Clifton CC Discussion Board

The place to discuss racing and training.

Moderator: Moderators

by Dr Dave Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:06 am
I'm sure this has been asked before but I've been reading the training plan thread and reading around for a while and I am still struggling a bit:

As a generalisation it seems that most effective training advice seems to suggest that once you have a decent base then training around/just below/above your LT is the way to build speed/tolerance and hence 'improve'. I have a pretty reasonable understanding of the principles invloved (I think!) but frankly haven't found that my ability to self-assess my LT is much use at all. The average of the final 20 mins of a 30 minute TT equates to a figure which isn't tenable and perceived exertion varies wildly even after 18 months of flogging myself.

It's the same story with my Max HR which seems so low for my age that I think someone must be slipping a beta-blocker into my food!!

Maybe I am just not 'hard' enough to tolerate the exertion needed to make these things really meaningful but I am reasonably masochistic. I guess i'm asking whether getting properly tested is advisable and if so where locally will do me a ramp test/lactate measurement that I can trust at a reasonable price.

Thanks guys!

by tomf Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:11 pm
Lactate testing can be very useful; I don't have any local knowledge about where's good to go.

But I'm not sure getting a few lactate/watt/HR points is going to solve your problem. Basically I'm puzzled about this: "The average of the final 20 mins of a 30 minute TT equates to a figure which isn't tenable". Is it too high to maintain or to low to be credible?

Go on, upload a graph for us to pore over...

cheers
tom

by Dr Dave Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:01 am
OK, I should perhaps have said reliable or repeatable. The figure varies more than it should and is rather lower than I would expect for my age - 140-148 (I'm only just 44). Having said this, my MaxHR currently seems to be about 170 - again rather low so this is at least consistent.

The reason I'd like to be more confident as to the value is simply to enable me to set training zones that are going to be appropriate/efficient and not detrimental. Also I'd like to be sure that I'm not underperforming due to an element of overtraining.

Of course it may be simply that I was at the back of the queue when cycling genetics were handed out and that I simply have a cardiovascular system that isn't going to enable me to get much faster. If so at least I'll know and can aim for more audax/endurance type cycling.

I suppose I could always be a 'Cheque-book Charlie' and get a power meter - I assume that this would be a better way to to set zones but this seems a bit much for someone of my modest ability and aspirations!

P.S. Sorry, no graphs, I only have a basic HRM.

by justsweat Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:52 am
I think if you are really interested where you lactate threshold is and how to move forward on it, then you need to go to one of the uni's and get tested. Even that as my friend from the BOAC says is not enough until you have consistently been tested. However in truth and I've been tested now probably 20 times for various tests, there is only 1 or 2 beat different each time.

Again I will go back to my old argument, it is about 'fit for purpose' training. What you want to achieve and if it is realistic. I find the power I put out at a given HR moves greatly, but the amount of lactate stays roughly the same. Although and I found this really interesting, the amount I can tolerate, from a pain point of view has gone up. My physiologist says that we become desensitised with age. Although it still stops you operating.

Brian

by Dr Dave Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:57 am
justsweat wrote: I find the power I put out at a given HR moves greatly, but the amount of lactate stays roughly the same.


I guess this reinforces the premise that training by power is more reliable than by HR

justsweat wrote: it is about 'fit for purpose' training. What you want to achieve and if it is realistic.


It would be nice to progressively achieve faster times over the TTs, be able to contemplate Rob's Ullswater trip and similar rides, attain mid-range silver times in tougher sportives etc Is this realistic given my age, time available to train, other commitments etc? Perhaps not but it gives a flavour of the ability range I'd like to aim towards everything else being equal.

More realistically I would like to be as good as I can be given all the constraints and this for me means using my cycling time efficiently - hence the original question.

PS I do realise that I'm starting to sound a bit like Willhub here!!!!

by justsweat Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:15 pm
I would say it argues against training by power alone, as today you may be worrking at 200 watts @ HR 158 which is your lactate threshold. However as you get stronger you may work at 200 watts but your HR may only be 150, which is below lactate threshold, therefore you are not getting the benifets of a threshold session.

I honestly believe that you need to use the tools available to you, feel, HR, power, cadence (very underated). I aslo feel that you need to train for your goals and if you are not the most gifted athlete, which lots of us are not, then you can still achieve realistic goals on limited training time, but it has to be focused on that goal and the other parts are just pieces in that jigsaw.

My example on this would be the TT's I did last year, they where lactate threshold sessions for the big goal of RAAM, if I had been training for the TT's then the results would have een different.

Brian

by PhilBixby Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:54 pm
I'm much like you, Dave, in having limited time, limited ability and am a few years older too. My targets are different but I've done a training programme based on an average of 7hrs per week. Self employment means I get a bit of flexibility but I also get interruptions when must-do work intrudes, so it's swings and roundabouts. At the moment for example I'm doing two 3hr-ish steady rides per week plus two or three interval sessions on the turbo (so more than 7hrs, but it'll reduce when the race season approaches). I'm not that good at this lark but experience has been that if you target particular abilities, train methodically, you get improvements.

After about six months with a power meter I'd agree with Brian that it's best to make use of all available info - power, HR and perceived effort. The power meter's great for really targeting interval work, but HR's still useful (as long as you recognise how it behaves during efforts) as it's steadier than power output.

by Dr Dave Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:13 pm
Thanks for the reply guys

Reflecting on the above it is unfortunately the case that my 'goals' are mainly endurance based. Regretfully - apart from Saturdays - my training time is necessarily restricted to shortish sessions - certainly at the moment. (Spending several hours at a time on the turbo is I suppose vaguely feasible but realistically it ain't gonna happen unless I self-perform a lobotomy!)

Once the weather improves then longer evening rides are more feasible but still I will find it easier to do lots of 'fast/harder' sessions than 'putting the miles in'.

One thing that has come out of this thread is that I feel better having 'come out' in confessing that my training is more haphazard than I'd previously admitted to myself. I'm probably making excuses for the fact that I can't be arsed to properly structure what I'm doing to maximise the efficiency of the efforts I'm putting in.

by tomf Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:12 pm
I agree with Brian that Heart rate is a better (and cheaper) guide to training intensity than Power, because it correlates more closely with lactate levels.

The risk with paying for a lactate ramp test is that it gives you a number - the heartrate corresponding to your threshold output - which you don't like any better than the ones you have already.

But it's definitely worth trying to refine your training intensity. So here's a low-cost suggestion. Ideally use a turbo trainer and recording HRM (I don't have either!) but a good dry road and an ability to count would do. The idea is to use the power of averaging to iron out noise in your test figures:

Each week (say), do the same approx 10mi TT noting HR after 10min and at the end, as well as the time taken. Best done after a day off.

Each week aim to maintain the average speed of the previous week (much easier indoors with no conditions to deal with) but push on slightly after halfway if it feels to easy. No finish-line heroics.

Keep all the data. The idea is (a) to improve your TT pacing if that is a factor and (b) to get a series of comparable figures.

After say five weeks, look at all the average figures for hr10+hrEnd, discard highest+lowest and average the remaining three. That should be a pretty good estimate of threshold, with some good training into the bargain.

Worth a go?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron