Build, Build, Build then Recover. Any Feedback?

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 just bought a power meter and installed in into my road bike to see my power output and hopefully increase it. Im planning to start a strength training session (on the bike) to generally increase pedalling power. Below is what I'm planning to do next week. In the title, build, build, build then recover; is what I always come across with any training proposals I read, which I believe should be effective.

week 1: day 1) 2 times x 5km - high gear 55RPM to 60RPM @ 75 to 80 MHR
day 2) 2 times x 5km - high gear 55RPM to 60RPM @ 75 to 80 MHR
day 3) 3 times x 5km - high gear 55RPM to 60RPM @ 75 to 80 MHR
day 4) recovery...

All intervals with 5 minutes easy peddaling to recover.
I'll build up the intensity to 3 x 10km intervals with recovery.


I would love to hear from you guys what you think and if you have any suggestions. Im planning to do this strength session for 2 months, 4 to 5 tmes a week. After this I'll be doing higher intensity intervals. I've been road biking for 3 years consisitently.

Carlo
www.competitivecyclist.blogspot.com (http://www.competitivecyclist.blogspot.com/)

week 1: day 1) 2 times x 5km - high gear 55RPM to 60RPM @ 75 to 80 MHR
day 2) 2 times x 5km - high gear 55RPM to 60RPM @ 75 to 80 MHR
day 3) 3 times x 5km - high gear 55RPM to 60RPM @ 75 to 80 MHR
day 4) recovery...


If you plan your training sessions based on RPM & HR why to use power meter at all...?

Maybe some experimenting with the power meter could be added to your program, like to find out what is your sustainable power for 1 min, 5 min, 20 min, 60 min. And then decide which of those are the ones you'd see most beneficial to train, and plan your program accordingly.

Unless you are specifically expecting to ride in your goal events with such low cadences, why train at them? If you think it will make you stronger, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

Have a read of this:
http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/

OUCH! That's all I can say about training at those cadences.

The best suggestion I can make is to continue whatever it was you were doing before getting the powermeter for about 2-3 weeks, maybe a little more. Once you've got a feel for what your typical workout looks like based on power only, switch to using power zones and scrap the heart rate zones for planning workouts.

Setting interval goals based on distance can be deceiving as well. If you get a good tailwind you might cover 5 km faster tomorrow than you did today. Assuming you're travelling @ 30 kph, 5 kilometers is 10 minutes. That's the near lowest end of threshold training. If you're travelling faster, the interval will be shorter and will drop below the threshold training but may be too long for you to sustain supra-threshold work at the outset. So, then the question comes to what system you're hoping to target with these intervals.

If it's threshold training, search the forums on SST or sweet spot training, or you could simply go to the plain ol' 2x20's which have proven successful time and time again.

But, to be proper with any of this - first you should get used to having a power meter (which type do you have?) and then test for functional threshold power. Set your training zones based on that and train using it instead of heart rate.

VW

Unless you are specifically expecting to ride in your goal events with such low cadences, why train at them?
I'm still trying to find out the exact answer, BUT, given the amount of SE training that the VIS/AIS recomends (while doing proper power training as well..) I am kind going by the theory that there must be something in it while still taking it with a grain of salt...

I'm still trying to find out the exact answer, BUT, given the amount of SE training that the VIS/AIS recomends (while doing proper power training as well..) I am kind going by the theory that there must be something in it while still taking it with a grain of salt...
I think Dr. Coggan's discussion makes more sense and IMHO, extended training at suboptimal cadences may actually lead to detraining at optimal cadences.

If you plan your training sessions based on RPM & HR why to use power meter at all...?

Maybe some experimenting with the power meter could be added to your program, like to find out what is your sustainable power for 1 min, 5 min, 20 min, 60 min. And then decide which of those are the ones you'd see most beneficial to train, and plan your program accordingly.Thanks for the sugggestion.

Re: "If you plan your training sessions based on RPM & HR why to use power meter at all...?" Like I said, Im concentrating on Strength Training on the bike. On why I would like to use HR, my objective is to be the in the 75MHR to 80MHR so I would be just below my threshold level and effeciently pedal the highest gear as possible and concentrate power coming all from the legs and not blow out.

