login
Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 (Page 30)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-01-26 12:00 PM in reply to: #3322217 |
Coach  10487    Boston, MA |  Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011cstoulil - 2011-01-26 9:05 AM Ok sorry for the multiple questions, maybe I'm reading into it too much, I'm a little more confused after reading even farther ahead, maybe that is my problem, I shouldn't read ahead. Anyway, week 2 day 1 says to do the set at 120%, now is that 120% of CP, or 120% of what I got on my 3 min test. I only ask because looking ahead to week 6 I see you use your 20 min test for your baseline and not CP so that made me think maybe I use 120% of the 3 min test for the intervals in week 2 day 1 instead of 120% of CP. And maybe thats why I shouldn't have read ahead lol. Thanks. All workouts are based as a percentage of CP unless it is instructed different, in which case it will be indicated in that particular session (ride 6x4' @ 20MP) |
| 2011-01-26 12:32 PM in reply to: #3322705 |
Expert 913 Lost in the Evergreens | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 Hi Gorge, I'm back after my winter marathon adventure in Az. It's good to be back to normal and cranking out the wattage again. Last night marked my return to CPV3 as I cranked my way through week6 6x4'@105% + an extra 4 in the final interval. Ah the memory's of pain returned. Good news, the wife took pity on my cave of pain in the garage where HTFU was the only source of heat, and suggested I move the trainer into the house. Life is good. The new lounge of pain has internet access, so I loaded up 40 CX uTube videos on the computer and had a good sweat. I'm not going to say I had a good time, but it was sure felt good when the session was over. This program rocks. Today is a good day for pain, I mean to train, Yeah today is a good day to train. |
| 2011-01-26 12:48 PM in reply to: #3322705 |
Veteran 820 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 JorgeM - 2011-01-26 12:00 PM cstoulil - 2011-01-26 9:05 AM Ok sorry for the multiple questions, maybe I'm reading into it too much, I'm a little more confused after reading even farther ahead, maybe that is my problem, I shouldn't read ahead. Anyway, week 2 day 1 says to do the set at 120%, now is that 120% of CP, or 120% of what I got on my 3 min test. I only ask because looking ahead to week 6 I see you use your 20 min test for your baseline and not CP so that made me think maybe I use 120% of the 3 min test for the intervals in week 2 day 1 instead of 120% of CP. And maybe thats why I shouldn't have read ahead lol. Thanks. All workouts are based as a percentage of CP unless it is instructed different, in which case it will be indicated in that particular session (ride 6x4' @ 20MP) Ok I thought I found the answer on my own in the biking file, but what you replied says differant. The numbers would be queit diff so just to check one more time. I'll use my original test since I don't have my new CP yet, for my original test my cp was 127 based off 131 on the 20 min test and 204 on the 3 min test On week 2 day 1 it says 5x1 @120% so your saying that is from CP, but then I found this in the biking file.
Just seems what I found in the file and what you said contradict and 90 watts diff between the two is alot, especially for a guy like me. Edited by cstoulil 2011-01-26 12:57 PM |
| 2011-01-27 9:35 AM in reply to: #3322830 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 cstoulil - 2011-01-26 12:48 PM Ok I thought I found the answer on my own in the biking file, but what you replied says differant. The numbers would be queit diff so just to check one more time. I'll use my original test since I don't have my new CP yet, for my original test my cp was 127 based off 131 on the 20 min test and 204 on the 3 min test On week 2 day 1 it says 5x1 @120% so your saying that is from CP, but then I found this in the biking file.
