I need to get faster on the bike. How (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2014-10-04 5:24 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: I need to get faster on the bike. How Originally posted by GMAN 19030 Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by GMAN 19030 Not to take this topic off the rails but I'm moving more towards the polarized training approach for next season. All the training is either high Z1 or high Z4/low Z5. 80% low, 20% high. Theory is the easy allows you to recover so that you can hit the hard workouts. There is no Z3/threshold/sweet spot stuff, except for some specificity training closer to race day. I have used the threshold/sweet spot training philosophy for a number of years and saw great results. Two things happened this year: 1) I plateaued and 2) I wasn't recovering properly which put me in a fatigue rut that I'm still dealing with. I need to change it up and I like the stuff I've been reading regarding the polarized approach, which is far more popular in Europe and Africa than in North America. This still seems very relevant. I've had some success and struggles using both. I've had similar plateaus with threshold and sweet spot, even with keeping up at 90-93% for the low end of SS. And have also had trouble really implementing the more polarized approach at Seiler's points. Think I had the bike work figured ok, but not the totality of training. Namely figuring out swimming as I was pushing that too. Did improve a little more and had some more race ready sharpness, but had enough trouble hitting 100% or more that I didn't gain as much as expected. There was a newer thread on ST regarding this, within the past few months. Not the gigantic one from awhile back. Andrew Coggan weighed in on it a few times with some adjustments that seemed to fit close to what I had been thinking already. Will try to find it sometime soon if you haven't seen it already. I've read the later and earlier threads on ST. The larger thread from earlier this year really peaked my interest in this training philosophy. I'm in my mid-40's now (move up to M45-49 in 2015) and I really need to think about recovery. I really shelled myself the last 18 months (trained for five Ironman races) and I just wasn't doing enough easy to recover well and it bit me in the arse this year. I'm hoping to snag a 70.3 WC slot next year and doing three early season 70.3's in which I will train using the polarized method. Puerto Rico in March and NOLA and Texas in April. I'll see how it works for me. I'm also doing Syracuse 70.3 in June so I can adjust if I'm not seeing results from the early races. What I saw from Coggan's posting (they were spread in a few threads) is that he didn't see the idea as significantly different, at least not as much as some were trying to make of it. The big difference is that Seiler found VT2 up at threshold whereas Coggan may move that around depending on the demands of the event. In the later threads, it seems like he may still stay out of Z3 for the most part, or the 80's (as a %FTP), but may have more work in the 90's or so depending on what the event calls for. So there still is the hi/lo, but just not as fixed as what Seiler was showing. Good luck on the qualification attempts! Edited by brigby1 2014-10-04 5:25 PM |
|
2014-10-04 8:20 PM in reply to: respro |
107 | Subject: RE: I need to get faster on the bike. How Thanks for the info folks. I have my HR monitor now and I'm going to hit the trainer hard this off season. I have a Cyclops fluid 2 trainer. Will I be able to use some of these new training software's like trainer road etc with my trainer? |
2014-10-05 8:40 AM in reply to: 0 |
Veteran 629 Grapevine, TX | Subject: RE: I need to get faster on the bike. How Taking the bike itself out of the equation (there's always a faster bike for a given condition)...as well as the helmet (surprising gains can be made at wind relative speeds of 18 mph + with an aero helmet). Well you can ride harder and longer. That's a big part of it of course. But a lot of it is fit and riding position. And if you are deficient you can train against these and make permanent gains quickly. The bike fit answer seems obvious, but you need to realize that, on the same bike, your optimal fit last year won't be your fit this year. As your musculature, bones and tendons change, so is it needed to tune the fit. And it would be good to learn to tune it yourself. Regardless of the hype, a mechanical tuning (one done with a machine) relies on standard geometries plus an observation of your body's response, plus the art of the fitting artist. But at the end of the day, they get you within 90% of the fit. Over time, you can tune that last 10% for speed gains. Does you saddle need to come up a quarter inch? Or move back? How have you changed your center of gravity? Do you get more power with an over-extended leg (from an ideal fit perspective)? Or less? And so on. We all have different body types. Learning how yours is different and making small adjustments can get you some speed. Mechanical linkage systems have been studied for hundreds of years. Our bodies and bikes are somewhat rigidly connected, forming