Official Sprocket Rockets Training Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by climberevan

Thanks. This is something I've wondered about.

I know the old Sieler 80/20 study that Polarized training has its roots in was based on self reporting of entire workouts characterized as easy or hard (as opposed to time spent in zone). Now that we all have power meters or at least HR, it sounds like we should think more about accumulated time in the desired zones.

What I wonder about is on rides that are supposed to be Z2 endurance. In my example above, I wanted a long Z2 ride, but thanks to the terrain I spent 66.6% in Z1/2, 27.6% Z3/4, and 5.8% Z5+. This falls into the "pyramidal" classification.

I think a lot of the "too hard for easy but too easy for hard" MTB rides we were talking about earlier would look like that, and I'm wary of falling into that trap. Or am I off base here? Should I really just look at the total time in zone compared with the grand total per week, say?

Also, what do you think about the old Coggan/Allen idea of recovery time from a given TSS? The stuff I've seen says that rides around 400 should require several days of recovery, so how should they fit in a structured plan?

Thanks again for taking the time to answer our questions!

---

1. Seiler is definitely based on sessions. He looked at a lot of historical training data and this was the best they could do. When we move to time in zone, I think the total time of the days devoted to base specific intensity ought to be closer to 70 to 75% per week, depending on the training strategy. These numbers typically do not incorporate well with Block Periodization where you may be either 90% base or 40% base on the weekly view. Looking at it per training cycle is likely more accurate.

2. Each specific ride does not and should not follow any sort of Low to High Intensity split as it would not lead to enough stress to induce adaptation (see below). In a perfect training world, rides should be focused on either Base or Intensity.
3. Personally, I think your ride was fine. This is part of having fun while riding. I bet it was a great day, despite it not being perfect for training.

Two things to consider
1. I would have pushed a little harder to avoid Z3. If you need to go harder than base, you might as well to go low Z4.
2. Now that you had your fun ride, if you want to maximize your base week, then try to be really good about adhering to Z2 for the rest of the week. (This is assuming you're doing Block Periodization). If not, just count this time toward your weekly allotment of Z4/5 and call it good.

3. I don't like recovery per TSS. In concept and on paper it makes sense. However, there is so many more factors. Were you underfueled? Then you'll have a higher cortisol release. Did you do anything to improve recovery, Massage, Protein, etc.?

General Thoughts:

Adaptation:
The point of "training" is to get better, otherwise you might as well ride for the sake of having fun.

To get better you need to adapt and to adapt you need to have a reason (stimulus) to get better.
To get better, you need to make improvements that are induced by that stimulus AND they need to be the right improvements.
You need both of these.

Workouts = Stimulus
Recovery = The time to rebuild.

Stimulus:
The work that we do is the signal for change. If you always do the same work, or you always do work that doesn't challenge you then there is a weak signal for change. You do not get better. This is with everything in life.
This is also why studies that show the largest improvement for HIIT training are in non-athletic populations. The athletic people already do things like this, so it doesn't help them much. I can show studies that support / disprove the HIIT theory just based on the subjects they recruited.

Most riders need to get their signal in the correct direction: Fix their training intensities and workout focus. This often leads to immediate improvements.
Riders that are training well can either mix up their training and something different, potentially aiming their stimulus off-target (e.g. "Muscle confusion" (which is perhaps good for weight training, but not endurance training), OR they can make the signal bigger by going longer or harder.

Going harder, however, is still relative to your fitness. If 5x5 minutes at 120% of threshold is a good workout, it does not mean that 5x5 minutes at 130% is better... because you probably can't do that. It means that if your threshold is 300w, then 5x5minutes at 360 is perfect. And when you improve, 360 won't be enough anymore. You now need to do 5x5minutes at 120% of your new threshold of 315w. So, bump those intervals up to 378w.

Same for base training: If 70% of threshold is great for 2 hours of base, it is not better to go 2 hours at 75%. This might be harder, but you're changing the aim of the stimulus, so you are not going to get the adaptation you need. Instead, as you get better, continue doing 70% of threshold for base rides, but know that it'll now take 3 hours to have the same signal that 2 hours use to have.

This also applies to the individual workout session:
Option 1: Ride 5 minutes at Z5 for each ride for 5 rides, Ride base for the other 55 minutes. (This is 5x5 minutes at Z5 per week)
Option 2: Ride 4 days of 60 minutes of base, Ride 1 day with 5x5 minute Z5 intervals (This is still 5x5 minutes per week)

Option 2 is far better than Option 1, because a single bout of 5 minutes at Z5 is not challenging to your body. It won't be a large enough signal to change.
However, if you do them all at once, you may feel fresh on the 1st and 2nd, but by the 5th Z5 effort you are spent. This is a big signal to change.

This is why Block Periodization can be Effective. It creates a very strong stimulus for change in a moderate amount of time.
However, the downside to Block Periodization is that each individual session can really only be 85% of your potential, because if you gave 100% each day you couldn't finish the week. You trade a little bit of signal each day to have that signal compound day over day.
(This is like skiing, A 20" dump overnight is real fun, but 5 days of 4" makes for a great week).

This is also why I switch back to a traditional plan as events get closer. This way I can dig really deep in the individual sessions, just like you do in an event, without having to save some for tomorrow's workout.



E.g. One Ride with 5 sets of 5 minutes at VO2 is a larger signal for adaptation than

Xtrpickes I'm curious what you'd do in my situation: I'm a few weeks from finishing a 10-12 hour/week, 18-week long off-season sweet spot plan from Fascat. Seemed good, but I slacked on the longer weekend rides when the skiing got good in February. So I probably rode as little as 6 hours/week for a bit there. For goals, I have a gravel race July 10th (120 miles/11k vert).

