Cycling Workouts: Discussion/Encouragement/Sharing/Banter

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Having watched another Youtube video (and read countless articles) proclaiming the virtues of riding very slow to get faster and fitter I am wondering why this myth still persists? It seems to be extrapolated from a pro cyclists training plan where they will spend 15-20 hours a week at low Zone 2. The two main issues with trying to devise a training plan for a non pro following these principles are that no amateur has the same amount of volume as a pro, and a pro is so much fitter that Zone 2 to them is likely 250 watts or more and 22mph, so not slow at all, just a lower intensity.

Having spent years as a beginner riding at what I now know was basically Zone 1, I never got particularly fit. Having undertaken lab tests and got some advice from a qualified sports and exercise physiologist, the thing that actually made me fit on 12-15 or so hours a week was intensity, lots of tempo and sub threshold riding. Within 6 months of riding 2-3 x 90min tempo rides per week I went from an average of about 27kmh to around 32kmh on these particular rides, and a wattage increase of around 15%.

Far more beneficial would be to say if you are a relatively experienced rider who has maybe 8-10 hrs a week to train, do most of it at a moderate intensity (mid to upper Zone 2 or low zone 3) with some hard stuff thrown in and a little bit of easy riding. I suspect there are a lot of cyclists deliberately riding around at 13-15mph barley getting out of breath and wondering why they aren't getting faster.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I went from an average of about 27kmh to around 32kmh on these particular rides, and a wattage increase of around 15%.

You need approx 47% more watts to go from 27km/h to 32km/h. If you truly only saw a 15% increase then a lot of other significant changes must have been made mostly around aerodynamics.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I’ve finished my main events for the year. I am now in a transition phase where I’ll just have a bit of fun. I like riding my bike anyway so volume probably won’t dip massively but it won’t be structured.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

You need approx 47% more watts to go from 27km/h to 32km/h. If you truly only saw a 15% increase then a lot of other significant changes must have been made mostly around aerodynamics.

Mid 160's to around 190-195 (AP not NP). Yes, other things certainly would have changed around aerodynamics, going from hands on top of bars to riding on hoods/drops, just as I was naturally doing a harder effort, changes to cadence as well etc.

 

[Norry1]

Having watched another Youtube video (and read countless articles) proclaiming the virtues of riding very slow to get faster and fitter I am wondering why this myth still persists? It seems to be extrapolated from a pro cyclists training plan where they will spend 15-20 hours a week at low Zone 2. The two main issues with trying to devise a training plan for a non pro following these principles are that no amateur has the same amount of volume as a pro, and a pro is so much fitter that Zone 2 to them is likely 250 watts or more and 22mph, so not slow at all, just a lower intensity.

Having spent years as a beginner riding at what I now know was basically Zone 1, I never got particularly fit. Having undertaken lab tests and got some advice from a qualified sports and exercise physiologist, the thing that actually made me fit on 12-15 or so hours a week was intensity, lots of tempo and sub threshold riding. Within 6 months of riding 2-3 x 90min tempo rides per week I went from an average of about 27kmh to around 32kmh on these particular rides, and a wattage increase of around 15%.

Far more beneficial would be to say if you are a relatively experienced rider who has maybe 8-10 hrs a week to train, do most of it at a moderate intensity (mid to upper Zone 2 or low zone 3) with some hard stuff thrown in and a little bit of easy riding. I suspect there are a lot of cyclists deliberately riding around at 13-15mph barley getting out of breath and wondering why they aren't getting faster.

I'm not quite sure what part of the "myth" you are debating. Most advice is to do a lot of Zone 2 riding but also to do say 20% of your training really hard.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I'm not quite sure what part of the "myth" you are debating. Most advice is to do a lot of Zone 2 riding but also to do say 20% of your training really hard.

The myth that riding slowly makes you fast, as I explained above. Telling a beginner or reasonably experienced amateur riding less than 10 hours per week to spend most of those hours in zone 1 or low zone 2 is unlikely to make them considerably faster.

 

[Dogtrousers]

"Ride slow to get fast" gives you the counter intuitive "really?" moment to make you click/read the video/article.

