It's killing me but..........

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

It was interesting and encouraging to me that some of my theories were correct. But, I wont get into that. Try profiling yourself as per AC's profiling chart here...
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/profile.html

Regards, and keep up the good work.Hey NS, you can't leave me up in the air like that. What theories.
Something like, at your weight you should be doing more wattage!:(

KM posted

When running a caloric deficit, it will take your muscles a little longer to top off their reserves of high-quality fuel, but they'll get around to it eventually. At most, we're talking about 1 less day of intervals per week, while losing 1 pound a week.
Maybe I'm a bit dense, but having read the above 4 times, it seems like you are saying do one less interval session a week and lose a pound a week.
I assume you mean by doing one less hard training day your calorific intake is less so you lose a pound.

1. We're constantly surrounded by energy-rich food, such that any conceivable exercise-induced caloric deficit can be replaced in just an hour or two of thoughtless eating, and
2. Our bodies have evolved an extremely exquisite mechanism for staying in a neutral-to-slightly-positive energy balance.

These two points mean that, for most, diet, not exercise, is the key to systaining a medium-term energy deficit (and hence, long-term weight loss). Also, I think the "piles o' miles" weight loss program exacerbates the chronic glycogen depletion problem, making hard training truly impossible. Paradoxically, for me at least, the key to losing weight has been training less, and eating a lot less.

Some very interesting points in there. So now having 2 conflicting points of view, I have to make my own decision. However, so as not to offend anyone I shall keep my choice confidential.

There is simply no way to lose 2 or 3 kilos of fat in "a few days." It should take you at least 1-2 months to lose that kind of weight in a way that will maintain health and fitness. Whatever you do, don't literally "fast" for days on end. Snapping in and out of true starvation is an extreme stress; your body will be too busy recovering from trying to digest your muscles to fuel your brain to bother making capillaries, increasing mitochondrial density, or any the other energy-intensive adaptations you're asking your body to make when you train hard.

Here, I will definitely heed your advice - it was just a thought.

I claim that, all else being equal, it is better to be powerful than light.

1. There's no such thing as "too powerful," while there's such a thing as "too light" (i.e., too light for health, or vigorous athletic performance).
But I would love to be powerful and lightish - not too light. My body fat is still around 20/21. I'm sure I'd be better lowering this.

2. Event selection can mitigate the importance of low body weight. While we often pretend W/Kg is the only measure that matters, in flatter events it is more likely to be W/Kg^(2/3).
Well as you've probably read, I'm doing a 160km mountainous course in June, so weight is one of the criteria. And more importantly, the reason for consulting these forums in the first place, was to beat my lighter (half my age) cycling companion on the hills. He has difficulty staying with me on the flat.

Since you're still making huge, relatively easy gains in the power department, I would just keep investing your limited reserves of time and energy there. Only when you start having real difficulty improving your power output would I worry about body composition. That could take years.
Hey? Are you saying at my age I can go on increasing the power for years?
Geez what a terrifying thought! Beyond my comprehension at the moment.:D

Thanks for the link WWhoa.

RD posted


If you want to lose weight without starving yourself, you need to log lots of time in the saddle. If you want to ride with more power and flatten the hills, you need to log lots of high-intensity minutes. You can do both (as I do with 3+ hour rides with ~75-90 mins of L4-L6 time), but not everybody can handle the volume and intensity combined.
That probably refers to me; I'm still convinced you're trying to finish me off RD. But watch your back wheel, I'll be there one day!;)

While I'm on the air to you RD, there's something I'd like to say.
After a 5 minute warm up on the aerobike in the gym, I find the first 5 minutes of the interval the hardest. Probably because of jet lag from the previous training session. So what I did toward the end of last week and plan to do next week is; 5 min warm up: 5 min @ 180W (which I now find very easy) followed by 15 min at 200W: 1 minute rest then 1x20 @ 200W. Except for the last session on Thursday where I plan to do the 2nd 20min as follows.
10 minsx180W then 10 mins plus (hopefully) @220W. I know you don't approve of planning but it's the way I work. Everyday next week I shall be thinking and imagining me doing 220W. It will be a lot easier if I place my self next to an attractive young lady.