Curious what you'd do next if you were me: I think I need to get lots of hours in the saddle to get ready for that long race, but I'd like to also raise my FTP as much as possible before then too. I could just start some of that sweet spot plan again, but maybe there's a better route to go for training this far out from my event?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathleenturneroverdrive

Xtrpickes I'm curious what you'd do in my situation: I'm a few weeks from finishing a 10-12 hour/week, 18-week long off-season sweet spot plan from Fascat. Seemed good, but I slacked on the longer weekend rides when the skiing got good in February. So I probably rode as little as 6 hours/week for a bit there. For goals, I have a gravel race July 10th (120 miles/11k vert).

Curious what you'd do next if you were me: I think I need to get lots of hours in the saddle to get ready for that long race, but I'd like to also raise my FTP as much as possible before then too. I could just start some of that sweet spot plan again, but maybe there's a better route to go for training this far out from my event?

---

I know Frank from Fascat fairly well and he's had great success with his athletes.
However, I am just not a fan of SweetSpot training.

Sweetspot is based off the work of Andrew Coggan and Hunter Allen. The research that supports it does so by indicating that Z3 is the optimization of Duration and Intensity. It's the highest workload (intensity) that can be maintained for long bouts of training. In theory, this ought to maximize the stimulus that I mention in the post above.

However, in my experience this is not the case. It might be hard training, but it's not specific enough. This is because it over taxes the aerobic system to the point that anaerobic has to contribute, but does not tax the anaerobic system enough for adaptation.

Energy Systems:
Aerobic: Primarily slow-twitch muscle fibers that are weak, yet efficient. The electric Motor in the Prius. This system burns carbohydrate and fat using oxygen. You want this to be as strong as possible for any endurance event: whether that event is 1 hour or 10 hours. We use low blood lactate concentrations as a proxy measurement of this system being the primary contributor.

Anaerobic: Primarily fast twitch fibers that are strong, but tire quickly. The gas motor in the Prius. This system primarily burns carbohydrate without oxygen. As the anaerobic system is utilized more, blood lactate increases. This system works ON TOP of the aerobic system. If you are doing a 120% 5 minute interval you are using both systems near maximally.

When training the aerobic system, it is best to stay at intensities that allow the aerobic system to do the work without anaerobic help (e.g. Z2). If you ride harder in Z3, your body will begin to look for shortcuts to help out and that shortcut is a little anaerobic help. However, this is just a little bit of help and doesn't stimulate the anaerobic system like Z4 / Z5 do.

With riders whom do a lot of Z3 work, we tend to see higher baseline lactates, which means their anaerobic system is working during easy workloads. This is like running the gas engine in the Prius all the time, you're going to run out of fuel sooner.

I'm not saying don't train in a sweetspot manner, especially if you've had success. However, I have never recommended it to anyone,

5 vs. 3 zone system:

Z1 & Z2 = Z1 in a 3-zone system
Z3 & Z4 = Z2 in a 3 zone system
Z5 & Z6 = Z3 in a 3 zone system.

This is where I break with Seiler a bit; I think there is benefit to Z4 training with longer intervals (in addition to Z5 intervals), whereas he's mostly recommending Z5 intervals only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

My Wife is 39 and a 33 minute 10k runner.
She never lifts weights...

---

:eek: Damn. Less than 4mins off (~40sec/mile) the world record. Speedy for sure.

Thanks for all that! I'm not a sweetspot zealot at all so would be interested to see what a polarized plan does in comparison.

This is probably a super basic question, but if my target is a 120 miles race with a lot of climbing, in a polarized plan would my hard days mostly be the same in terms of duration/intensity for the next few months, but my easy days get longer and longer until I'm close to race length/duration a few weeks out from the event?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathleenturneroverdrive

Thanks for all that! I'm not a sweetspot zealot at all so would be interested to see what a polarized plan does in comparison.

This is probably a super basic question, but if my target is a 120 miles race with a lot of climbing, in a polarized plan would my hard days mostly be the same in terms of duration/intensity for the next few months, but my easy days get longer and longer until I'm close to race length/duration a few weeks out from the event?

---

If you follow more of a pyramidal plan in which you incorporate some Zone 4 (just below threshold) then you can add a modest amount of Z4 work per week.
However, If you follow a true polarized plan, in which your high intensity days are above threshold, then there is only so much you can increase. The Work intervals can't get much longer, but you can add more sets.
It could look something like this:

Beginning of Training: 7.5 hours total per week

Base Days- 4 days (5 hours of base)
(Days not in any particular order)
Day 1: 1 Hour
Day 2: 1 Hour
Day 3: 1 Hours:
Day 4: 2

High Intensity Days: 2.5 hours per week.
Day 1: 3x 15 minutes Hard with 5 minute recovery. (Plus warm-up, Cooldown, and recovery = total ride time of 1:30 (Zone 5a Interval duration of 45 minutes)
Day 2: 4 x 5 minutes Harder with 5 minute recovery (Total ride time 1 hour) (Z5b Interval Duration of 20 minutes)

At the end of Training 12:15 hours total per week.

