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.