Originally Posted by rubiksoval
(Post 21553218)
Your training is sufficient for what you're doing. It's not sufficient for other things. I assert that really efficient training, however, would allow for both.
What's fast for you isn't fast for me. What's long for me isn't long for you. But your training, despite being significantly more, wouldn't prepare you for what I want to do. My training does prepare me for what you want to do (at least physically. mentally would be a toss-up depending on motivation). |
Originally Posted by downtube42
(Post 21548044)
400 miles in 24 hours was my best, which isn't bad but about a hundred miles off the winning pace.
|
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21553338)
You don't know that because you haven't done it. Specificity and all that. .
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21553338)
I just can't do hard intervals as frequently, age you know. I usually pack 2-3 of your days into one, 100 TSS/hour type of thing. February, went out with the Rabbits on my single with the PM, did 332 TSS in 3:13 saddle time, 3130' in 49 miles.
|
Originally Posted by rubiksoval
(Post 21553708)
I think you still have a lot to learn about power.
According to TP: Z6: 40' The lower boundary of my TP Z6 is 194w. Max watts was 613. Z5: 17' Z4: 19' Z3: 17' Z2: 22' Z1: 1:18 |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21554005)
Probably so - there's always more to learn. It's confusing. My tested FTP is 160w, which might be a little generous, certainly not too low. On the ride, TP said my average power was 118w. but my normalized power was 160w and IF = 1.01, hence the high TSS. Strava said I did 1384 kJ, weighted average power 134, though the same thing with the Coggen formula was 164w. This was a fairly ordinary short ride for this group of LD riders. I was starting to cramp on the last hill.
According to TP: Z6: 40' The lower boundary of my TP Z6 is 194w. Max watts was 613. Z5: 17' Z4: 19' Z3: 17' Z2: 22' Z1: 1:18 |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21554005)
My tested FTP is 160w, which might be a little generous, certainly not too low. On the ride, TP said my average power was 118w. but my normalized power was 160w and IF = 1.01
To compare to your one ride, in the last 90 days (over 100 hours of riding), with multiple group rides and workouts, I've only accumulated 1 hour and 4 minutes of time in Z6. |
Originally Posted by Metallifan33
(Post 21547977)
Hi All,
I'm just getting into doing some longer rides (between 2 and 3 hrs for me) and have just gotten into reading about FTP, pacing, etc (which is a good thing, because until recently, I just went as hard as I could for as long as I could). Now that I've learned about FTP/FTHR, I've started experimenting with zone 2 rides. They just seem so slow (mostly because I'm, in fact, slow). My question is, when you legends plan a 3 or 4 hour ride, how do you decide what pace you're going to go with? Do you just do zone 2 for all longer rides, or do you adjust... e.g. 75% for a 2 hr ride, 60% for a 3 hr ride, 55% for a 4 hr ride? (or some system that's similar)? Or do you just ride by feel (so slowing down around hr 3 if you misjudged it etc.) Thanks!
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 21551909)
I don't maintain speed no matter whether I'm riding for one hour or six hours. At least not when I'm solo. I'm just going at whatever steady power output I know I can maintain without tiring.
I don't have a PM, I just have learned over the years to feel in my legs what I can and can't maintain. Watching my HR and cadence also helps me make some judgments about how I'm doing.
Originally Posted by canklecat
(Post 21548563)
I go mostly by perceived exertion. If I plan to ride longer than 2 hours, I start easier than usual and wait 30-60 minutes to decide whether to increase my effort.
On good days heart rate is a reliable indicator for me.... Meanwhile I'm just taking an easy week, judging my perceived effort based on whether I can carry on a conversation (harder to do since I've skipped group rides for months due to the pandemic) or singing to myself to guesstimate my effort. And as the summer heat increases I need to compensate by easing the perceived effort even more. So even if I could risk a group ride, I wouldn't try to match their pace if they wanted to do a tempo ride based on the age range of 30-50something....
Originally Posted by downtube42
(Post 21548044)
If you want to do it with data, go for it. I believe a data driven approach to training will, if followed, yield the best result. I can't help at all. There are books on the topic
I've followed a holistic approach of riding hard when I want, keeping it fun, and being sure to have rest days. I've been doing this for 40 years, have not won any races, but I'm still doing it after 40 years, which is something.