Just seems what I found in the file and what you said contradict and 90 watts diff between the two is alot, especially for a guy like me. I posted: "All workouts are based as a percentage of CP unless it is instructed different. The last portion indicates there are some sessions on which I suggest you to shoot for a particular wattage based on your testing (i.e. 20 min power aka 20MP or 5MP or 3MP). Also, in some part of this thread we talked about the 5x1' session and how for some there seems to have a bigger variance between their 3MP and CP hence I suggested doing the sets at 120% of CP and if that was too easy then go a bit higher. BTW, the range to play between between 120% of CP and 3MP minus ~5% is not 90w but more like ~40w. In your case, do the session 5x1' @ 150-155w. If you can complete sets 1 to 4 no problem and avg over 5w above your baseline (160w >  them it is too easy for you. Next session start at something like 160-165w instead and see how it goes.In any case, unless you are doing 5x1' @ near your 5MP or 6x4; @ 20MP all sessions are based as a percentage of your CP. i.e. Day 2 - 4x10' (2.5' B) 1&3 @ 80%, 2&4 @ 85% would be 80% and 85% of your CP (127w) or ~100-105w and ~105-110w Cool? |
| 2011-01-27 10:01 AM in reply to: #3320331 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 GoFaster - 2011-01-25 10:22 AM Jorge - question on cadence. I know this is repeated time and time again, every one needs to find an optimal cadence for themselves and that it is a very personal thing. But I'm wondering what the impact is of a lower cadence? For last weeks' 2x18min I aimed to hit 95% CP (227). First interval = 225watts, 90 cadence Second Interval = 229watts, 83 cadence Am I "hurting" myself for the run by pushing a bigger gear? And specifically for these indoor sessions, is it a mistake to push a bigger gear than what I may push outdoors? In simple terms power = cadence (pedal velocity) + torque (pedal force). Anytime you increase one the other one decrease at the same constant power. If you want to produce more power, you will either increase your pedal velocity or pedal force (at the same gear). Studies have found a lower cadence is actually more efficient (transforming energy into motion) as opposed to higher cadences, but also a greater pedal force might result in greater muscle fatigue. The good news is that to get to any end (inefficient or induce more fatigue) you need to be at the extremes (something like < 60 rpm and 120 rpm > , hence as long as you pedal around 70-100rpms you should be fine.What cadence will work best for you will be a function of gearing, crank length, terrain, muscle fiber type, etc. hence it is suggested to let your body self-select cadence by choosing the one that yield the desire power at the lower RPE. If riding at 225-230w choose the cadence that feels easier (90 vs 80 rpm). In terms of affecting your run, IIRC I haven't seen any evidence that 'x' cadence withing the suggested normal range may affect your run performance. IMO that is more a function of your specific training (i.e. run fitness). But to make sure you can do some long rides at 'x' or 'y' cadence and got for a run after. See if you notice any difference. |
| 2011-01-27 11:19 AM in reply to: #3154535 |
Elite 3779  Ontario | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 Perfect, thanks Jorge. BTW, got off the bike after this weeks Q1, and legs...felt...like...bricks. |
| 2011-01-28 9:10 AM in reply to: #3154535 |
Expert 1019 Muncie, IN | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 Help - I've read the downloadable guide and I'm excited to start TONIGHT, but I can't find the actual workouts???? Where are they? THANKS! |
| 2011-01-28 12:47 PM in reply to: #3326543 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 Afletcher - 2011-01-28 9:10 AM Help - I've read the downloadable guide and I'm excited to start TONIGHT, but I can't find the actual workouts???? Where are they? THANKS! I just moved all under the "Cycling Plan v3.0" on the upper right corner of my blog. See below:  In there you'll find guides, notes, testing and the weekly workouts. Thanks, |
| 2011-01-29 11:15 AM in reply to: #3154535 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 Week 14 is up. We are reaching the end of the road, this week will be an intense one and then the last round of testing next week. Get it done! |
| 2011-01-29 4:11 PM in reply to: #3154535 |
Expert 1019 Muncie, IN | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 If it had been a snake, it would have bitten me. THANKS Jorge! |
| 2011-01-31 11:15 AM in reply to: #3154535 |
Extreme Veteran 700 Tucson | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 Jorge (& others),
As a follow on to the previous cadence question, my cadence is typically very low (60's sometimes I see low 70's). I'm beginning to notice pain in my right knee (feels like medial pain). I noticed similar pain on my mtn bike where I'm typically closer to mashing than spinning to go up hills, etc. If I try to increase the cadence then my power drops, if I want to hit my power targets, then my cadence drops.....should I spend some time not worrying about the power output and focus on getting my cadence up closer to the 80's?