PS they brought in some new equipment to the gym last week and in order to make more room they moved the bikes much closer together. Talk about intimately rubbing elbows together!:rolleyes:

PPS Also considering extra miles in the saddle. Sounds like a bloody western!

Some very interesting points in there. So now having 2 conflicting points of view, I have to make my own decision. However, so as not to offend anyone I shall keep my choice confidential.The logic behind time vs. intensity for weight loss is not complicated. It's a simple mathematical optimization problem. The scarce resource (assuming that training time is not the overriding constraint) is your body's capacity for training stress per week and per ride. We'll use Andy's TSS points as the proxy for this since that's what it's for. There is a direct tradeoff between duration and intensity in TSS. You can work out your calorie burn as a function of TSS points and it will drive you toward long, slow duration as the solution to maximum calorie burn given a maximum number of TSS points.

But I would love to be powerful and lightish - not too light. My body fat is still around 20/21. I'm sure I'd be better lowering this.Yes, this is higher than desirable and you should be able to reduce this.

That probably refers to me; I'm still convinced you're trying to finish me off RD. But watch your back wheel, I'll be there one day!;)I'm not suggesting you can't do 3+ hr rides with 75-90mins of L4-L6. I'm just cautious to recommend it because my body may be above average in its ability to handle total training stress. I do well with lots of volume + intensity.

While I'm on the air to you RD, there's something I'd like to say. After a 5 minute warm up on the aerobike in the gym, I find the first 5 minutes of the interval the hardest. Probably because of jet lag from the previous training session. So what I did toward the end of last week and plan to do next week is; 5 min warm up: 5 min @ 180W (which I now find very easy) followed by 15 min at 200W: 1 minute rest then 1x20 @ 200W. Except for the last session on Thursday where I plan to do the 2nd 20min as follows.
10 minsx180W then 10 mins plus (hopefully) @220W. I know you don't approve of planning but it's the way I work. Everyday next week I shall be thinking and imagining me doing 220W. It will be a lot easier if I place my self next to an attractive young lady.Actually, I like the idea of a step-up in intensity as your ride progresses. This increases the likelihood that you will be able to sustain your power to the end of the ride. And, if you feel a little less frisky on a particular day, just don't bump up the watts for the last segment. I just think it's not much fun to start off too high and have to back off to finish the workout. Basically, I let my body tell me when it's ready for more intensity rather than the other way around.

All good points there RD. TTS is still a bit technical for me yet though.

Never did like mathematics at school.
Incidentally, I took a look at power meters today. The Polar 720 is it? - costs 420 dollars but unfortunately only comes with Japanese instructions for use.:(

I think I told you about the Japanese guy who lives near me, who when we did the 150 mile ride around the previously mentioned Lake Biwa last October, was definitely the strongest of the 60 riders. And he smokes 20 plus a day!!
Anyway the cycle shop owner told me he has just ordered a new hand made Litespeed. God knows how much that has set him back. Bikes in this shop go up to 6000 dollars.

I always remember someone telling me, you can spend as much as you like on a bike, but at the end of the day you have to push the pedals round!

All good points there RD. TTS is still a bit technical for me yet though.Okay, don't worry about TSS at the moment. But, consider these two rides, both of which are probably pretty close to your max duration at the given power. Ride 1 is 1 hr at ~100%FT (180w). Ride 2 is 3 hrs at 80%FT (144w). Ride 1 will result in ~688 kcal. Ride 2 will result in ~1,653 kcal. Ride 2 results in ~2.4 x kcal. Ride 1 is clearly better for increasing power (60 mins at L4). Ride 2 is clearly better for burning calories (2.4x), but not for increasing power (0 mins at L4). This relationship holds all the way out the power/duration curve. If you really want to lose weight (and time is not a constraint), get on your bike and ride at the leisurely pace of 100w until you get tired (probably 5+ hrs).

