Improving average speed

[oliglynn]

Looking here for some quick fixes to improve average speed for a friend of ours who's coming on a 3 day ~300 mile ride with us.

He's a little slow - averaging 12-14mph, and holds the rest of the group (we usually average 17-19) back considerably. He rides a reasonable road bike - tiagra groupset & carbon forks etc just like the rest of us.

We've recommended getting a pair of cycling shorts and pedals with cleats and, as he currently rides in trainers & baggy trousers. How much average speed could this potentially add?

Also any other suggestions to get him faster quickly would be appreciated. May even take some of the advice myself!

 

[amaferanga]

Don't think the pedals and lycra will make a huge difference - certainly not 4-5mph.

He needs to get his power up. Threshold intervals and/or just riding at a pace above his comfort zone should make a difference (I think a lot of cyclists just pootle around at a comfortable pace all the time even on short rides).

 

[marinyork]

We've recommended getting a pair of cycling shorts and pedals with cleats and, as he currently rides in trainers & baggy trousers. How much average speed could this potentially add?

About 0.5mph-1mph. Unless for some reason he's really not getting that much power down on flats and there's all this latent power waiting to be tapped.

Surely if he's been cycling some time and still doing 12-14mph (which you snobbily call slow) there's very little chance of him making such a gigantic improvement almost overnight (unless he's just not pushing hard enough).

 

[marinyork]

(I think a lot of cyclists just pootle around at a comfortable pace all the time even on short rides).

I used to think this until I got my HRM on a few mates. The results were somewhat interesting - that some people who regarded themselves as 'reasonably fit' or 'average' were chronically unfit and some of the people that went on about being 'overweight' and not a good cyclist were actually very average fitness wise and not doing too badly.

 

[JamesMorgan]

I used to think this until I got my HRM on a few mates. The results were somewhat interesting - that some people who regarded themselves as 'reasonably fit' or 'average' were chronically unfit and some of the people that went on about being 'overweight' and not a good cyclist were actually very average fitness wise and not doing too badly.

Not sure how you could easily tell this from a HRM. Everyone has a different max HR - this is just genetic and not related to fitness. Your fitness will be indicated by what percentage of your max HR you are registering at an given exertion level (specifically your power output). So to measure fitness of an individual you really need to know their max HR, their actual HR and their power output. A HRM only gives you one of these. You could use speed as a proxy for power, but this is not very accurate if the riders are different weights, or are riding different types of bikes. Alternatively you could estimate fitness based on recovery time, but ideally this again should be recovery from a similar exertion level (based on a % of your max HR). Finally HR is heavily influenced by other factors. I know when I am going down with a cold before I get any symptoms as my HR will around 20 bpm higher for the same exertion level.


However, having said all of that, I agree with your overall view that lots of people don't have a very good idea of their actual fitness level.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Bottom line is there are no quick fixes.

 

[marinyork]

Your fitness will be indicated by what percentage of your max HR you are registering at an given exertion level (specifically your power output). So to measure fitness of an individual you really need to know their max HR, their actual HR and their power output. A HRM only gives you one of these. You could use speed as a proxy for power, but this is not very accurate if the riders are different weights, or are riding different types of bikes. Alternatively you could estimate fitness based on recovery time, but ideally this again should be recovery from a similar exertion level (based on a % of your max HR). Finally HR is heavily influenced by other factors. I know when I am going down with a cold before I get any symptoms as my HR will around 20 bpm higher for the same exertion level.

Only a mess about guide, but what else is there to go on (it's not like I can drag them down to the lab for tests, that would be really interesting for all of us)? Was riding similar sort of bike on the same route at similar sort of speed. Did this on a few occasions (even tried exercise bike for like for like). All right so I did assume that their max HR was about the same as mine, but the numbers registered on the HR monitor were so large compared to mine I'm not sure that this was as much of a flawed assumption as it sounds. When I got my HRM I found out the nuanced variances in it, which was why I did it a few times for other people - similar result every time. I just found it a bit scary not the high rest heart rate for mates but how it spiked massively as soon as they did anything whatsoever. For a gentle 'pootle' it was like them getting levels of exercise at 80% of max HR (or what I'm guessing theirs is). Even some mates that did a bit of exercise didn't come off that well, which doesn't necessarily mean they would be bad cyclists with a bit of work as they had the muscles for it (I don't).

 

[JamesMorgan]

Only a mess about guide, but what else is there to go on (it's not like I can drag them down to the lab for tests, that would be really interesting for all of us)?

The main issue you have with this approach is that whilst the standard formula for max HR is 220-age, the standard deviation is +/- 10. This means that 95% of the population will be +/- 20 from the mean. So for a 40 year old you would expect their max HR to be between 160-200, or their 80% figure to be between 128-160. So 2 individuals may both have the same level of fitness, but one will have a HR of 128 and the other 160 for the same level of exertion.


I accept this may all seem a little pedantic but the main point I was trying to make is that HR is not a very good way to compare fitness between 2 individuals.

 

[oliglynn]

About 0.5mph-1mph. Unless for some reason he's really not getting that much power down on flats and there's all this latent power waiting to be tapped.

Surely if he's been cycling some time and still doing 12-14mph (which you snobbily call slow) there's very little chance of him making such a gigantic improvement almost overnight (unless he's just not pushing hard enough).