Base Days- 4 days (9 hours total)
Day 1: 1 Hour
Day 2: 2 Hours
Day 3: 2 Hours
Day 4: 4

High Intensity Days: 3:15 hours per week.
Day 1: 4x 15 minutes Hard with 5 minute recovery. (Plus warm-up, Cooldown, and recovery = total ride time of 2:00 (Zone 5a Interval duration of 60 minutes)
Day 2: 5 x 5 minutes Harder with 5 minute recovery (Total ride time 1:15 hour) (Z5b Interval Duration of 25 minutes)

ClimberEvan- Clarification:
When we were talking about 80/20 before and I said that it could be closer to 70/30 based on time was based on Workout times. In the example above the "Final week" example is about 27% for the total time of the two interval days.
However, if we looked at it based on just time in zone, it is much much lower. In this example, total time above threshold is basically 1.5 hours out of 12.25 hour training week, which is a bit over 10% of time. I'll edit above for clarity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fool

:eek: Damn. Less than 4mins off (~40sec/mile) the world record. Speedy for sure.

---

Only 260th in the world for 10,000 meters...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

Only 260th in the world for 10,000 meters...

---

If she listened to you more she'd probably be 60th...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

If you follow more of a pyramidal plan in which you incorporate some Zone 4 (just below threshold) then you can add a modest amount of Z4 work per week.
However, If you follow a true polarized plan, in which your high intensity days are above threshold, then there is only so much you can increase. The Work intervals can't get much longer, but you can add more sets.
It could look something like this:

---

Dude, you rock! Thanks so much for this. The only hard part is now that it's warming up I want to go have fun riding my bike vs. do more structured workouts. But I guess you can't help with that dilemma :biggrin:

FWIW, I added some Links to researchers, Youtube Channels and Podcasts into the First post.
I'll continue to update over time.

Feel free to share anything you have found helpful. I'm very versed in research, but I'm less aware of the Podcasts and Youtube Channels

How does keeping and improving mobility work into your training plans? I know for me that one reason I like harder effort mountain biking is that I'm usually moving around more, standing, leaning, twisting etc. This feels so much better on my body than protracted low effort riding where I tend to be in the same position interminably.

PED's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panchosdad

How does keeping and improving mobility work into your training plans? I know for me that one reason I like harder effort mountain biking is that I'm usually moving around more, standing, leaning, twisting etc. This feels so much better on my body than protracted low effort riding where I tend to be in the same position interminably.

---

I'm not going to lie. I, personally, am terrible at this. These are the things that I know I should do, but with a job, kids, and more riding hours than the average person I just don't get around to mobility.

Usually when I'm on rougher terrain, I come out of it pretty sore (I have a plate in my collarbone that takes a lot of abuse and a right shoulder that's a bit janky because of it).

Working with someone like Dee Tidwell would likely be worthwhile. In some regard because paying for a plan gives extra motivation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathleenturneroverdrive

Dude, you rock! Thanks so much for this. The only hard part is now that it's warming up I want to go have fun riding my bike vs. do more structured workouts. But I guess you can't help with that dilemma :biggrin:

---

The only thing I can say is to seriously ask yourself how much "performance" means to you. Once you have that answer, I can solve the rest:
1. If performance doesn't mean anything, then have fun 100% of the time.
2. If performance is important because it allows you to have more fun, then "train" 70% of the time and have fun 30%
3. If you either have some big, scary, goals, or genuinely enjoy making other people suffer then you should be training 85% of the time.
4. If you are going to the Olympics you should be into training 95% of the time.

Two things to always remember:
You never need to follow the plan 100% of the time.
Training and fun can be the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

PED's

---

This is your body...
This is your body on PEDs...

XtrPickels, I really appreciate your sharing your wisdom here. I'm drinking from the firehose and need to go back and read the whole thread from the start, but I have what may be a straightforward question that I'd like to run by you.

I'm doing the stock "Build me up" training program on Zwift; it's a 12-week program and I'm in the 2nd week. It's only about 5-6 hours per week; if I want to add more training (as opposed to fun rides), what should I do? Long slow distance in Zone 2? More intervals? Or is the right answer different depending on the week?

Also, it's easier for me to do one 3-hour session than 2 90-minute sessions on different days - it's hard for me to train more than 4 days a week, though there will likely be some cardio, either a fun ride or hiking or something at least one day per week. Is it sub-optimal to do another workout immediately after completing one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_pdx

XtrPickels, I really appreciate your sharing your wisdom here. I'm drinking from the firehose and need to go back and read the whole thread from the start, but I have what may be a straightforward question that I'd like to run by you.

I'm doing the stock "Build me up" training program on Zwift; it's a 12-week program and I'm in the 2nd week. It's only about 5-6 hours per week; if I want to add more training (as opposed to fun rides), what should I do? Long slow distance in Zone 2? More intervals? Or is the right answer different depending on the week?

---

Looking at this plan, they do the same thing that TrainerRoad seems to do with their plans: There is just too much intensity. I think this is because Intensity plays well on the trainer; shorter sessions that are high intensity are much more engaging when staring at the screen.

So, I would 100% recommend Zone 2 riding if you are following this plan. In Fact, if you are training 4 days a week I'd probably focus on 2 days of base plus 2 days from the prescribed workouts. Make the base days as long as you have time for.

Quote:

---

Also, it's easier for me to do one 3-hour session than 2 90-minute sessions on different days - it's hard for me to train more than 4 days a week, though there will likely be some cardio, either a fun ride or hiking or something at least one day per week. Is it sub-optimal to do another workout immediately after completing one?

---

I'm a bit unclear about the question.
1. High intensity workouts on subsequent days: This is totally fine.
2. 3 Hour session is likely more beneficial than 2 x 90 minutes
3. If you can do 4 days a week:
a. Long Ride: 3 hours
b. Base Ride: 1 hour
c. Zwift Workout 1 hour
d. Zwift workout 1 hour

Then that could be great for general riding fitness.

Anyone looking for some high intensity training should spend some time on a trampoline with a borderline hyperactive 9 y/o boy. Is Zone eleventy a thing?

On the mobility thing. You know when you're sitting on your ass in the evening watching a screen? I've found that to be a great time to stretch, roll, and do PT...while continuing to watch TV of course. Laziness is as much an issue as remembering, but setting an alarm removes one barrier and gives me about a 20% chance of actually doing it. Only ends up being a couple days a week, but it's better than nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

Looking at this plan, they do the same thing that TrainerRoad seems to do with their plans: There is just too much intensity. I think this is because Intensity plays well on the trainer; shorter sessions that are high intensity are much more engaging when staring at the screen.

So, I would 100% recommend Zone 2 riding if you are following this plan. In Fact, if you are training 4 days a week I'd probably focus on 2 days of base plus 2 days from the prescribed workouts. Make the base days as long as you have time for.



I'm a bit unclear about the question.
1. High intensity workouts on subsequent days: This is totally fine.
2. 3 Hour session is likely more beneficial than 2 x 90 minutes
3. If you can do 4 days a week:
a. Long Ride: 3 hours
b. Base Ride: 1 hour
c. Zwift Workout 1 hour
d. Zwift workout 1 hour

Then that could be great for general riding fitness.

---

Thanks! Good to hear your thoughts that this is too much intensity. It hasn't seemed like that much to me; I haven't really been hitting my max heart rate since I started, so I have been wondering if maybe my FTP is too low. (I haven't done an actual FTP test; Zwift just set it automatically based on the highest observed 20 minutes of output, which I thought seemed pretty accurate, but maybe not.) I'm pretty happy to add base - it's still rainy and cool here, so watching movies in the garage while doing long rides in Zone 2 is not a hardship. The Snyder cut is 4 hours long anyway, gotta watch it somehow.

Sorry that other question wasn't clear. I was pretty much asking about 3 hours vs 2 x 90 minutes. Followup, if I wanted/needed to only do 3 days in a given week, is something like this effective?
Day 1: Long ride (3 hours)
Day 2: Zwift workout (1 hour)
Day 4: Zwift workout (1 hour) followed by base ride (1 hour)

And what constitutes a base ride/long ride in terms of target heart rate? 60-70% of max heart rate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_pdx

Thanks! Good to hear your thoughts that this is too much intensity. It hasn't seemed like that much to me; I haven't really been hitting my max heart rate since I started, so I have been wondering if maybe my FTP is too low. (I haven't done an actual FTP test; Zwift just set it automatically based on the highest observed 20 minutes of output, which I thought seemed pretty accurate, but maybe not.) I'm pretty happy to add base - it's still rainy and cool here, so watching movies in the garage while doing long rides in Zone 2 is not a hardship. The Snyder cut is 4 hours long anyway, gotta watch it somehow.

Sorry that other question wasn't clear. I was pretty much asking about 3 hours vs 2 x 90 minutes. Followup, if I wanted/needed to only do 3 days in a given week, is something like this effective?
Day 1: Long ride (3 hours)
Day 2: Zwift workout (1 hour)
Day 4: Zwift workout (1 hour) followed by base ride (1 hour)

And what constitutes a base ride/long ride in terms of target heart rate? 60-70% of max heart rate?

---

Threshold HR is in the neighborhood of 10-15 beats below Max HR. Base HR is another 20-30 beats below threshold.
For Example:
a. Max HR ~ 185, Threshold HR ~175, Base Range~ 145-155
b. Max HR ~ 170, Threshold HR ~ 155, Base Range ~ 125-135bpm.

If using 95% of 20 minutes to determine threshold wattage, you should be at a completely max effort in which you're doubled over the bars at the end of the 20 minutes.

Re. The 3 days a week: Yeah, you might be best with one long ride and two shorter harder rides, especially if you can get other low-intensity activity (hiking, etc.).

Any thoughts on the Whoop strap or Oura ring? Both stupid gadgetry that tells you things you already know if you're honest and pay attention to your body? I have some serious fitness to rebuild after basically taking a year off. Whoop seems preferable since I'd most likely use it for 6 months then drop it.

Pinkbike was fairly down on the ring if you read a bit between the lines and in the comment section.

Whoop & Oura measure and base recommendations on Heart Rate Variability, which is promising but currently of minimal or zero use for athletes. The measurements are way too dependent on variables which can't be controlled. HRV measurements are not even remotely repeatable IME, with values changing by 50+% from one minute to the next.

Many who use such devices swear by them, but the more experienced athletes I've known who are NOT sponsored by them (including myself) find that the recommendations are often way off. They will tell you to train hard when you're obviously tired more than your own self analysis would.

If you need to, spend the money on a training plan and follow it. Listen to your body, eat right, and don't rely on technology to show the way.

https://www.uphillathlete.com/why-we...g-on-hrv-apps/

"UPDATE—May 28, 2019: Eric Carter, a member of the US National Skimo Team and a PhD candidate in physiology, recently sent us this study on HRV. Over five years, the study used 57 national-level Nordic skiers and compared their training loads with HRV readings. Their conclusion? “[We saw] no causal relationship between training load/intensity and HRV fatigue patterns.”"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by climberevan

Whoop & Oura measure and base recommendations on Heart Rate Variability, which is promising but currently of minimal or zero use for athletes. The measurements are way too dependent on variables which can't be controlled. HRV measurements are not even remotely repeatable IME, with values changing by 50+% from one minute to the next.

