Training %

[Sam Kennedy]

(If this belongs in the training forum feel free to move it)

I was wondering what % of training should be spent at the following levels:
50-60% of Max HR (Recovery/Efficiency)
60-70% of Max HR (Fitness/Fat Burn)
70-80% of Max HR (Endurance)
Intervals

So say I was training 10 hours a week, how many hours should be spent on each?

 

[Will1985]

Surely it depends on what you want to do and what phase of training you are in?

 

[Sam Kennedy]

Just to become a better all-round cyclist.

 

[jimboalee]

"Today, 01:13"

The most important part of training at ANY level is getting a good night's sleep. At least nine hours before a Sunday morning ride with your club.

 

[Garz]

Expanding on jims advice, also consider eating properly before a ride and on long rides eat/drink during to prevent bonking. It also helps maintain a higher pace.

Regarding HR you havnt been specific. You either go the fat burn which is moderate for a long distance, or you go high intensity to improve your fitness.

 

[PK99]

Regarding HR you havnt been specific. You either go the fat burn which is moderate for a long distance, or you go high intensity to improve your fitness.

Wrong!

long steady rides in the fat burning zone are designed to boost endurance fitness by developing the body's ability to burn fat as fuel NOT to burn fat to lose weight

 

[Garz]

Regarding HR you havnt been specific.

Like I said PK99 ^^ , I could want to just lose fat and build little endurance. You can do this on stationary or gym bikes. For instance when people say 'I just want to lose weight' you can achieve this. Doesnt mean Im going to be an endurance athlete after a few weeks.

 

[I am Spartacus]

Just to become a better all-round cyclist.

An admirable goal.
You have fulfilled the requirement of knowing what you want!

Thus, you do not need to worry about a 'training' regime to accomplish this.
By all means read around the subject of endurance /athlete training but to simply enjoy your riding you do not need to go thru' the absolute ballsache of adhering to a schedule of periodisation and training volumes and intensities.

 

[Sam Kennedy]

So Basically, to get better at cycling, cycle more?

 

[jimboalee]

Wrong!

long steady rides in the fat burning zone are designed to boost endurance fitness by developing the body's ability to burn fat as fuel NOT to burn fat to lose weight

Wrong!

Burning fat when in a LOW intensity exercise situation is natural, you don't have to train for that.

You do however, have to train to improve capillarisation of the circulatory system. This is done by exercising JUST ON the lactic threshold.

Nothing to do with 'fat burning' zones.

If you don't burn fat during the exercise, you will during the recovery period when you will be intaking protein to repair the damaged muscle fibres.

 

[jimboalee]

So Basically, to get better at cycling, cycle more?

Not necessarily.

An hour's cycling on a gym bike where you are regulating the intensity by 'hovering' at the lactic threshold... is worth more than a 100 km ride on the road totally in an aerobic condition.

You can spend the other three hours roasting a chicken.

 

[Garz]

Wrong!

Piece of advice, before telling people they are wrong consider that you understand the text you are reading, engage brain, and only then post when it feels sensible. Simply telling people they are wrong especially when there is no difinitive answer highlights your rashness.



After all even if science papers prove one theory has weight, doesn't mean it works for everybody. Hence why you probably spend ££ on magazines, supplements and whatnot from contradicting sources claiming they have the 'right' method.

 

[lukesdad]

Not necessarily.

An hour's cycling on a gym bike where you are regulating the intensity by 'hovering' at the lactic threshold... is worth more than a 100 km ride on the road totally in an aerobic condition.

You can spend the other three hours roasting a chicken.

Cycling is not all about fitness jimbo,technique is also important so in answer to the post yes ride more on the road to improve your cycling sitting on a trainer for hours is no substitute.

 

[lukesdad]

Piece of advice, before telling people they are wrong consider that you understand the text you are reading, engage brain, and only then post when it feels sensible. Simply telling people they are wrong especially when there is no difinitive answer highlights your rashness.



After all even if science papers prove one theory has weight, doesn't mean it works for everybody. Hence why you probably spend ££ on magazines, supplements and whatnot from contradicting sources claiming they have the 'right' method.

now! now!

 

[jimboalee]

Cycling is not all about fitness jimbo,technique is also important so in answer to the post yes ride more on the road to improve your cycling sitting on a trainer for hours is no substitute.

This is indeed quite true.

Evening and Sunday club rides provide a teaching of technique and riding tactics that cannot be learned on a 'trainer'.

As for the comment 'no substitute', the OP was asking about HR and % of training time. I thought, and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, his aim is to become stronger and more durable. All he wants to do right now is build his legs to be capable of the Sunday 'A' ride with the raceboys.

If (and I don't believe a trainer is 'no substitute'), a trainer IS 'no substitute', all the competative cyclists who bought Turbo Trainers should take them back for a refund, or a credit note to buy a proper road going bike.