Originally Posted by Jim from Boston
(Post 18375635)
"Cadence"
I’m a 40+ year long cyclist and I ride mainly for fitness. My training tool is the Relative Perceived Exertion (RPE) Scale, and I use cadence to chose gears to maintain my desired exertion..
Originally Posted by Jim from Boston
(Post 18329895)
This year though, I decided to go for speed (intensity), and I use the semi-quantitative, standardized, but personally relavant system of (Borg’s) Relative Perceived Exertion (RPE) (link).
Originally Posted by Jim from Boston
(Post 17916631)
The RPE scale ranges from 6 to 17, with descriptions of the intensity. Multiply the RPE by 10 is the approximate heart rate. Jim's scale is the equivalent on a 0 to 100 scale, easier to think about:
RPE = 7, very, very light... Jim's scale = 20 to 30 RPE = 9, very light... Jim's scale = 30 to 40 11, fairly light...50 (my usual happy-go-lucky pace without thinking about it) 13, somewhat hard...60 (I have to focus to maintain) 15, hard...70 (I start breathing hard at about 30 seconds) 17, very hard (lactate threshold; breakpoint between hard but steady breathing and labored with gasping)... 18, 80 (my predicted max HR) 19, very, very hard...90 to 100. Shift up to higher gears as the cadence rises, and shift down as the RPE increases. |
Originally Posted by rubiksoval
(Post 21553194)
Kind of both, depending on the time period. I became a Cat 1 at 20 years old and I was riding 10-20 hours a week throughout the year. Then I quit and didn't ride for 7 years.
After starting again in my 30s, my training is squarely in the 6-10 hours a week range. I've done one 15 hour week in 7 years, and a handful of 10-13 hour weeks when building for long races. So in my 30s, 8-10 hours to build up fitness (like this winter when I started after a 6 month break and an ftp of ~220w) to being competitive, and then 4-6 hours a week to maintain it. I used to do 6-8 hour weeks with a fair bit of high intensity but i found that the gains I had then didnt last - but then, I only started endurance sports in my mid-30s (and in my mid-to-late 40s now). Am doing an 80:20 polarized plan with 10-12 hours of bike+run, and am feeling that my foundation is getting a lot better. I also recognize a big improvement from doing long Z2 with very little time in Z2. I suspect that for me, i need to pay attention to the volume each yet and do atleast 2-3 months of volume focused efforts between more traditional intensity blocks. |
Originally Posted by guadzilla
(Post 21554511)
Ah cool, thanks for the considered reply.
I used to do 6-8 hour weeks with a fair bit of high intensity but i found that the gains I had then didnt last - but then, I only started endurance sports in my mid-30s (and in my mid-to-late 40s now). Am doing an 80:20 polarized plan with 10-12 hours of bike+run, and am feeling that my foundation is getting a lot better. I also recognize a big improvement from doing long Z2 with very little time in Z2. I suspect that for me, i need to pay attention to the volume each yet and do atleast 2-3 months of volume focused efforts between more traditional intensity blocks. |
^^^ Yeah, agreed. Even with my significantly lower volume, powermeters help me get the most out of my training hours.
Am shooting to get up to being able to do 8-10 hours on the bike regularly, with 3-4 hours of running thrown it. Started riding against last year after a gap of 2+ years, so need to build up the ability to recover again. That's been the first sign of having reached middle age :) |
Originally Posted by rubiksoval
(Post 21554137)
Even though I'm not the biggest fan of NP and TSS and understand how it can be broken, holding 1.01 for 3 plus hours is beyond even that realm. That FTP is certainly too low unless your PM was suddenly reading much too high on that day. 40 minutes in Z6 is...unlikely, seeing as how that's normally a zone you'd hold for 30-120 secs at a time (because it's very difficult).
To compare to your one ride, in the last 90 days (over 100 hours of riding), with multiple group rides and workouts, I've only accumulated 1 hour and 4 minutes of time in Z6. I was taught on longer rides than this, with long climbs, to simply keep attacking the group, off the front until you can't and they catch you, sit in until you get your breathing back under control, attack again, repeat, repeat. On a short ride like this, the routine is to attack every little rise full gas. I did the 600w+ on the ride's one longer steep hill when I sprinted from the back and dropped everyone, then "recovered" at FTP for the rest of the hill which was shallower. Yes, that's exactly the opposite to what everyone says about "how to climb a hill." It's harder, yes. but this isn't racing, it's training. It's supposed to be hard. A couple of the faster riders did catch me before the top, but as I said, it's not racing. This is pretty funny, really. What the heck am I doing? But this is how one gets to be fast on endurance rides. You just haven't trained specifically to do this, continuously except for one regretted winter, for 20 years. You had other priorities. The first group ride with these folks I ever went on was a double metric. They schooled me very quickly. At the mid-ride lunch stop, I cramped so badly that I slid under the table and laid on the floor. I was off the back and soloing at 16 for most of the second half, but I was hooked. I had no idea. Strasser rode the 3000+ miles of RAAM at an average of 16.42 mph. That's on elapsed time, not moving time. He didn't do that by riding slowly. A RAAM rider I know said he attacked the first climb hard and was never seen again. I have a Powertap SL 2.4, which I calibrate before every ride or workout. My FTP is, as I said, if anything too high. I certainly can't hold 160w for an hour. My 110% and 120% intervals seem just right: I'm panting and have trouble completing one set. But as you said, the TSS calculation is much more interesting than assuming it's 3 hours at FTP. Normalized Power is calculated using an algorithm that is a little complex, but in a nutshell takes into account the variance between a steady workout and a fluctuating workout. The resulting value is an attempt to better quantify the physiological “cost” of the harder “feel” of the variable effort. The point of having a TSS in TP is to create a CTL and TSB which track fitness and exhaustion as closely as possible. IME it works quite well. I had another Perfect Ride™. |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21554754)
That's what I'm trying to get across in this thread: optimal endurance training is not plunking along at a continuous long-sustainable pace. Not at all. This ride is what endurance training looks like. This is how it's done. Go as hard as you possibly can, recover, repeat endlessly.
So to be clear, your opinion of optimal endurance training isn't structured in any way, shape, or form, it's just go as hard as you can and repeat? And you do that with extremely faulty power numbers that give you very little useful information? This isn't an idea that you're going to be getting across any time soon. |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21554754)
I have a Powertap SL 2.4, which I calibrate before every ride or workout. My FTP is, as I said, if anything too high. I certainly can't hold 160w for an hour. My 110% and 120% intervals seem just right: I'm panting and have trouble completing one set.
But as you said, the TSS calculation is much more interesting than assuming it's 3 hours at FTP. Full explanation here: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/w...malized-power/ The point of having a TSS in TP is to create a CTL and TSB which track fitness and exhaustion as closely as possible. IME it works quite well. I had another Perfect Ride™. Your numbers are off, simple as that. Trying to justify it as matching up with your perceived notion of fitness and exhaustion is self-fulfilling at best. |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21554754)
You could be training a lot harder.
Results won't change a bit, but hey, those numbers sure sound cool. |
Originally Posted by guadzilla
(Post 21554511)
Ah cool, thanks for the considered reply.
I used to do 6-8 hour weeks with a fair bit of high intensity but i found that the gains I had then didnt last - but then, I only started endurance sports in my mid-30s (and in my mid-to-late 40s now). Am doing an 80:20 polarized plan with 10-12 hours of bike+run, and am feeling that my foundation is getting a lot better. I also recognize a big improvement from doing long Z2 with very little time in Z2. I suspect that for me, i need to pay attention to the volume each yet and do atleast 2-3 months of volume focused efforts between more traditional intensity blocks. |
Originally Posted by rubiksoval
(Post 21554801)
Loan me your powermeter and set up my zones for me and I'm sure I'll be doing 1200 TSS a week.
Results won't change a bit, but hey, those numbers sure sound cool. |
What about Pacing for Longer BF Pissing Matches?
|
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21554824)
Rather than assuming that others are wrong and only you are correct, you could test my hypothesis. Go out on a route with short rolling hills and attack every hill as hard as you can, almost all of them seated, for at least a couple hours. Attack and recover. Ignore your PM, just try to slaughter yourself. Have a look at your results in TP. Why do I think you won't try that? As you say here, your results won't change if you keep doing the same thing, very true.