Many who use such devices swear by them, but the more experienced athletes I've known who are NOT sponsored by them (including myself) find that the recommendations are often way off. They will tell you to train hard when you're obviously tired more than your own self analysis would.

If you need to, spend the money on a training plan and follow it. Listen to your body, eat right, and don't rely on technology to show the way.

https://www.uphillathlete.com/why-we...g-on-hrv-apps/

"UPDATE—May 28, 2019: Eric Carter, a member of the US National Skimo Team and a PhD candidate in physiology, recently sent us this study on HRV. Over five years, the study used 57 national-level Nordic skiers and compared their training loads with HRV readings. Their conclusion? “[We saw] no causal relationship between training load/intensity and HRV fatigue patterns.”"

---

Agreed, and even if you think that HRV tells you something, you still don't know what it tells you cause so many other things might be making noise.

I'll slightly disagree with something you said above, though I don't really think you meant it how it sounded. I think technology is hugely valuable, but you just can't rely on it as a sole measure. (and I think that's actually what you meant as well.)

I'm riding a 50k 3700 vert race (Bailey Hundito) with my 15 year old and some of her friends in June. Its her first race and I want to create a flexible training plan that's fun and that she'll stick with. The goal is to build up fitness/endurance and to finish the race and feel good about it (not place). She's done some 20 mile/2000 vert rides but nothing this big. In the past I have done something like this that was pretty effective in building endurance:

1. Build a base
2. Start ramping up distance over 2-3 week period with some intervals thrown in.
3. Ramp down with shorter rides for a week/Recovery.
4. Ramp back up with increased intervals over 2-3 weeks
5. Repeat and ramp down before the race.

I've intrigued by your 3 week cycle. Its definitely simple and easy to manage.
1. High intensity
2. High volume
3. Recovery

What do you recommend? If doing a 3 week cycle, do you take days off between rides? And how easy of a recovery ride? We're in Golden, so easy is probably spinning on pavement. Really appreciate all the info in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

With the 3 week cycle I can:
1. Crush an intensity week (8-10 hours = lower volume = more time with family),
2. Hang on for a volume week (12-16 hours = less family time)
3. Recover (6-9 hours = more time with family)

Some people can train more than this, some can train less. With my wife training 7-10 hours per week, this is what works for us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EWG

Agreed, and even if you think that HRV tells you something, you still don't know what it tells you cause so many other things might be making noise.

I'll slightly disagree with something you said above, though I don't really think you meant it how it sounded. I think technology is hugely valuable, but you just can't rely on it as a sole measure. (and I think that's actually what you meant as well.)

---

You're correct: I didn't mean to suggest that one should totally eschew technology. Heart rate and power are extremely useful metrics that I seldom ride without. Resting HR can be useful for gauging recovery as well, but with enough experience I think people can do just as well by carefully listening to the body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Any thoughts on the Whoop strap or Oura ring? Both stupid gadgetry that tells you things you already know if you're honest and pay attention to your body? I have some serious fitness to rebuild after basically taking a year off. Whoop seems preferable since I'd most likely use it for 6 months then drop it.

---

I used a whoop for ~ 2 years. My wife still uses hers.
It works well, for the most part. Races and Big Workouts would definitely trigger reduced recovery. It typically responded as expected.

However, there were times where it was hard for me to discern recovery: such as 1-2 weeks of moderately taxing workouts. In these instances there were enough anomalies that I wasn't sure I could trust the recovery value. One day would be great, the next not so much, then it would be great again. I chalked these random dips to some interference or missed readings, but they happened enough that I lost a bit of faith when I was hoping for the device to provide some insight.

Because my wife is a perceptual idiot (yes, she's aware and yes, I do use this term), there is value in us continuing to use the Whoop with her. I keep an eye on it most days of the week and it augments our conversations about how she's feeling.

Personally, I use my Polar Vantage V on an almost nightly basis. The user interface isn't nearly as nice, the watch is terribly uncomfortable to wear at night (I rarely noticed the whoop). However, the Polar is more steady in it's readings and gives fewer anomalous values.

Edit to Add:
I would NOT use Whoop or any other recommendations as a means to determine when to do workouts. In other words, I wouldn't only do workouts when Whoop tells me I'm ready.

I use tools like this as long term monitoring tools to better understand the Central Nervous System state as it responds to the training plan.

My wife did the 50 mile version (old course) two years ago. She didn’t train enough but had a great time and did well.

A few things that are less intuitive for new people doing longer distances:
* Practice eating and hydrating. Talk through tangibles meaning - “at the top of Nice Kitty eat something for the love of God” then maybe practice eating while riding. 50k isn’t crazy but that can sneak up on a younger rider.
* Go test ride the course a couple of times. Especially focusing on the bigger climbs and letting her get the sense of pacing.

Good Luck! Super fun course!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slcdawg

I'm riding a 50k 3700 vert race (Bailey Hundito) with my 15 year old and some of her friends in June. Its her first race and I want to create a flexible training plan that's fun and that she'll stick with. The goal is to build up fitness/endurance and to finish the race and feel good about it (not place). She's done some 20 mile/2000 vert rides but nothing this big. In the past I have done something like this that was pretty effective in building endurance:

1. Build a base
2. Start ramping up distance over 2-3 week period with some intervals thrown in.
3. Ramp down with shorter rides for a week/Recovery.
4. Ramp back up with increased intervals over 2-3 weeks
5. Repeat and ramp down before the race.

