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.

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.


Agreed, but if I then climb at the same power as I ride on the flat I would probably come to a grinding halt.:)

Seriously though, apart from what I'm doing already, is there anything I should be incorporating in my training to increase lactic tolerance.

I'll answer that for you. "No, continue as your doing now for the time being."
You see RD, I'm getting to know you. ;)

Agreed, but if I then climb at the same power as I ride on the flat I would probably come to a grinding halt.:)No, you won't unless the hills are really steep (e.g., >6%). I proved this to a friend recently on a 3.5 mile 6% grade. Like you, he didn't believe me that he could climb the hill with an easy power that produces ~15mph on the flat (~150w). So, we climbed the entire hill at 150w. Granted, we weren't moving very fast, but when we got to the top he agreed that it was no more difficult than riding at 150w on the flat. The only problem with climbing very steep sections at such power is that bike speed gets so slow that it's hard to keep it balanced. And, depending on how you're geared your cadence can get uncomfortably low. But, you can do it.

Seriously though, apart from what I'm doing already, is there anything I should be incorporating in my training to increase lactic tolerance. I'll answer that for you. "No, continue as your doing now for the time being." You see RD, I'm getting to know you. ;)You're doing it. Actually, blood lactate and lactic acid get a bad rap. If I'm not mistaken, lactic acid is actually a source of energy (awaiting sufficient oxygen). Your L4 intervals are increasing your lactate threshold (LT) and there is not some different form of exercise that will work better. As an aside, what you're not now doing (that's later) is working on your anaerobic capacity. This will be used for the short pushes above your FT, especially for short climbs. This is indeed a separate resource and is trained separately from FT and LT. That's next, after you break the 200w barrier. BTW, when I speak of the 200w FT barrier, I'm not talking about a 2x20 session. I'm talking about a full hour at 200w, when you short out the entire health club from the sweat pouring off your head in the last 15 minutes.:D

BTW, I'd be happy to continue the dialogue either on another thread or through PM.
Personally, I'd be very interested in an AWC thread.

Personally, I'd be very interested in an AWC thread.Cool. Fire one up. You might want to read two recent threads, Matches (started by frenchyge?) and Matches Revisited (started by some troll) and others on the topic, to refine your specific questions and interests. There are lots of interesting questions, including training, measurement, deployment in races and (of keen interest to me) recovery rates. It is a complex topic, especially recovery. Andy and others suggest that AWC is made up of two distinct parts, one of which recovers fairly quickly and one of which recovers only after many hours or longer. I happen to think that AWC is hugely important to mass start race performance (even decisive). Very interesting topic.

:( :( :( :( :(

:( :( :( :( :(Let me guess. You priced a PowerTap SL and in Japan it costs more than a bike, right? Just kidding. Why the frowns?

Let me guess. You priced a PowerTap SL and in Japan it costs more than a bike, right? Just kidding. Why the frowns?
Because I don't know what you're talking about - yet!;)

And what do you mean by raising the bar to 200W for 1 hour?????
Everybody knows you're trying to finish me off.:D

Anyway, today's session in the gym was a first for me.

1x5 @ 180W
1x15 @ 200W

2mins rest

1x5 @ 180
1x10 @ 200
1x3 @ 210
1x2 plus @ 220 just to get the feel of next week's target Wattage. (not too bad)

Can't believe I was only doing 120W a few weeks ago - who was that guy?:rolleyes:

PS Had a scary moment in the gym today though. After finishing the above the HR dropped rapidly to 120, then suddenly started rising 125, 130, 135, 138 and rising. I thought, I don't want to know this and pulled the plug, then checked manually - Phew! 120ish. Reminds me of another recent thread where the guy's reading went sky high suddenly. I think if you feel OK, it's the confounded computer gone haywire. Does Bill Gates produce HR meters btw?:)

TYSON

Anyway, today's session in the gym was a first for me.

1x5 @ 180W
1x15 @ 200W

2mins rest

1x5 @ 180
1x10 @ 200
1x3 @ 210
1x2 plus @ 220 just to get the feel of next week's target Wattage. (not too bad)

I think it's very good to do small amounts at a target wattage to get the feel for it and to help prepare yourself for the new level of effort. Whenever I'm preparing for a new target that is say, 5-10% higher than previously I will spend increasing amounts of time at the higher target. 3 x4', one week, then maybe 3x5' another week, then 4x4', and then maybe the 4x5' that was my planned target volume at the new power level.

Just keep progressing without mental limits on your potential.

And what do you mean by raising the bar to 200W for 1 hour?????Everybody knows you're trying to finish me off.:DFT is FT. The gold standard is an hour at a constant power. When you nail down FT=200w once and for all, do it right.;)

I think it's very good to do small amounts at a target wattage to get the feel for it and to help prepare yourself for the new level of effort. Whenever I'm preparing for a new target that is say, 5-10% higher than previously I will spend increasing amounts of time at the higher target. 3 x4', one week, then maybe 3x5' another week, then 4x4', and then maybe the 4x5' that was my planned target volume at the new power level.

