-94 low threshold, and 95-105% high threshold. High threshold has a much higher strain than does the low -- those 10-20 watts make a huge difference in what it takes out of you to do it. The only exception to my "no going in the red until 4 weeks before racing starts" would be 30-on-30-off "microbursts" -- those help keep some snap, but are not nearly as stressfull as full-on sprints or 1min intervals.

As a rule, I don't do anything above FTP until 4 weeks before a race that I want to try and hit top 5 in. Going over FTP has a huge fatigue cost, and is just for peaking. Low threshold can be very sustainable during the base period -- it depends on the overall training load.

Monotony and threshold go hand in hand -- it's just part of the picture. Raising FTP means you have to do 40-90 minutes of work at 90-100% and it has to come in 20min+ chunks. Less than that, and it's not enough to stimulate development in an experienced athlete. 2 x 20, 2 x 30, 1 x 45, 3 x 20, 1 x 60, and 1 x 90 are the bread and butter of threshold training.

Some athletes make good gains in 8 weeks -- 4 of low threshold, 4 of high threshold. Most need 10-12 weeks to gain 10+ watts at FTP. Of those 10-12 weeks, I wouldn't recommend a cyclist with a family and a career do more than 4 weeks of high threshold. So, 6/4 or 8/4 low to high.

Again, there's no rule, but some examples from myself and two riders I advise. I say "advise" because I'm not a coach, nor do I claim to be.

Me, 44-year old Masters TT'er/climber, 10-11hrs training/wk: 4 days of 40-90 min of 90-94%. One long LSD day (4-5hrs). 2 days recovery.

30-year old Cat 2 sprinter, 12-15 hrs/wk: 2 days of 40-90 min of low threshold, the rest LSD of 3-5hrs. 2 days recovery.

24-year old Cat 2 all-rounder, 18-22 hrs/wk: 1 day of 60-90 min low threshold, the rest LSD rides of 4-5+ hrs. 2 days recovery.

In each case, the TSS load was between 700-800/wk. I have limited time during the week, and my focus is road races of around 2 hrs that are defined by long (20min+) climbs. My sprinter pal wants to boost endurance to break through in road races and move beyond crits. My young all-rounder has a flexible job and wants to make Cat 1. Different routes to different goals....