I've intrigued by your 3 week cycle. Its definitely simple and easy to manage.
1. High intensity
2. High volume
3. Recovery

What do you recommend? If doing a 3 week cycle, do you take days off between rides? And how easy of a recovery ride? We're in Golden, so easy is probably spinning on pavement. Really appreciate all the info in this thread.

---

Thank you, good input! I think she does a good job hydrating, but may need reminders to eat. This is a really fun event and I had mixed feelings about moving from 50mile to 50k, but it'll be really cool to ride with her (50 miles would prob be too much).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tailwind

My wife did the 50 mile version (old course) two years ago. She didn’t train enough but had a great time and did well.

A few things that are less intuitive for new people doing longer distances:
* Practice eating and hydrating. Talk through tangibles meaning - “at the top of Nice Kitty eat something for the love of God” then maybe practice eating while riding. 50k isn’t crazy but that can sneak up on a younger rider.
* Go test ride the course a couple of times. Especially focusing on the bigger climbs and letting her get the sense of pacing.

Good Luck! Super fun course!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slcdawg

Its her first race and I want to create a flexible training plan that's fun and that she'll stick with.

---

I spent years working with the BJC program and I cannot emphasis this aspect enough. Even with our juniors whom are racing at a national level, most of the training is games, relay races, skills, etc. This is especially important for riders less than 16 years old.

When a rider reaches 16 or so (a little different for each) then I believe you can begin adding some more traditional volume.

Because of this, I would not recommend doing the block periodization with the Intensity Week, Volume Week, Recovery week as I described.

However, I do believe you can do a 2 week on; 1 week off scheme where you hold volume moderate and vary intensity.

For Example:
Week 1:
8 hours riding total.
-1 long ride of 2-3 hours
-2 workouts of an hour (one more skills focused, one more hard riding focused)
- 2 easy rides of about an hour

Week 2
Total Riding ~8 hours
-1 long ride of 2-3 hours
-2 workouts of an hour (Both hard-riding focused)
- 2 Base rides of about an hour

Week 3:
Total Riding: 5 hours
-3 Base Rides of about 1 hour
-2 skills days that are challenging, fun, but not taxing.

For skills:
We do all sorts of fun, silly things in addition to the traditional like wheelies and techy climbs.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVO...MYQjyww/videos

If your daughter and her friends are enjoying cycling, I'll plug the local junior teams.
https://www.gbxjrs.com/
www.boulderjuniorcycling.org

It's incredible to see kids thrive when they're with their peers!

Thank you for the detailed info. This is really helpful! The kids will not have heartrate monitors, so will have to go off of feel. Is it fair to say a base ride is at moderate sustained intensity? I.e. an average ride without pushing it? Should we try to ramp up the longer rides with each cycle (i.e. increase from 8 hours to 10-12 hours for the second cycle)? I'm going to be helping 3-4 of them train and will take a look at the video and try to keep it fun.

One of the good things that came out of Covid and indoor sports getting canceled, was that my daughter and some of her friends joined the GHS Mtb bike team. Some of those kids, their parents don't ride so good to get them the exposure. Most of them really liked it and are hoping to ride for their HS team in the fall. We've looked at GBX, I've heard great things. I think its already full for the summer. Thanks again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

I spent years working with the BJC program and I cannot emphasis this aspect enough. Even with our juniors whom are racing at a national level, most of the training is games, relay races, skills, etc. This is especially important for riders less than 16 years old.

When a rider reaches 16 or so (a little different for each) then I believe you can begin adding some more traditional volume.

Because of this, I would not recommend doing the block periodization with the Intensity Week, Volume Week, Recovery week as I described.

However, I do believe you can do a 2 week on; 1 week off scheme where you hold volume moderate and vary intensity.

For Example:
Week 1:
8 hours riding total.
-1 long ride of 2-3 hours
-2 workouts of an hour (one more skills focused, one more hard riding focused)
- 2 easy rides of about an hour

Week 2
Total Riding ~8 hours
-1 long ride of 2-3 hours
-2 workouts of an hour (Both hard-riding focused)
- 2 Base rides of about an hour

Week 3:
Total Riding: 5 hours
-3 Base Rides of about 1 hour
-2 skills days that are challenging, fun, but not taxing.

For skills:
We do all sorts of fun, silly things in addition to the traditional like wheelies and techy climbs.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVO...MYQjyww/videos

If your daughter and her friends are enjoying cycling, I'll plug the local junior teams.
https://www.gbxjrs.com/
www.boulderjuniorcycling.org

It's incredible to see kids thrive when they're with their peers!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slcdawg

Thank you for the detailed info. This is really helpful! The kids will not have heartrate monitors, so will have to go off of feel. Is it fair to say a base ride is at moderate sustained intensity? I.e. an average ride without pushing it? Should we try to ramp up the longer rides with each cycle (i.e. increase from 8 hours to 10-12 hours for the second cycle)? I'm going to be helping 3-4 of them train and will take a look at the video and try to keep it fun.
!

---

With kids it's so hard to say what an appropriate HR range is without testing.

I'd, personally, go on feel and observation. See how they're doing on those longer rides. You want them to enjoy them, be working but not too hard. If you get home and they lay around (more than normal...) for the rest of the day then it was too hard. Once you have that figured out, then see what the HR's are. In other words the HR is descriptive of the effort, not prescriptive.

Similar theory in terms of extending the hours. If they're champing to ride more, then go for it within reason. 20% is typically the "safe" increase in weekly volume; so if they seem like they WANT to ride 9.5hrs then great. But, again, it's not about prescribing that they have to ride 9.5 the second round. I really see no need for kids to be riding more than 10 hours / week.