Just keep progressing without mental limits on your potential.Thanks for that encouragement Warren. I felt intuitively that was the way to go. Shall probably do a little bit more at the higher wattages tomorrow.
Perhaps throw in 5 mins @ 210W at the end of the 1st 20 mins. That's somewhat harder than today because then I still have to do another 20 mins.
I think I'll play it by ear - see how I feel.

And RD, I will test my FT in the last week of this month. 200W for 1 hour. Bah,child's Play!:D

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.KM regarding your first paragraph advice, I don't think I can let go of the "I want to train more often" feeling. Not yet anyway, I've only just boarded this train after messing about on the bike for some time.
Whoops! I pressed the wrong key - haven't finished yet.:o

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.As for counting calories, I just don't have the time for that. I eat when I'm hungry and drink when I'm dry. Unfortunately, devouring what's at hand. So if my wife has bought some custard puddings or cheesecake, I just can't ignore them. POP! In they go, and if I were counting calories I would soon blow it.
The only way I contol my calorific input at all, is when my pants/trousers get to tight I force myself to eat less until they fit snugly on the waist again.
And that is true. I guess I'll have to be satisfied with just increasing my power and let the weight take care of itself.
In other words you are looking at a pig!:D

And that is true. I guess I'll have to be satisfied with just increasing my power and let the weight take care of itself.I think you're making a wise decision. It's better to be strong than small, and you're obviously going to get a lot stronger before you start plateauing.

Somewhere in this thread, you expressed surprise that you would have years of improvement ahead of you "at this age." You might be surprised that the time course of endurance training adaptations, and the percentages of improvement that are possible, are the same for older populations as for younger ones, all the way up to truly geriatric groups. The baseline for "untrained" fitness is lower in these groups, but they still improve by the same average percent, and over the same course of time.

I think you're making a wise decision. It's better to be strong than small, and you're obviously going to get a lot stronger before you start plateauing.


Interesting, but what do you base this assertion on? Everyone I assume has a plateau and I might have just about reached mine. Who knows!

Interesting, but what do you base this assertion on? Everyone I assume has a plateau and I might have just about reached mine. Who knows!
When you do reach it, droping even a little bit of weight, but maintaining strength should still help your climbing with an improved power:weight ratio.

Ash

When you do reach it, droping even a little bit of weight, but maintaining strength should still help your climbing with an improved power:weight ratio.

AshYeah I know, RD keeps reminding me I should lose a bit of weight to improve my P/wt ratio. Easier said than done. I just looked in the refrigerator and spotted some cream-filled swiss roll. The damn thing jumped out and smacked me right in the mouth.:D

Interesting, but what do you base this assertion on? Everyone I assume has a plateau and I might have just about reached mine. Who knows!
Indeed, who knows? There are a handful of people who simply don't respond at all to aerobic training. There are another handful who respond quickly and extremely, plateauing rapidly. The vast majority improve steadily over time, though. You're probably in this large majority, and as I mentioned above, age is not a factor. "Training age" (i.e., how long you've been working at your particular sport) is more highly correlated with a plateau than chronological age.

Hey Tyson, if you have your weekly power numbers for your 2x20s can you please list them from the beginning? I am curious about the rate of improvement. If you can also remind me how often are you doing the 2x20's or anything else? IOW, your current training plan. :)

Thank you in advance. You are infact turning into quite an inspiration for us inconsistent fellas :D like me.

Hey Tyson, if you have your weekly power numbers for your 2x20s can you please list them from the beginning? I am curious about the rate of improvement. If you can also remind me how often are you doing the 2x20's or anything else? IOW, your current training plan. :)

Thank you in advance. You are infact turning into quite an inspiration for us inconsistent fellas :D like me.
From the beginning?!?! OK when I get some time, although the gist of my training can be found in this thread.

It's funny, but I was just last night thinking of killing this thread as there are obviously many guys and gals tuning in who are working on improving their cycling, so why should only my programme/progress be serialized. However, your last sentence has made me think, well, maybe some people are using it (advice from RD and others) as a guide in their own training. So will continue with apologies to those who are falling asleep.

Tyson-
Kill the thread????? I hope not. I am one of the "lurkers" who has gained so much from this thread. I hope you keep the converation going. The annual Tuesday night group ride started tonight and I skipped it and went out and did my 2X30's at L4 instead. Based on what I have gained from your conversations with RadDaddyo and others I am much better at focusing and structuring my training time. Just like you I am seeing regular, steady progress that surpasses the improvements I made last year when I saw group rides as the optimal training situation. Because I structured my training all winter I am stronger now at the start of this season than I was at the end of last season. Where will we be by the end of the summer!!! :) :)