For instance, this popped up on my feed recently. I've not watched it (yet) but it's the opposite of "ride slow to get fast", it's "do short intervals for a long endurance event". Same couter-intuitive hook.

Short intervals for a 14 hour event? How intriguing. I must click it.

Meanwhile, a year ago...

Only zone 2? How intriguing. I must click it.

 

[Webbo2]

My weekly routine is a couple of interval sessions then a couple longish rides 100K plus. Even in winter it’s a couple of 50 minute interval sessions then a 100K plus ride.

 

[IrishAl]

I remember once being told “to get faster you need to start experiencing ‘fast’” or something along those lines. There was always the Sunday warriors in my club that refused to go above zone 2 (in reality they would sit in a pack in zone 1) over the ‘off season’. ‘Build a big wide base to get a bigger / higher peak’ I.e. lots of low intensity base miles to have the platform to the bigger harder efforts. I’m sure this has a lot of truths, but as a relatively ‘time-crunched’ amateur I don’t have the luxury of more than a 90 minute ride outside of the weekends, so I do believe in the intervals work and making sure to hit each power zone for varying amounts of time/intervals is what gets me to my albeit limited peak cycling ability.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I remember once being told “to get faster you need to start experiencing ‘fast’” or something along those lines. There was always the Sunday warriors in my club that refused to go above zone 2 (in reality they would sit in a pack in zone 1) over the ‘off season’. ‘Build a big wide base to get a bigger / higher peak’ I.e. lots of low intensity base miles to have the platform to the bigger harder efforts. I’m sure this has a lot of truths, but as a relatively ‘time-crunched’ amateur I don’t have the luxury of more than a 90 minute ride outside of the weekends, so I do believe in the intervals work and making sure to hit each power zone for varying amounts of time/intervals is what gets me to my albeit limited peak cycling ability.

I would agree, this is the best 'bang for your buck' for a lot of amateur riders IMO. As you say, and I think links to what I was posting previously, if you have a huge amount of hours at your disposal then undoubtedly you can spend a lot of time building an aerobic base, but unless you are a pro, or an amateur that happens to be very lucky and have 15+ hours a week to dedicate to riding, then low volume/greater intensity is best, not low volume/low intensity.

 

[HLaB]

The myth that riding slowly makes you fast, as I explained above. Telling a beginner or reasonably experienced amateur riding less than 10 hours per week to spend most of those hours in zone 1 or low zone 2 is unlikely to make them considerably faster.

Anyone who isn't mixing it up occasionally is just kidding themselves!

 

[Ming the Merciless]

YouTuber has got it wrong. It wasnt and isn’t about riding slow. It was about Z2 volume, which will only be slow if your Z3 and Z4 are also slow. It was never stated that you never rode at the higher intensities.

 

[Norry1]

YouTuber has got it wrong. It wasnt and isn’t about riding slow. It was about Z2 volume, which will only be slow if your Z3 and Z4 are also slow. It was never stated that you never rode at the higher intensities.

This is the point (points) I was trying (obviously not very well) to make.

Z2 is not easy if you do it properly and aim for zero coasting etc.

 

[HLaB]

I used Trainer Road's ‘Alternates’ function to select a VO2max workout of slightly lower difficulty to tonight’s scheduled VO2max work out, it gave me Spencer -2 (5 Blocks of 6 (30s on 15s off)).

I think it was pretty strong winds (30mph +) which meant I didn’t go deep enough though in the exposed Fens. I then decided to do it again to give me something to focus on rather the head wind although a lot of those intervals aren’t 125% VO2max,





The 1st workout alone:



It should have an IF of 0.83 👎

 

[HLaB]

I had Sleeping Beauty -5 in my calendar tonight and went out on a flat group ride route with the hopes of catching them to say hello when I cut the corner and being dragged up Holme Road into the strong headwind. I did the VO2max session then tempo'd to beat the light and meet them. I should have went endurance pace though as the Holme Level crossing was down and I was waiting on my own for about 20mins with the barriers down before they appeared and it was me doing the dragging.

PS it was also a chance to try out my new Sidi Sixties and they were very comfortable and seemed to help me spin better during intervals.