For junior athletes, performance is more related to the length and intensity of their quality session(s), not their over-all volume. Because of this, if they seem ready for progression, I would do it through the increase in interval number / length / total time moreso than large increases in total weekly volume.

Also, Keep in mind that these are formative years for building general athleticism, bone strength, etc. I would continue to encourage a variety of sports / activities / exercises. Obstacle courses, Ultimate Frisbee, etc. are great for fitness, strength, bone mass, etc.

Thank you, Pickels! This is good info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

With kids it's so hard to say what an appropriate HR range is without testing.

I'd, personally, go on feel and observation. See how they're doing on those longer rides. You want them to enjoy them, be working but not too hard. If you get home and they lay around (more than normal...) for the rest of the day then it was too hard. Once you have that figured out, then see what the HR's are. In other words the HR is descriptive of the effort, not prescriptive.

Similar theory in terms of extending the hours. If they're champing to ride more, then go for it within reason. 20% is typically the "safe" increase in weekly volume; so if they seem like they WANT to ride 9.5hrs then great. But, again, it's not about prescribing that they have to ride 9.5 the second round. I really see no need for kids to be riding more than 10 hours / week.

For junior athletes, performance is more related to the length and intensity of their quality session(s), not their over-all volume. Because of this, if they seem ready for progression, I would do it through the increase in interval number / length / total time moreso than large increases in total weekly volume.

Also, Keep in mind that these are formative years for building general athleticism, bone strength, etc. I would continue to encourage a variety of sports / activities / exercises. Obstacle courses, Ultimate Frisbee, etc. are great for fitness, strength, bone mass, etc.

---

Xtra, I need some advice.

I had a really great 3 weeks riding in Moab and St George and am feeling like I'm starting the season strong. I have a gravel grinder on August 22nd. The ride is 78 miles with 8700 feet of climbing and I want to build from where I'm at currently.

Generally, my weeks will have a hard group (mountain bike) ride on Monday nights right around 1.5 hours long. I generally can sneak away for an hour ride at lunch a few days a week and as our days get longer here in Montana will probably need to put in more early mornings and late evenings to work around time with the family. I can also take advantage of a fairly flat 20 mile commute to/from work also to get some intervals in.

How would you suggest structuring my training this summer to arrive at the ride on 8/22 at my strongest? Thanks in advance.

Sethhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...22376b7fdd.jpg

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Xtra,

I had a revelation in my training this last winter in terms of seeing the value of alpine skiing as it relates to endurance sports. Tell me if I'm wrong in assessment...

I am 41 and coming up on 5 years of consistent training here next month. I long ago nabbed the low hanging fruit and have been battling the laws of diminishing returns for a few years now. Work and family being the obvious time restrictors to my training ambitions.

I'll back up a few months: Nov-Jan running block with 2 months in Hawaii chasing Strava segments while on long break from work. Fun! Managed a 17 min 5k time trial segment win!

January 10 I started back house framing here in the cold 6-8 hours a day. Normally I can balance cold work hours with solid Zwift sessions at night indefinitely, it keeps me sane actually. This year was different as I decided to prioritize DH skiing for the first time since really getting after endurance training.

I would work until 3, ski until 5 go home and try to Zwift later in the evening and every time my legs felt dead, played out. I was maxing my daily capability and trying to avoid burnout. Tour Du Zwift almost killed me... lol. I followed my gut and eased back on the Zwifting and just skied as the snow was good.

I than the realization that DH skiing is actual HIIT training! 3-5 min of hard leg effort with hard rest between runs. It explained exactly how I felt and I rolled with it. I treated it like a 3 month HIIT block. I would still do real easy Zwift sessions 30-40 minutes a few nights a week.

Coming into TOW I made solid effort to NOT ski the week coming into the races and had awesome results, new FTP, solid results in general that felt like genuine break through of long plateau. The last 2 weeks I have been suffering the painful transition back to running legs. I have all the power from skiing and aerobic engine from biking but leg speed is lacking, aiming for a 5k race next week. Breaking 18 might be a challenge, we will see...

just my .02 as skiing might be good for something in this application!

Since this thread likes training nerd topics, interesting post about "The New Science of “Fatigue Resistance," including the difference between U23 riders development tier and pros: https://www.outsideonline.com/242246...tance-research

If you like the article/topic, I highly recommend the author of the article's book, "Endure: Mind, Body, and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance" It's not cycling-specific but is fascinating: http://amzn.to/2GMlFWo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carpathian

Xtra,

I had a revelation in my training this last winter in terms of seeing the value of alpine skiing as it relates to endurance sports. Tell me if I'm wrong in assessment...

I am 41 and coming up on 5 years of consistent training here next month. I long ago nabbed the low hanging fruit and have been battling the laws of diminishing returns for a few years now. Work and family being the obvious time restrictors to my training ambitions.

I'll back up a few months: Nov-Jan running block with 2 months in Hawaii chasing Strava segments while on long break from work. Fun! Managed a 17 min 5k time trial segment win!

January 10 I started back house framing here in the cold 6-8 hours a day. Normally I can balance cold work hours with solid Zwift sessions at night indefinitely, it keeps me sane actually. This year was different as I decided to prioritize DH skiing for the first time since really getting after endurance training.

I would work until 3, ski until 5 go home and try to Zwift later in the evening and every time my legs felt dead, played out. I was maxing my daily capability and trying to avoid burnout. Tour Du Zwift almost killed me... lol. I followed my gut and eased back on the Zwifting and just skied as the snow was good.

