Hitting a wall at 160bpm

[IanSmithCSE]

Good morning,

In the past I have usually had a routine of 2-3 years of lots of exercise and 2-3 years of work enforced idleness, my last three jobs were 127 miles, 100 miles and 40 miles (slow roads) commutes each way.

Most times when I started to get fit again I included a weight training element, as I learnt this at school I was happy joining a gym without a specialist cycling coach.

This time I started without any weight training and it was much harder and I wasn't making as much progress as I expected, so I added the weights back in a progress blossomed.

Actually I had a false start as I started in the winter on a fancy stationary bike with a tablet that showed routes through, Paris, Cote d'Azure etc.

I am lucky as I live 5 minutes walk from a small gym that doesn't have many body builders slamming weights down and loud pop music

Without weights you can boost your progress by finding a short and steep hill and ride up and down it for 20 minutes rather than carrying on with your ride but this is very boring.

I also have a ride once a week that is only 14 miles long but I do it flat out, I mean getting home dripping sweat, this seams to help to increase lung capacity, as does running.

If you find a gym or go jogging I wouldn't be surprised that you can find a running speed where you would be breathing much more deeply than you do when cycling but can maintain for 15-20 minutes. If you don't run at the moment this may be something like 6-7mph.

Bye

Ian

 

[Drago]

There are all sorts of things you can do, but...

...is it really a big deal? You don't say how old you are, but for me at very nearly 50 it certainly doesn't matter. On a steep climb I often have to drop to a low cog, but I still get to the top come what may.

Like Ian Smith above, I lift as well. My reasons are different, I clang and bang big iron for mass, but it can benefit riding too. Makes the muscles more efficient at extracting what it needs from the blood, and increases capillary flow so allows the blood to get around the place more efficiently.

 

[Racing roadkill]

People are often surprised that cycling doesn’t require a lot of strength. If you can hop on one leg, without collapsing in a heap, you have sufficient leg strength. If you supplement your riding with something like gym stuff, ensure your doing them in a way that encourages endurance, not mass / strength. So high reps, done quickly, with relatively low weight. When you’re riding hills, try to keep the riding as efficient as possible, so remain seated for as long as possible ( maintain as many contact points with the bike as you can ) ride in a gear that allows you to maintain a cadence of 80-90 rpms, for as long as possible ( you’ll be making whatever power you’re making, most efficiently then) try to keep your arms and shoulders as relaxed as you can, resist the temptation to death grip the bars, that will reduce the oxygen demand to muscles other than the ones that are most important. If you do have to stand, keep your back straight, head up, hips forward. The more hills you do, the better you’ll get at them.

 

[nickyboy]

Max heart rate isn't a good metric. We are all differebt. 160 may be your max heart rate at threshold power

What matters is extracting max power at, for example, 160bpm. Two things;

If you're overweight, lose weight

Cycle up hills as hard as you can. Do interval sessions if you have time and can handle the boredom

 

[irw]

Did anyone else misread the title as 'Hitting a wall at 160mph'?

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Smaller people have a greater power-to-weight ratio than larger people, assuming equal levels of fitness. If you want to climb hills better, you need to be as fit as you can be, you need strong legs, you need decent technique, but above all, you need to be small.

Power to weight ratio depends on how much of your bodyweight is useful muscle, and how much of it is lard. Being small in stature is no advantage if you aren't physically strong. There's also the question of the ratio of bike weight to rider weight, where a strong heavy rider on a light bike will have an advantage over a smaller lighter rider whose bike is a greater percentage of their bodyweight.

 

[MikeG]

Power to weight ratio depends on how much of your bodyweight is useful muscle, and how much of it is lard. Being small in stature is no advantage if you aren't physically strong. There's also the question of the ratio of bike weight to rider weight, where a strong heavy rider on a light bike will have an advantage over a smaller lighter rider whose bike is a greater percentage of their bodyweight.