Incidentally, I took a look at power meters today. The Polar 720 is it? - costs 420 dollars but unfortunately only comes with Japanese instructions for use.:(The little suckers are expensive, aren't they? Polars are not as consistent as other PMs (e.g., PT, SRM, Ergomo), but they are definitely less expensive, especially if you already have a compatible Polar bike computer. I wouldn't worry about the User Guide. I imagine you can download a User Guide in English from their website.

The scarce resource (assuming that training time is not the overriding constraint) is your body's capacity for training stress per week and per ride. What was that parenthetical aside? Care to speak into the mic :)? For me, and lots of other folks, training time is very much more the limiting factor than ability to recover (i.e., TSS). I'm lucky enough to be able to max out my TSS (for me somewhere in the 700-850/wk range), but since I'm doing it with very little time, I have to do it with lots of intensity.

Actually, I think the fact that you have nearly unlimited time might be why the "piles of miles" weight loss plan works for you, and doesn't work for me. I have too many hours in the day not riding a bike to be sure that I won't make up on-bike deficits.

Since we haven't mentioned it yet, and I believe it's common ground for RDO and me, perhaps we can agree that fitday.com is an amazingly useful tool. If you're not making some effort to quantify calories taken in and expended, at least on occasion, you're really shooting in the dark. Maybe you like to run that deficit RDO's way, using exercise, or my way, using diet, or (what both of us are really doing anyway) using some combination of the two; either way, fitday.com, especially in combination with the KJoules counter on your power meter, is a potent ally.

Maybe I'm a bit dense, but having read the above 4 times, it seems like you are saying do one less interval session a week and lose a pound a week. I assume you mean by doing one less hard training day your calorific intake is less so you lose a pound.Other way 'round. It's not that training less makes you lose weight; it's that you eat less, and therefore lose weight, but with the unintentional consequence of training less voluminously, but hopefully just as intensely, if not more so. Note that training less isn't always a bad thing; the first few weeks I tried this program, my performance improved; you'll notice that "train less, but intensely" is exactly what people tapering to peak for a big event attempt to do.

In my mind, step 1 is "eat 500 fewer calories per day." Do it by whatever combination of increased activity and reduced eating you find effective; I, and at least some others, have found that only reduced eating really makes a difference, but perhaps your experience will be more like RDO's.

This 500kcal/day deficit absolutley will get you losing 1lb per week. If it seems like it isn't, well, consider that your body turns over about 14lbs of total material every day (food, fiber, and water), so it's easy for the scale to miss a pound due to GI tract contents, hydration, etc. So don't worry about the scale, at least not day-to-day. Focus on that deficit.

A consequence of that deficit will be that it will take you a little while longer to recover from intense workouts. While this has a little something to do with hormone balances and blah blah blah, for the most part, it's simple glycogen depletion. Your muscles need to use high-quality fuel, stored in the muscle tissue itself, to perform well near threshold. When you work out near threshold, you deplete those stores, and only feeding replenishes them. Since you're feeding less, it takes longer to replenish them.

Again, realistically we're not talking about a huge effect; it probably takes a few hours longer to recover than it would ordinarily, so the worst case impact on a high-intensity training regime should be one less day of intervals per week. If you're already taking easy days between interval days, then you might not notice any difference in your ability to train hard at all.

What was that parenthetical aside? Care to speak into the mic :)? For me, and lots of other folks, training time is very much more the limiting factor than ability to recover (i.e., TSS). I'm lucky enough to be able to max out my TSS (for me somewhere in the 700-850/wk range), but since I'm doing it with very little time, I have to do it with lots of intensity.Training time is the critical constraint for most people (including me). And, most training programs must be designed around that constraint. Which leads to the higher intensity rides such as you employ. But, some people have more time available than others and I wanted Sly to know that from a purely mathematical perspective it's not even a close call -- duration trumps intensity.

Since we haven't mentioned it yet, and I believe it's common ground for RDO and me, perhaps we can agree that fitday.com is an amazingly useful tool.I agree and I think you'll find it earlier in this thread when Sly first mentioned his weight loss concerns.