|
| 2011-01-31 1:02 PM in reply to: #3330865 |
Regular 108 | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 kmanus - 2011-01-31 11:15 AM Jorge (& others), As a follow on to the previous cadence question, my cadence is typically very low (60's sometimes I see low 70's). I'm beginning to notice pain in my right knee (feels like medial pain). I noticed similar pain on my mtn bike where I'm typically closer to mashing than spinning to go up hills, etc. If I try to increase the cadence then my power drops, if I want to hit my power targets, then my cadence drops.....should I spend some time not worrying about the power output and focus on getting my cadence up closer to the 80's? I had posed a similiar question earlier in this thread as I felt I was leaning more toward a 'mashing' cadence in the large chainring, although I don't think my cadence was as low as yours. I was probably doing something in the 78-83RPM range. Jorge's response was to do the workouts in whatever cadence had the least perceived exertion. Found his exact quote from page 20 of this thread: "As long as you can get your workout done and you are not putting too much stress on your knees that sometimes might happen when riding indoors due to the static position, choose whatever cadence/torque that allows you to generate the prescribed power at the lowest RPE."
I've made a conscious effort to try and pull off the same wattage from the smaller chainring if possible, thus increasing my cadence. Sometimes though I have to move to the larger chainring to keep things sane. I'm just not comfortable maintaining anything higher than 90RPM for any length of time. I know we're not supposed to mimic others, but rather find what works for us. However, I can't help but always remember how they described Lance as a masher and then he put a lot of effort into spinning and winning. If I were you I would try the smaller chainring and adjust your derailleur accordingly. I'm not sure what will happen when I get to riding outside again, but I hope I can maintain some cadence.
|
| 2011-01-31 3:23 PM in reply to: #3330865 |
Elite 3779 Ontario | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 kmanus - 2011-01-31 12:15 PM Jorge (& others),
As a follow on to the previous cadence question, my cadence is typically very low (60's sometimes I see low 70's). I'm beginning to notice pain in my right knee (feels like medial pain). I noticed similar pain on my mtn bike where I'm typically closer to mashing than spinning to go up hills, etc. If I try to increase the cadence then my power drops, if I want to hit my power targets, then my cadence drops.....should I spend some time not worrying about the power output and focus on getting my cadence up closer to the 80's?
Are you using clip in pedals? If so, consider playing with your cleat position a little bit. I used to experience some pain in my right knee after a couple of hours riding. I adjusted the cleats and it fixed the problem. Same thing can also happen with saddle height, and/or if your seat is too far forward/backward. Make very small changes - see if it helps, if not, adjust again. Just be sure to do it in small increments and keep track of where you started, and what you change. And maybe upping the cadence a bit will help - seems like a pretty tough cadence to maintain over any period of time. |
| 2011-01-31 3:27 PM in reply to: #3331154 |
Elite 3779 Ontario | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 KIELBASA - 2011-01-31 2:02 PM I know we're not supposed to mimic others, but rather find what works for us. However, I can't help but always remember how they described Lance as a masher and then he put a lot of effort into spinning and winning. Keep in mind that he also has a ridiculous aerobic engine. Like you said, find what works for you, but then tweak it. As I posted before, I've started playing with a lower cadence (low 80's vs high 80s-low 90's). But I'll play with this and see how HR, stamina, power, etc. all line up, and ultimately work for me. As you said, don't mimic others for something like cadence. |
| 2011-01-31 4:24 PM in reply to: #3331504 |
Extreme Veteran 700 Tucson | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 GoFaster - 2011-01-31 2:23 PM kmanus - 2011-01-31 12:15 PM Jorge (& others),
As a follow on to the previous cadence question, my cadence is typically very low (60's sometimes I see low 70's). I'm beginning to notice pain in my right knee (feels like medial pain). I noticed similar pain on my mtn bike where I'm typically closer to mashing than spinning to go up hills, etc. If I try to increase the cadence then my power drops, if I want to hit my power targets, then my cadence drops.....should I spend some time not worrying about the power output and focus on getting my cadence up closer to the 80's?