I did say "assuming equal levels of fitness", which makes your first point redundant. I said "you need strong legs", which makes your second point redundant. As for your third, if this point (bike weight: body weight ratio) were true, Petr Sagan would beat Yates, Froome and Geraint Thomas to the top of every hill. He doesn't. So, I'll say again, all things being equal, the small guy will beat the big guy up the hill. If you want to go up a hill faster, get smaller.

 

[Heltor Chasca]

Sounds like our HR is similar. My max is 170. That hasn’t changed in the last year, but with improved fitness I just find it easier and I can work longer at a higher HR (like 160) I can happily chug for hours on end at about 130.

And like it was said upthread, we are all different. I was watching a video of an older guy doing the PBP (1400km?) where his virb camera also showed his HR. Rarely did you see it over about 115BPM !

 

[Racing roadkill]

And like it was said upthread, we are all different. I was watching a video of an older guy doing the PBP (1400km?) where his virb camera also showed his HR. Rarely did you see it over about 115BPM !

That’s because he was doing an LSD ride. You want to keep your power / HR in a relatively low zone ( 2 or 3 ) for as long as possible, to prevent having to refuel too often on this type of ride.

 

[nickAKA]

Sounds like our HR is similar. My max is 170. That hasn’t changed in the last year, but with improved fitness I just find it easier and I can work longer at a higher HR (like 160) I can happily chug for hours on end at about 130.

Somebody (a bloke on a bike obviously) told me to take your max heart rate & subtract your age to get your 'all day ride' endurance heart rate - it's absolutely spot on in my case. When I'm out doing a shorter training ride I aim to average 10bpm over this figure to add a bit of extra stress in without overdoing it, and this works for me perfectly.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Somebody (a bloke on a bike obviously) told me to take your max heart rate & subtract your age to get your 'all day ride' endurance heart rate - it's absolutely spot on in my case. When I'm out doing a shorter training ride I aim to average 10bpm over this figure to add a bit of extra stress in without overdoing it, and this works for me perfectly.

There are more scientific ways of determining it now. FTP determination and ‘4DP’ will give you accurate HR / power zones with which to work.

 

[gilespargiter]

^^ Yes it very much depends on how long and how much you have been doing. There is many a 60yr old who can completely make a nonsense of an average 20yr old's stats, (and apparently they are worried about paying our pensions - I'm concerned about there medical bills!!).

 

[nickAKA]

^^ Yes it very much depends on how long and how much you have been doing. There is many a 60yr old who can completely make a nonsense of an average 20yr old's stats, (and apparently they are worried about paying our pensions - I'm concerned about there medical bills!!).

Yeah I guess the older you get whilst maintaining your base fitness the less true it becomes, works the opposite if you're young and unfit!

 

[Ticktockmy]

Hard to give advice as we are all different. I am in my late 70's and happily out cycle some much younger guys.. over a shorter distance before I become knackered. mind a lot more do wiss by leaving me in thier dust trail so it all swings and roundabouts. The thing about Heart rates is also confusing. The old way of using 220 minus age, gives me a MHR or 143 whereas the current idea of using 214-(0.8X77) gives me 152.4 so I work my training at the higher figure.. As I have a low 50's resting heart rate from years of cycling, running and mountaineering I really struggle to even get near to my MHR even on the trainer. Having consulted my doctor at one stage about by low resting heart rate, he sugggested after doing all the test I was very fit or dead. So I think if you have any concerns that things are not happening as they should get a medicial check, better safe than sorry. As an after thought the womens rate is worked out as 209-(0.9xage)

 

[ColinJ]

Your MHR is what your MHR is, not what some calculation says that it should be!

I hit 199 bpm on a 25% climb into a headwind once and I reckon I was maybe 2 or 3 beats off my maximum. (I didn't actually fall off my bike with the effort, but I didn't have much effort left!) I was in my mid-30s at the time so 220-age would have given me about 185 bpm. Another formula that I have seen is 207 - (0.7 x age), which would have given me about 182 bpm. Both clearly significantly wrong for me at the time!

I was also 'abnormal' at the other extreme, having a RHR of 33-34 bpm.

It shows that using a formula is probably a waste of time. It might be right, it might be very wrong.