But on finding out my sustainable power for 1 min, 5 min, 20 min, 60 min. Im considering incorporating that to maximize my training sessions and target those intervals. Can u please explain on that on how I can get those data and how I could apply them efficiently in training? Thanks again man!

www.competitivecyclist.blogspot.com (http://www.competitivecyclist.blogspot.com/)

OUCH! That's all I can say about training at those cadences.

The best suggestion I can make is to continue whatever it was you were doing before getting the powermeter for about 2-3 weeks, maybe a little more. Once you've got a feel for what your typical workout looks like based on power only, switch to using power zones and scrap the heart rate zones for planning workouts.

Setting interval goals based on distance can be deceiving as well. If you get a good tailwind you might cover 5 km faster tomorrow than you did today. Assuming you're travelling @ 30 kph, 5 kilometers is 10 minutes. That's the near lowest end of threshold training. If you're travelling faster, the interval will be shorter and will drop below the threshold training but may be too long for you to sustain supra-threshold work at the outset. So, then the question comes to what system you're hoping to target with these intervals.

If it's threshold training, search the forums on SST or sweet spot training, or you could simply go to the plain ol' 2x20's which have proven successful time and time again.

But, to be proper with any of this - first you should get used to having a power meter (which type do you have?) and then test for functional threshold power. Set your training zones based on that and train using it instead of heart rate.

VWThanks for the reply. Keep 'em coming. I'm getting a clearer view with your help guys. I will consider scarpping the HR man! :) But the reason I wanted to use it is to not get into my threshold levels, I wanted to be just in the 75%MHR to 80%MHR and pedal efficeintly on lower cadences without blowing out and peddaling efficiently(with power all coming from the legs.)



Setting interval goals based on distance can be deceiving as well. If you get a good tailwind you might cover 5 km faster tomorrow than you did today. Assuming you're travelling @ 30 kph, 5 kilometers is 10 minutes. That's the near lowest end of threshold training. If you're travelling faster, the interval will be shorter and will drop below the threshold training but may be too long for you to sustain supra-threshold work at the outset

VWIm riding on a 20km seemingly flat road route just about 1% to 2% gradient so I think the tailwind/crosswind issuse doesnt really matter since I can increase/decrease gearing to be in the 75% to 80%MHR levels @ 55RPM.

[QUOTE=NomadVW]

But, to be proper with any of this - first you should get used to having a power meter (which type do you have?) and then test for functional threshold power. Set your training zones based on that and train using it instead of heart rate.


[QUOTE=NomadVW]

I'll keep that in mind.

Ill take a look at your 2x20 SST also. Thanks again man!

Carlo
www.competitivecyclist.blogspot.com (http://www.competitivecyclist.blogspot.com/)

[

[QUOTE=NomadVW]

But, to be proper with any of this - first you should get used to having a power meter (which type do you have?) and then test for functional threshold power. Set your training zones based on that and train using it instead of heart rate.


[QUOTE=NomadVW]


+1

I think that once you get use to training with power, you'll find that your HR is affected by way to may variables (temp., training stress levels, diet, etc.)

Thanks for the sugggestion.

Re: "If you plan your training sessions based on RPM & HR why to use power meter at all...?" Like I said, Im concentrating on Strength Training on the bike. On why I would like to use HR, my objective is to be the in the 75MHR to 80MHR so I would be just below my threshold level and effeciently pedal the highest gear as possible and concentrate power coming all from the legs and not blow out.

But on finding out my sustainable power for 1 min, 5 min, 20 min, 60 min. Im considering incorporating that to maximize my training sessions and target those intervals. Can u please explain on that on how I can get those data and how I could apply them efficiently in training? Thanks again man!

About training with power; read through the articles in:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/

About Strength Training; I assume you have enough strength already.

I'm still trying to find out the exact answer, BUT, given the amount of SE training that the VIS/AIS recomends (while doing proper power training as well..) I am kind going by the theory that there must be something in it while still taking it with a grain of salt...

There is a lot of myth in training in every sport. Who at the AIS recommends SE? I know Dave Sanders is big on it, and Charlie Walsh was right into it ten years ago, but have you actually heard any sports scientists at the AIS recommend it?

Have faith in science. If there was something in it, we'd know by now.

(Still happy to be proved wrong, but viewing this as less and less likely as time goes by).