a classical mechanical linkage, but we also have flesh, a highly deformable 'solid'; our contact to the seat is gravitational and so on. These variances mean that fitting is an art on top of a science. So how your "bike fit" fits you may not result in the fastest bike. Also, bike position is huge. We all know the body angle-wind effect one, that's obvious. But there are other huge contributors. Some people bike with their knees splaying outwards on the downstroke, dramatically increasing frontal area without actually feeling it and end up losing valuable mph. The angle at which you make contact with your aerobars, and the shape of the aerobars themselves also matters. One pro utilizes a frontal position like that of the classical downhill skiers, who travel at more than 60 mph and must have the most aero effect of almost any body sport. The location of your body relative to the vertical axis of the crank, most easily measured in practice by where your nose is relative to your front axle, is also very important. As you move forward on the saddle, you reach an optimum downstroke without sacrificing too much upstroke efficiency, easily propelling your bike up to several mph faster for the same conditions than if you sit too far back (a common issue). None of the bike fits I had positioned me that way. The point is, there are many things beyond the obvious, required training that can help you squeeze out extra speed without extra effort. Forever tuning each in a little way as you put in the effort is the secret to maximizing speed. Edited by FranzZemen 2014-10-05 8:40 AM |
2014-10-05 9:36 AM in reply to: brigby1 |
Extreme Veteran 1986 Cypress, TX | Subject: RE: I need to get faster on the bike. How Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by GMAN 19030 Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by GMAN 19030 Not to take this topic off the rails but I'm moving more towards the polarized training approach for next season. All the training is either high Z1 or high Z4/low Z5. 80% low, 20% high. Theory is the easy allows you to recover so that you can hit the hard workouts. There is no Z3/threshold/sweet spot stuff, except for some specificity training closer to race day. I have used the threshold/sweet spot training philosophy for a number of years and saw great results. Two things happened this year: 1) I plateaued and 2) I wasn't recovering properly which put me in a fatigue rut that I'm still dealing with. I need to change it up and I like the stuff I've been reading regarding the polarized approach, which is far more popular in Europe and Africa than in North America. This still seems very relevant. I've had some success and struggles using both. I've had similar plateaus with threshold and sweet spot, even with keeping up at 90-93% for the low end of SS. And have also had trouble really implementing the more polarized approach at Seiler's points. Think I had the bike work figured ok, but not the totality of training. Namely figuring out swimming as I was pushing that too. Did improve a little more and had some more race ready sharpness, but had enough trouble hitting 100% or more that I didn't gain as much as expected. There was a newer thread on ST regarding this, within the past few months. Not the gigantic one from awhile back. Andrew Coggan weighed in on it a few times with some adjustments that seemed to fit close to what I had been thinking already. Will try to find it sometime soon if you haven't seen it already. I've read the later and earlier threads on ST. The larger thread from earlier this year really peaked my interest in this training philosophy. I'm in my mid-40's now (move up to M45-49 in 2015) and I really need to think about recovery. I really shelled myself the last 18 months (trained for five Ironman races) and I just wasn't doing enough easy to recover well and it bit me in the arse this year. I'm hoping to snag a 70.3 WC slot next year and doing three early season 70.3's in which I will train using the polarized method. Puerto Rico in March and NOLA and Texas in April. I'll see how it works for me. I'm also doing Syracuse 70.3 in June so I can adjust if I'm not seeing results from the early races. What I saw from Coggan's posting (they were spread in a few threads) is that he didn't see the idea as significantly different, at least not as much as some were trying to make of it. The big difference is that Seiler found VT2 up at threshold whereas Coggan may move that around depending on the demands of the event. In the later threads, it seems like he may still stay out of Z3 for the most part, or the 80's (as a %FTP), but may have more work in the 90's or so depending on what the event calls for. So there still is the hi/lo, but just not as fixed as what Seiler was showing. Good luck on the qualification attempts! I still haven't cobbled together my training plan yet but will go back and reference those threads when I do. My problem was I was doing too much in that Z3 wasteland and just not getting enough recovery. A lot of those studies found most folks doing about 50% easy, 40% medium/threshold, and 10% hard. The polarized approach is 80% easy and 20% hard. I was probably doing 30% easy, 60% medium/threshold, and 10% hard. The bike percentages were probably 15% easy, 70% threshold, 15% hard. I just was not doing enough easy. I do like the working theory over on the ST threads that you basically do one real hard workout per week in each discipline and the rest is easy. Switch to some specificity training closer to the race. Seems to make sense. |
2014-10-05 10:08 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: I need to get faster on the bike. How Originally posted by GMAN 19030 Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by GMAN 19030 Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by GMAN 19030 Not to take this topic off the rails but I'm moving more towards the polarized training approach for next season. All the training is either high Z1 or high Z4/low Z5. 80% low, 20% high. Theory is the easy allows you to recover so that you can hit the hard workouts. There is no Z3/threshold/sweet spot stuff, except for some specificity training closer to race day. I have used the threshold/sweet spot training philosophy for a number of years and saw great results. Two things happened this year: 1) I plateaued and 2) I wasn't recovering properly which put me in a fatigue rut that I'm still dealing with. I need to change it up and I like the stuff I've been reading regarding the polarized approach, which is far more popular in Europe and Africa than in North America. This still seems very relevant. I've had some success and struggles using both. I've had similar plateaus with threshold and sweet spot, even with keeping up at 90-93% for the low end of SS. And have also had trouble really implementing the more polarized approach at Seiler's points. Think I had the bike work figured ok, but not the totality of training. Namely figuring out swimming as I was pushing that too. Did improve a little more and had some more race ready sharpness, but had enough trouble hitting 100% or more that I didn't gain as much as expected. There was a newer thread on ST regarding this, within the past few months. Not the gigantic one from awhile back. Andrew Coggan weighed in on it a few times with some adjustments that seemed to fit close to what I had been thinking already. Will try to find it sometime soon if you haven't seen it already. I've read the later and earlier threads on ST. The larger thread from earlier this year really peaked my interest in this training philosophy. I'm in my mid-40's now (move up to M45-49 in 2015) and I really need to think about recovery. I really shelled myself the last 18 months (trained for five Ironman races) and I just wasn't doing enough easy to recover well and it bit me in the arse this year. I'm hoping to snag a 70.3 WC slot next year and doing three early season 70.3's in which I will train using the polarized method. Puerto Rico in March and NOLA and Texas in April. I'll see how it works for me. I'm also doing Syracuse 70.3 in June so I can adjust if I'm not seeing results from the early races. What I saw from Coggan's posting (they were spread in a few threads) is that he didn't see the idea as significantly different, at least not as much as some were trying to make of it. The big difference is that Seiler found VT2 up at threshold whereas Coggan may move that around depending on the demands of the event. In the later threads, it seems like he may still stay out of Z3 for the most part, or the 80's (as a %FTP), but may have more work in the 90's or so depending on what the event calls for. So there still is the hi/lo, but just not as fixed as what Seiler was showing. Good luck on the qualification attempts! I still haven't cobbled together my training plan yet but will go back and reference those threads when I do. My problem was I was doing too much in that Z3 wasteland and just not getting enough recovery. A lot of those studies found most folks doing about 50% easy, 40% medium/threshold, and 10% hard. The polarized approach is 80% easy and 20% hard. I was probably doing 30% easy, 60% medium/threshold, and 10% hard. The bike percentages were probably 15% easy, 70% threshold, 15% hard. I just was not doing enough easy. I do like the working theory over on the ST threads that you basically do one real hard workout per week in each discipline and the rest is easy. Switch to some specificity training closer to the race. Seems to make sense. Definitely a lot in the middle there! Be curious to see how (or if) you end up working some of the rides that are bigger and harder with this concept. Think swimming was the one killing the ratio for me. Had a hard time figuring out what easy was without going too easy. I'll be pushing much more on the bike & run and have much better feel on those, so it should work better. Also saw the 3 hard/week, but will be trying just a bit different. More like 2-3 harder days per week, hoping to work towards some morning & evening harder sessions on those days. It'll take some practice in figuring out just how big the hard can be for each, plus moving the balance more towards the discipline I want to emphasize more. Should be fun! Edited by brigby1 2014-10-05 10:11 PM |
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|