Here's a hard race. Note that my powermeter, ftp, and zones were was all pretty accurate. Zone 6 was 25 minutes and 6 seconds. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...967d80e412.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...75571699ea.jpg Another of my longest and hardest races. Z6 = 19 minutes and 39 seconds. https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4c5bf36130.jpg These were both from national championship races, so suffice to say I was "slaughtered" in ways that I'm not typically slaughtered. But hey, maybe you just train so much harder. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by rubiksoval
(Post 21555032)
So, what, like in a race or something? How many dozens of examples would you like?
Here's a hard race. Note that my powermeter, ftp, and zones were was all pretty accurate. Zone 6 was 25 minutes and 6 seconds. Another of my longest and hardest races. Z6 = 19 minutes and 39 secoThese were both from national championship races, so suffice to say I was "slaughtered" in ways that I'm not typically slaughtered. But hey, maybe you just train so much harder. :rolleyes: These competitive rides I've been doing almost every Sunday for 20 years are race simulations, except that if one of us drops the group, we soft pedal so we can do it again, except it'll probably be someone else who goes and the challenge will be to hold their wheel if we can. So there's no winner, just trying to leave it all on the road. Our motto: "We believe in safe and cooperative riding," cooperating to trash each other. That we had more surging that did you could have been the dynamic or the terrain. This particular ride had so much surging because it was so short. My goal is for it to be hard just to walk when I get off the bike, and this wasn't much time to get to that point, though it worked about perfectly. Longer rides don't look like this: the last 10 hour ride I did had an IF of .73, 543 TSS. I don't get to do these competitive rides as often as I used to since I take the tandem on them now. The ability to have a bit of competition depends on what other tandems show up. It's not quite the same, but I do get a good workout on the tandem anyway, good enough to do what I want to do on my single, as you saw. I can't do this on my own, can't get that level of stress, which I think is quite normal. My workout structure follows a pattern which was discussed in another thread where I think you were present. The idea is to accumulate a lot of stress at the start of the week and then gradually get rid of it over the week so that one starts the next week with somewhere around zero for a TSB. Tuesday, my TSB is usually -20-30. |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21555364)
Nice! Way to go! I don't understand the issue. That was a good example of a similar workout, only ~45' longer and a little less time in Z6 than I had, but not a terribly different set of percentages. It's interesting that you also had a lot of time in Z1. I wondered about that in the case of races. I wonder what your TSS in TP would have been, which I believe is the complaint, not really the amount of Z6 I had, which as we see, is not that different. .
No, it's an absolutely massive difference. The amount of Z6 you had is indicative of your zones being way, way off, which is why your TSS is way, way off. That's the issue. Your numbers are significantly out of whack. There's no comparison, here. I was no where near an IF of 1.01, because that's pretty much impossible for that duration. |
Originally Posted by rubiksoval
(Post 21555425)
TP is the same as WKO4. TSS is the same.
No, it's an absolutely massive difference. The amount of Z6 you had is indicative of your zones being way, way off, which is why your TSS is way, way off. That's the issue. Your numbers are significantly out of whack. There's no comparison, here. I was no where near an IF of 1.01, because that's pretty much impossible for that duration. |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21555549)
IOW don't complain to me about it. I know how to ride a bike. You're out of line.
You're using an older version of Z6 that includes Z5, so that explains the otherwise impossible amount of time in that zone. Unfortunately, that doesn't help your erroneous IF and TSS scores, but your training parameters make no difference to me either way. |
Originally Posted by rubiksoval
(Post 21555966)
I know how to use a microwave. Doesn't mean I understand how it works.
You're using an older version of Z6 that includes Z5, so that explains the otherwise impossible amount of time in that zone. Unfortunately, that doesn't help your erroneous IF and TSS scores, but your training parameters make no difference to me either way. Power zones as set up in TP using a 160 FTP, Andy Coggan 6 zone system with CTS type labels: https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...8332647565.jpg |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21556441)
They're only erroneous if you disagree with TP's calculations.
I feel like that's been said multiple times already. An IF of 1.01 for 3+ hours is like an illuminated billboard sign that says your inputs are off. |
I just did a long-ish ride, for my sad state of fitness- 6 hrs moving time.
Mainly focused on keeping the HR to modest levels, and looked at power only to not go at all high. No efforts on hills. A twinge in the outside of the lower leg, so focused on pedaling through the ball of foot & big toe. Outbound was steady, but stopped quite a bit on the return leg. Finished only moderately worked, so the restraint payed off. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:18 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.