RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Racing


Archive Home >> Racing(1 2 3 )


Interval workout question for sherp, doug, lfr, or anyone...(10 posts)

Interval workout question for sherp, doug, lfr, or anyone...shirt
Aug 20, 2003 12:38 PM
Let's say you've only got a couple weeks left of racing, and your climbing has been improving all year, but, egad, you notice you've lost your sprint! I only have time for 2 interval workouts a week, and this is what I've been doing:

- starting in my 39x19, I slow down to a track stand. I then wind out that gear as quickly as possible to my absolute max speed (probably 150rpm) and hold that for 10 seconds.
- Full 5-7 min recovery.
- Do the above again, but in a slightly bigger gear.
- Keep going up the ladder until I'm in my 53x15 or so
- Come back down the ladder

As you can see, I'm trying to mix power with speed in this workout. I feel that there's value in spinning out a gear as fast as possible when there's already tons of lactic acid in my legs and they're hurting. My question is, do you think I'd be better off doing one power and one speed workout per week, or do you think putting them together like this has merit at this point in the season?

thanks,
/shirt
I would say one power, and one speed, but I'm a stinkin Cat 4bill
Aug 20, 2003 1:18 PM
what do I know?
I say that because I think what you are going to do with your workout is to develop lactic buffering for your speed system and your power system, but you aren't going to really stress either one the way that you might if you didn't mix up the workouts. And, you won't allow the adaptation that you might if you didn't mix them up.
Just a thought.
there was a good article about ...lonefrontranger
Aug 20, 2003 7:48 PM
how to bring on a late-season peak in bike.com recently. It segues with some of the other stuff I've worked with in the past. I'd personally leave out the power bit on the ladders because if you're climbing well it means you've got power to burn, but are lacking in leg speed and snap. I'd stick to spinups of >30 seconds in smaller gears. Whatever you do, the idea put forth in bike.com is to keep the total intensity to 20 minutes or less because your CNS is getting a little fried at this late date.

But what do I know, everything I've done this year with the Sherpa has turned a lot of the stuff I learned in the coaching seminars on its head...
Not sure what type of program you're...here is my .02Canidraftyou
Aug 21, 2003 10:56 PM
If all you have is two races left. You're not going to gain much if anything between now and the end of the season. I would make sure that my legs are fresh and ready before each race.

If you're not in a Peak/Race phase, then I would "simulate" one. You need to stimulate your legs, but dont ride to improve fitness at this stage of the game. I would not bother with intervals at this point. I would do a ride as long as your race at 90% in the drops between the last two race weeks and the rest of your rides be recovery and jumps. I would ride less in hours than in the past while in the Race phase; if you're riding 12/15 hour schedule during the build I would reduce the hours by 1/3...do around 8 to 9 hours. 3/4 of the riding do recovery with on day doing jumps, and do alot of spinning.

I was always told, you dont gain conditioning from a ride for approx. 10 to 14 days. I would work at keeping from losing any form. A few years ago, I took myself out of form, stretching out my build into my peak...my legs were done!

Sorry for being long.

Peace out,
Okay, I'll weigh in brieflySherpa23
Aug 23, 2003 8:57 AM
Shirt,
Let me give you some quick pointers. I can't go too in depth because that's a disservice to my paying clients. What are they paying for if I give out the help for free, right? I will offer some help though because you asked me and I don't mind if you ask me.

First of all, what you are doing are not intervals. Those are efforts. Two totally separate things. Don't confuse the two.

Second, you cannot mix power and speed with any effectiveness. You have to do one or the other. They are so incredibly different both on systematic demands and muscular demands that there is no possible way to do both in one effort with any measureable benefit. I know. I have been the subject of several tests on the subject.

Thirdly, if you want to train your sprint work on speed from 15mph. Don't get caught into using a big gear either. If you want to train power for the road (NOT TRACK!!) then do that only.

Okay, that's too much info already so I'm going to stop. It's enough to get you on the right track, though.

Lastly, for everyone. There is a lot of stuff out there. A lot of it is books or websites that everyone treats as the be all and end all of training. I know for a fact that the best programs and workouts are not in any books or on any website. You know why? Because the guys who are doing the top work, the real effective cutting edge stuff don't do it to publish it in any book. They are paid extremely well by certain people (I am sure that you can figure out who) and the only people who know about this stuff are the test subjects, the coaches and physicians that create the testing, and the riders that are intended to benefit from that information. It is not in any of those people's best interests to share that with anyone else. Therefore, it's not something that's available. The only way that most amateur racers get their hands on that info is when someone like me retires and starts coaching. So I have all the info that I have been priveliged to have been part of attaining over the last few years and I am lucky enough to be kept in the loop with my unretired peers so I figure that I have an effective 10 year shelf life on true cutting edge coaching. After that, it's old school training programs like what everyone buys in books and treats like the Bible. At least my clients will get a cool coach with some good stories with it. I just want you all to be reasonably educated that the good stuff is not on any shelf at Barnes and Noble or in any corner of the internet. So it's not surprising to hear a comment like LFR's above. Okay, that's too long.
Okay, I'll weigh in brieflyOverhill
Aug 25, 2003 5:57 AM
Sherpa23,
Your last paragraph is very interesting, but a bit discouraging to some of us. What you say about the availability of cutting edge training methods makes sense, but for many people the only resources are the books and the web. We aren't so fortunate [envious] to have a retired pro with access to the best and newest information. Many may not even have "live" coaching available, and must rely on telephone/e-mail if they do elect to use a coach at all. For those who are in the hinterlands, with no local coach and only books and a computer, what do you suggest--short of moving to Colorado?
This is a serious question. Are we better to have a coach at a distance than to use the books and web? If so, what qualifications do we look for in a coach, remembering that we may never see the person face to face? Many of us want to improve and are willing to make some efforts, but don't wish to waste these efforts with the wrong type of training. I am not asking for specific training advice, but would value any suggestion you may have. Thank you.
Okay, I'll weigh in brieflySherpa23
Aug 25, 2003 6:27 AM
Overhill,
your points are excellent. I completely understand your predicament. I have been thinking about writing a post about the very questions that you raise, since there seems to be so much bad information out there and it's a perpetuating circle. I will address this in a new thread now.
Okay, I'll weigh in brieflyOverhill
Aug 25, 2003 1:34 PM
Sherpa23,
Thank you. Your views are most appreciated.
Okay, I'll weigh in brieflySherpa23
Aug 25, 2003 1:58 PM
No problem. I must apologize though, as I am pretty sure I referred to you as "underhill" in the thoer thread and not "overhill." I have been re-reading Lord of the Rings and I am sure that's why I mixed it up.
unconvinced..dotkaye
Aug 27, 2003 3:14 PM
I'm not wholly convinced that all of the best research on training methods, physiology, etc is funded by 'certain people'.. there is surely a good deal of old-fashioned basic research being done by universities, etc ? Check the published papers of Noakes and Hawley, Coggan, etc etc..

Sure, we won't know their exact training methods until after retirement for both Lance and Carmichael.. but they are just building on the current state of the art in physiology, and tailoring a program to the very specific requirements of a cancer/chemotherapy survivor. That state of the art is established by peer-reviewed publications, not by working in secret: and is available to anyone with web access,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/mastable.htm
just to start with..