I than the realization that DH skiing is actual HIIT training! 3-5 min of hard leg effort with hard rest between runs. It explained exactly how I felt and I rolled with it. I treated it like a 3 month HIIT block. I would still do real easy Zwift sessions 30-40 minutes a few nights a week.

Coming into TOW I made solid effort to NOT ski the week coming into the races and had awesome results, new FTP, solid results in general that felt like genuine break through of long plateau. The last 2 weeks I have been suffering the painful transition back to running legs. I have all the power from skiing and aerobic engine from biking but leg speed is lacking, aiming for a 5k race next week. Breaking 18 might be a challenge, we will see...

just my .02 as skiing might be good for something in this application!

---

Yeah-
Depending on the skiing, it can certainly function similar to a HIIT / Strength session.

I think you did the right thing in dialing back the riding and keeping it easy. Great job listening to those dead legs and not trying to push through it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethschmautz

Xtra, I need some advice.

I had a really great 3 weeks riding in Moab and St George and am feeling like I'm starting the season strong. I have a gravel grinder on August 22nd. The ride is 78 miles with 8700 feet of climbing and I want to build from where I'm at currently.

Generally, my weeks will have a hard group (mountain bike) ride on Monday nights right around 1.5 hours long. I generally can sneak away for an hour ride at lunch a few days a week and as our days get longer here in Montana will probably need to put in more early mornings and late evenings to work around time with the family. I can also take advantage of a fairly flat 20 mile commute to/from work also to get some intervals in.

How would you suggest structuring my training this summer to arrive at the ride on 8/22 at my strongest? Thanks in advance.

Sethhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...22376b7fdd.jpg

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

---

If it were me, I'd go with a 3-week block periodization rotation. I say this because you're looking to increase fitness while being mindful of family time. Instead of trying to balance riding vs. family each week, this scheme allows you to be present for 2 out of 3 weeks, with one week where you're trying to fit in as much riding as possible.

Week 1: Intensity (7 to 8 total hours per week)
- 4 Hard workouts: These should be difficult, but not so devastating that you struggle with the follow-up workouts during the week. Your legs should feel pretty tired by the end of the week, and you should be happy to keep the Sunday longer ride easy.
Monday- Threshold Intervals (Group ride, go all in with it).
Tuesday: VO2 Intervals (intervals 8 minutes and less)
Wednesday: Off
Thursday: Base ride 1-hour (Keep this easy, ensure you're at base)
Friday: Threshold Intervals
Saturday: VO2 Intervals
Sunday: Longer Base Ride (2+ hours). (Keep this easy, ensure you're at base)'

Week 2: Volume
Basically get in as much volume as you can; 2 a day trainer sessions, long rides, whatever you can do. You can do your Monday Group Ride, but try not to crush it. Your legs ought to start off tired, but they ought to "come around" as the week progresses, if they do not begin to feel better, I'd question if you were riding too hard.

Week 3: Recovery (5 hours per week)
5 rides, all ~ 1 hour, all base zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

If it were me, I'd go with a 3-week block periodization rotation. I say this because you're looking to increase fitness while being mindful of family time. Instead of trying to balance riding vs. family each week, this scheme allows you to be present for 2 out of 3 weeks, with one week where you're trying to fit in as much riding as possible.

Week 1: Intensity (7 to 8 total hours per week)
- 4 Hard workouts: These should be difficult, but not so devastating that you struggle with the follow-up workouts during the week. Your legs should feel pretty tired by the end of the week, and you should be happy to keep the Sunday longer ride easy.
Monday- Threshold Intervals (Group ride, go all in with it).
Tuesday: VO2 Intervals (intervals 8 minutes and less)
Wednesday: Off
Thursday: Base ride 1-hour (Keep this easy, ensure you're at base)
Friday: Threshold Intervals
Saturday: VO2 Intervals
Sunday: Longer Base Ride (2+ hours). (Keep this easy, ensure you're at base)'

Week 2: Volume
Basically get in as much volume as you can; 2 a day trainer sessions, long rides, whatever you can do. You can do your Monday Group Ride, but try not to crush it. Your legs ought to start off tired, but they ought to "come around" as the week progresses, if they do not begin to feel better, I'd question if you were riding too hard.

Week 3: Recovery (5 hours per week)
5 rides, all ~ 1 hour, all base zone.

---

Pickles,

Thanks a ton for the thoughtful response. Would you have a recommendation on a resource for calculating my zones? Training Peaks seems to have 5 (7, really) hr zones but I'm not sure which zones might align with the base, threshold and VO2 intervals mentioned above.

I may be asking the wrong question here, but being such a training newb I'm trying to figure out how to define and measure that I'm doing Threshold intervals, VO2 intervals or are in the "base" zone so I follow this plan appropriately.

Thanks in advance,

Seth

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Have you done an FTP test recently? I believe most people build their base/threshold/VO2 numbers on that. Training Peaks will calculate your zones for you if you do one. Of course, HR and FTP correlate, but it seems like most people are building plans around watts and not HR now. But listen to Pickles as I could be wrong. I just figured I'd offer that before asking him this question based on the plan he suggested for you:

In running, it was always my understanding that when I had a long race (marathon or longer) coming up I'd follow a plan to build up mileage/vert until I was nearly approximating my race. Is it assumed in your answer to Seth that he'd be using week 2 to do that? Or is that less important in biking than running?

edit to add - I'm waitlisted for the same race as what I think is the same race as you in August, Seth (TLBR?). Will shoot you a PM if I get in.