This guy has been cycling for a while, but just not long distances. He commutes under 2 miles each way by bike, and has been for a while. He also goes to the gym quite a lot, and is a lot slimmer (and I would have thought fitter) than me. Not being snobby with the remarks about slowness, fact is he is (surprisingly) rather significantly slower than the rest of us, which we all find a tad frustrating as we can't seem to get into a good rhythm when we're out due to having to constantly slow down / stop and wait. We want to help him get his speed up so we all work better together, and can all enjoy our 3 day ride (planned for July) better. We ususally go out once a week, so ideas for helping get him faster whilst out together would be appreciated! Usually we get ahead of him and have to wait up or slow it down.

 

[philhul]

At only 2 miles I wouldn't have thought that he's using the commute for fitness, only for a means to getting to and from work. Why doesn't he extend either going to or coming home from work to 5 miles or more a couple of times a week and really push it pace wise so that he is doing a bit of the threshold training. He must be able to add a bit of speed by July doing that?

 

[marinyork]

The main issue you have with this approach is that whilst the standard formula for max HR is 220-age, the standard deviation is +/- 10. This means that 95% of the population will be +/- 20 from the mean. So for a 40 year old you would expect their max HR to be between 160-200, or their 80% figure to be between 128-160. So 2 individuals may both have the same level of fitness, but one will have a HR of 128 and the other 160 for the same level of exertion.


I accept this may all seem a little pedantic but the main point I was trying to make is that HR is not a very good way to compare fitness between 2 individuals.

To cut the story short as I can't particularly be bothered with a trivial calculation my point was that the differences were as high as 70bpm in some cases for supposedly similar levels of exertion, which was why I wasn't too bothered with the errors. I was mostly interested in how these spikes came about in people that might well be below average fitness. Their rest rates weren't too bad in the mid 60s and then spiked massively in some cases. Shouldn't really be happening to people in their teens and 20s. It might not be a great surprise that their average speeds were sometimes as low as 7mph.

 

[JamesMorgan]

This guy has been cycling for a while, but just not long distances. He commutes under 2 miles each way by bike, and has been for a while. He also goes to the gym quite a lot, and is a lot slimmer (and I would have thought fitter) than me.

To average 17mph+ I would expect someone to be cycling at least 2-3000 miles/annum, and to be doing so for at least a year or two. It may be that he just doesn't have sufficient mileage under his belt. Depending on the type of his gym work he may not be building up cardio-vascular fitness. Weight isn't a good indicator of fitness. Ideally he should be doing significant cardio-vascular exercise of at least 30 min (preferably an hour) a few times a week

 

[edindave]

At only 2 miles I wouldn't have thought that he's using the commute for fitness, only for a means to getting to and from work. Why doesn't he extend either going to or coming home from work to 5 miles or more a couple of times a week and really push it pace wise so that he is doing a bit of the threshold training. He must be able to add a bit of speed by July doing that?

+1

This sounds like a sensible suggestion to me, and easily achievable.

 

[JamesMorgan]

To cut the story short as I can't particularly be bothered with a trivial calculation my point was that the differences were as high as 70bpm in some cases for supposedly similar levels of exertion, which was why I wasn't too bothered with the errors. I was mostly interested in how these spikes came about in people that might well be below average fitness. Their rest rates weren't too bad in the mid 60s and then spiked massively in some cases. Shouldn't really be happening to people in their teens and 20s. It might not be a great surprise that their average speeds were sometimes as low as 7mph.

I agree, differences of 70 bpm will almost certainly be down to differences in fitness levels. From personal experience when I've had a forced lay off for a few months, it is surprising just how quickly you lose fitness and how high your HR rises with only modest levels of exercise. My body may still look fit, but my cardio-vascular system certainly isn't.

 

[marinyork]

This guy has been cycling for a while, but just not long distances. He commutes under 2 miles each way by bike, and has been for a while. He also goes to the gym quite a lot, and is a lot slimmer (and I would have thought fitter) than me. Not being snobby with the remarks about slowness, fact is he is (surprisingly) rather significantly slower than the rest of us, which we all find a tad frustrating as we can't seem to get into a good rhythm when we're out due to having to constantly slow down / stop and wait. We want to help him get his speed up so we all work better together, and can all enjoy our 3 day ride (planned for July) better. We ususally go out once a week, so ideas for helping get him faster whilst out together would be appreciated! Usually we get ahead of him and have to wait up or slow it down.

I wouldn't have thought that level of cycling was anywhere near enough on paper to be getting those sorts of improvements. Nowhere near enough. I suppose he wouldn't have to go absolutely mad distance wise if he was doing targeted training rides 2-3 times a week.

As someone who actually is in that 'slightly slow' speed range, for all I know he might well have the same problem as me. I found it was pretty easy doing 30 milers and took a long time to get used to 60+ milers (still not really used to them). I think it's a bit misleading on here as too many people post in the newbies section saying I did whatever ride of 50-100 miles at a reasonable pace after only 2 months of cycling, it's easy to forget not everyone can do that. What sort of gears does he spin in and at what cadence? Perhaps trying to sustain 17mph he's having to churn a gear massively larger than what he's used to? I know if I was doing that as soon as it goes above 16mph I run into problems as the gearing gets too big and I can't spin fast enough to compensate.

If you're better riders than him surely he's getting benefit out of it though.