kdogkodiak

I am new to cycling (riding just over a year and addicted! ) and trying to improve the efficiency of my training. I ride 100-150 miles a week and go to 2-3 spinning classes each week. I constantly find myself working at a very high heart rate. (Example: last weekends ride of 102 miles in 5 hours and 3 minutes at an average HR of 157. In spinning classes I usually average 163-165 for the hour). I just don't feel like I am riding hard enough if I am not pushing myself to average 20+ MPH (which results in my high HR).

I'm sure this isn't the ideal way to train (going hard all the time), but am unsure about training methods. I have a HRM and a basic cycling computer (no power meter). Can anyone offer some advice on a basic training strategy?

asgelle

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_i_...ipbooks&page=1

ericgu

Well, there are different schools of training. I'd start by reading Carmichael's "the ultimate ride" - it's not the last word, but it will teach you a lot.

The basic goal of training is to impose a training stress on your body. This is done by applying the right amount of load - not too much, not too little - and then spending some recovery time so that your body can improve.

Training is generally broken into two kinds of training - base training, and targetted training.

Base training is designed to build your aerobic system. You do that by riding in the mid-part of your aerobic range. On the perceived exertion scale, that is generally in the "I can talk easily" to the "I can talk, but I'm a little out of breath" range. For most people, that's quite a bit easier than they are working out now. This training would generally compose the main part of a workout.

Targetted training works on specific areas, and usually is done using intervals. There is a lot of variety here - intervals to work on anaerobic power, to improve recovery, to push the lactic threshold higher, to work on climbing, pedalling technique, etc. The "high effort" ones (ie power/sprint) typically last only 2 or 3 minutes at most, but as hard as you can work out, and then with easy recovery between them, and perhaps 5-10 repetitions or so. The ones that work lactic threshold are typically longer since you aren't working out quite as hard.

Most systems use some sort of field test (a short time trail) to determine what HR is appropriate for each type of training. For example, my base miles have my HR in the 82-146 BPM range (yes, a really big range), I might be doing lactic work in the 146-149 range, and intervals are all-out. Your numbers would vary based on your training level and physiology.

Having written all that, a few comments on what you're doing now.

Riding a century at a "as hard as you can ride" pace is doing an 100 mile time-trial. That's the sort of thing that you do as a race but not the kind of thing you do to improve. It puts you in what's known as "no man's land" - too hard to improve your aerobic system, not hard enough for targetted training.

My other guess - and I'm not really sure because I don't know how much you are training overall - is that you aren't giving yourself enough time for recovery. Not sure about this, but people who tend to work out hard all the time typically have a hard time leaving time for recovery.

However, given that you're riding 5 hour centuries, you're clearly in pretty good shape already, and I think a well-designed program will give you some nice gains. I found that the nicest part of having a HRM is that it keeps me from working out too hard.

I wrote some more detail on the carmichael approach here:

https://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive...05/657053.aspx

asgelle

The reason I recommended going directly to the link at Amazon is to avoid the large volume of folk lore and misinformation people continue to repeat on the internet. The idea of a no-man's land for training has long been discredited and there are many who are finding this zone is the most efficient training to increase aerobic performance. https://www.pezcyclingnews.com/defaul...lstory&id=3232 or try seraching through the wattage list at Google.

terrymorse 

Agreed. The notion that there's some level of intensity that doesn't make you stronger seems a bit silly.

The only kernel of truth I see in the "no-man's land" notion is the desire to not ride so much that you can't complete the workout on a high intensity day. Multiple long days of tempo rides may cause fatigue to creep up on you, since you're not working the muscles hard enough to notice they're fatigued.

webist

Thanks for the tip. I just ordered a weight training book for cyclists at that link.

timmhaan

this is why i think regular testing of abilities will help make sure you're on the right track. i don't think people do this as often as they should. take a baseline test of say, a medium length TT, early in the season. every few weeks perform the test again under the same circumstances and compare the results.

as long as your getting faster, if that's your goal, then it's safe to say your on the right track. decreases in performance should raise a red flag. keeping records of your training, dieting, sleep, etc. can help you determine where you're making mistakes in your training. the more info the better.

another common mistake people make is to slog their way through a workout when in fact they should stop and go home. again, the more info you have the better. if you notice you're heart rate isn't coming back down or perhaps you can't keep your HR high, then you're probably better off heading home and not pushing it.

i've been intrigued by track specific training. one coach mentioned that he had his cyclists go home if they couldn't meet a certain goal that day. even if they'd only been their 15 mintues, the fact that they couldn't meet the goal meant that resting would make them stronger than additional training would.

krazyderek

Just a foot note here, but i beleive some of lance's endurance rides, he would ride 5-6 hours, and stare at his HRM to make sure he didn't go over 120bpm.

JayhawKen

That's a bit of a straw man argument. The primary basis for the concept of training zones is the idea of achieving a specific training goal in each workout using the least resources - time, energy, muscle cellular damage, etc. It's especially important for runners where injury risk from over-training is so much higher.

Any training that is at a higher level of intensity than is required to achieve the objective of that workout adds an incremental amount of risk that is disproportionate to its added benefit.

I think Jack Daniel's was the first to identify those kinds of workouts as 'junk training' - yes, they may make you stronger but the cost/benefit is not as good as it could be.