I think we agree on much more than we disagree on. I don't think there is one training regimen that works for everybody. I simply believe if one wants to increase power, one needs to get in lots of minutes at L4+. Where I am going with power management is into a space where nobody (pro or amateur) has ventured before, so it's hard to disagree with me unless it's on a theoretical level. But, that'll soon change.

I always remember someone telling me, you can spend as much as you like on a bike, but at the end of the day you have to push the pedals round! :D I like that one. This is why I'm comfortable on $1000 and under bikes. No need to have a Ferrari chassis with a Yugo engine! :o

Hey NS, you can't leave me up in the air like that. What theories.
Something like, at your weight you should be doing more wattage!:(

Haha! I always like your enthsiasm. :) No its nothing much technical. I always think about training from a very high level and that each system starting from the top needs more work. So if I list them in the following order

1. Aerobic
2. LT
3. VO2Max
4. AC
5. Neuromuscular

And as you go through this list in the order...
Volume of work required decreases as you go down the list.
Rate of returns goes down as you go down.
Rate the returns are retained goes down with time.

And I have seen some people recommending more LT or 2x20 work for beginners or people with low power. I completely agree to that approach and was glad to see I was not wrong thinking this way. In other words I constantly see way too many beginners doing 1min and 30 sec intervals. I look at them as the icing on the cake. The cake being your LT capacity.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong. :D

1. Aerobic
2. LT
3. VO2Max
4. AC
5. Neuromuscular
Pretty good list, netscriber. The only comment I would make is that I think for training purposes you can group 1&2 and 3&4. IOW, I don't know that I can train my aerobic capacity without raising my LT. And, I don't know that I can train my AC without raising my VO2MAX. So, I agree with you but look at it as three (largely) distinct adaptation targets for training.

Pretty good list, netscriber. The only comment I would make is that I think for training purposes you can group 1&2 and 3&4. IOW, I don't know that I can train my aerobic capacity without raising my LT. And, I don't know that I can train my AC without raising my VO2MAX. So, I agree with you but look at it as three (largely) distinct adaptation targets for training.

I understand 1&2. But are you saying, that 1min and 5min intervals do the same thing? :confused:

I understand 1&2. But are you saying, that 1min and 5min intervals do the same thing? :confused:Basically, yes. 1min is really a bit long to target neuromuscular. And, AC can be trained at durations out to ~8mins, although 1min intervals are pretty inefficient because you don't spend enough time at level. I think 1-3 min intervals are in a bit of no man's land.

I understand 1&2. But are you saying, that 1min and 5min intervals do the same thing? :confused:Correction. Andy draws a distinction between training AC and VO2MAX, so I will go with his assessment because he's the expert. I don't actually draw much distinction in my training rides, although maybe I should. It may also be because my system of 90% of my MP at a duration puts me >120%FT all the way out to ~5 mins.

Correction. Andy draws a distinction between training AC and VO2MAX, so I will go with his assessment because he's the expert. I don't actually draw much distinction in my training rides, although maybe I should. It may also be because my system of 90% of my MP at a duration puts me >120%FT all the way out to ~5 mins.Yes, I was following Andy's schema in my mind.
So the difference that makes yours higher is that AC uses % of FT power and you are using % of MP at a duration, correct?

Yes, I was following Andy's schema in my mind.
So the difference that makes yours higher is that AC uses % of FT power and you are using % of MP at a duration, correct?Right. I ride a high-intensity effort of duration x at 90% of my MP for the duration. I appear to have a high AC which puts my high-intensity effort >120%FT further out the duration curve than normal. So, I probably have more overlap between AC and VO2MAX.

Right. I ride a high-intensity effort of duration x at 90% of my MP for the duration. I appear to have a high AC which puts my high-intensity effort >120%FT further out the duration curve than normal. So, I probably have more overlap between AC and VO2MAX.
A question out of curiosity :D . Do you think the overlap is due to years and years of work in that area and the line started to get muddier as you progressed and hence you train that way? Or has it always been like that and you have been genetically gifted in that area?

A question out of curiosity :D . Do you think the overlap is due to years and years of work in that area and the line started to get muddier as you progressed and hence you train that way? Or has it always been like that and you have been genetically gifted in that area?I think my longer durations are presently undertrained (relative to my shorter durations) and that my curve will flatten over time as I get more fit. As an aside, I think anaerobic capacity is the decisive factor in a lot of mass start races. IOW, it's why one gets dropped more often than FT. I am doing a lot of work in that area right now and it's really quite fascinating how little work has been done to date. For example, try to find an algorithm for recovery of anaerobic capacity as a function of time at power <FT.

BTW, I'd be happy to continue the dialogue either on another thread or through PM. But, we should return Sly's thread to him. I think more than a couple of people are following his incredible progress. We're all waiting for two benchmarks -- breaking the 200w FT barrier and beating his young friend to the top of a long climb. Go, Sly!:D

BTW, I'd be happy to continue the dialogue either on another thread or through PM. But, we should return Sly's thread to him. I think more than a couple of people are following his incredible progress. We're all waiting for two benchmarks -- breaking the 200w FT barrier and beating his young friend to the top of a long climb. Go, Sly!:DNo, no, you guys carry on. It makes for interesting reading rather than my "put you to sleep" progress report.

Haven't got a clue what the hell you're talking about, but who cares!:D

Felt stronger in the mountains Sunday, but still not what you would call flying.
I felt I was hardly working with the breathing not far off normal. I sensed the power was there but experienced lactic buildup in the thighs, especially on the last 2 climbs (after 2 hours in the saddle). This of course restricted my perceived rate at which I thought I should be climbing.
I suspect perhaps my LT is pretty low on the climbs, whereas I can go on forever on the flat with no problem.:(
One encouraging thing though; after finishing a climb my recovery is almost instantaneous. After the last climb on Sunday, heading back across the flat land rice paddies I was doing 30kph into a very strong head/side wind.(without pushing it)
A couple of months back this used to be my speed with no wind.

Tyson (not Sly):)

Felt stronger in the mountains Sunday, but still not what you would call flying. I felt I was hardly working with the breathing not far off normal. I sensed the power was there but experienced lactic buildup in the thighs, especially on the last 2 climbs (after 2 hours in the saddle). This of course restricted my perceived rate at which I thought I should be climbing.
I suspect perhaps my LT is pretty low on the climbs, whereas I can go on forever on the flat with no problem.:( One encouraging thing though; after finishing a climb my recovery is almost instantaneous. After the last climb on Sunday, heading back across the flat land rice paddies I was doing 30kph into a very strong head/side wind.(without pushing it). A couple of months back this used to be my speed with no wind.I think if you had a PM you would see that you were doing the climbs at a higher power than the flats. When people talk about hills being "hard" I often believe they are simply riding the hills at higher power. If you rode the hills at the same power as you are riding on the flat, I doubt it would be harder or that your fatigue would be any greater than on the flat.

Tyson (not Sly):)Okay, Tyson it is. But, let me tell you why I like Sly. Sly is Sylvester Stallone's nickname and when I think of him I always think of the original Rocky movie, when Rocky finally charges up the steps in Philadelphia. That's my vision of you when you finally beat your young friend up a long climb in June. Tyson doesn't conjure such an image.

Okay, Tyson it is. But, let me tell you why I like Sly. Sly is Sylvester Stallone's nickname and when I think of him I always think of the original Rocky movie, when Rocky finally charges up the steps in Philadelphia. That's my vision of you when you finally beat your young friend up a long climb in June. Tyson doesn't conjure such an image.
What about Tyson in his early days when he landed his KO punches?

To me Sly conjures up thoughts of being crafty, wily, guileful, insidious, shifty, slippery, snaky, foxy, vulpine, canny, shrewd, covert, underhand, furtive, stealthy,sneaky,skulking,slinking etc.

On second thoughts, maybe Sly is more appropriate.:D