Are you using clip in pedals? If so, consider playing with your cleat position a little bit. I used to experience some pain in my right knee after a couple of hours riding. I adjusted the cleats and it fixed the problem. Same thing can also happen with saddle height, and/or if your seat is too far forward/backward. Make very small changes - see if it helps, if not, adjust again. Just be sure to do it in small increments and keep track of where you started, and what you change. And maybe upping the cadence a bit will help - seems like a pretty tough cadence to maintain over any period of time. I'm contemplating swapping my pedals anyway. I have the SPD-SL with 6 deg of float and I feel like I can't move my feet anywhere. I also have issues clipping out of them with out feeling like I'm contorting my leg - and the tension is about as loose as I can go. I ride SPD (mtn style) on my roadie & mtn bike so I know how easy they should be to get out. Considering swapping to some speedplays for more float. They've been on my bike for several months so they've gotten a decent amount of use with winter training so I'd think they'd be broken in by now. |
| 2011-01-31 7:36 PM in reply to: #3330865 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 kmanus - 2011-01-31 11:15 AM Jorge (& others), As a follow on to the previous cadence question, my cadence is typically very low (60's sometimes I see low 70's). I'm beginning to notice pain in my right knee (feels like medial pain). I noticed similar pain on my mtn bike where I'm typically closer to mashing than spinning to go up hills, etc. If I try to increase the cadence then my power drops, if I want to hit my power targets, then my cadence drops.....should I spend some time not worrying about the power output and focus on getting my cadence up closer to the 80's? The lower cadence = higher the torque; this could mean more strain in your joints, soft tissue, etc. While lower cadences have been shown to be more efficient, they also can pose a greater load on those areas and that can't be a tricky thing to cope with. 60s is certainly a low cadence. While usually I wouldn't recommend changing cadence in general, in this instance I think is appropriate to do so because it will reduce the load on your joints (knee) particularly when on the trainer. It might be challenging to produce the same power at the same perceived exertion level, however, over time it will become easier. Also medial knee pain is usually related to a few things, cleat position is one of them. If your cleats orientation is such that your toes are pointing outside instead of inside, you will be placing much more strain on your medial knee. Also, if your saddle height is too lowe this can place greater strain on the knee so make sure to check that as well. Finally, medial pain can be related to weakness on your adductors and quads so doing an adequate resistance training, foam roller self-massage (or something like active release technique) and stretching will help. Edited by JorgeM 2011-01-31 7:38 PM |
| 2011-01-31 7:48 PM in reply to: #3331154 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 KIELBASA - 2011-01-31 1:02 PM There is a lot of controversy and misinformation regarding the studies regarding LA cadence, efficiency, etc. One of the points of debate is the notion than Lance was a 'masher' and later become a 'spinner' when in reality while he indeed seemed increased his cadence the difference wasn't statistically significant IIRC.I had posed a similiar question earlier in this thread as I felt I was leaning more toward a 'mashing' cadence in the large chainring, although I don't think my cadence was as low as yours. I was probably doing something in the 78-83RPM range. Jorge's response was to do the workouts in whatever cadence had the least perceived exertion. Found his exact quote from page 20 of this thread: "As long as you can get your workout done and you are not putting too much stress on your knees that sometimes might happen when riding indoors due to the static position, choose whatever cadence/torque that allows you to generate the prescribed power at the lowest RPE."
I've made a conscious effort to try and pull off the same wattage from the smaller chainring if possible, thus increasing my cadence. Sometimes though I have to move to the larger chainring to keep things sane. I'm just not comfortable maintaining anything higher than 90RPM for any length of time. I know we're not supposed to mimic others, but rather find what works for us. However, I can't help but always remember how they described Lance as a masher and then he put a lot of effort into spinning and winning. If I were you I would try the smaller chainring and adjust your derailleur accordingly. I'm not sure what will happen when I get to riding outside again, but I hope I can maintain some cadence. Also, Ed Colye's research paper explaining how this increase in cadence produce for Lance to improve his efficiency making the difference to propelled him to dominate the TdF is been criticized because it seems some of the data presented and calculation were incorrect. Many question if LA really improved his efficiency due to the cadence or just plain improved it all. Given the current evidence it seems that efficiency changes are rather difficult to accomplish and there is no agreement as to what mechanisms one could accomplish that. Cadence certainly doesn't seem to be enough to explain this process. The point is that while there might be some merit to adjusting one's cadence to certain specific traits such as muscle fiber make, the many myths or amazing claims that has come from Coyle's paper which might not show any improvements in the 1st place, might have been exaggerated by some who had a chance to benefit from it (i.e. Carmichael). I am not saying that was the case, but it is one of the plausible explanations. Others are much more controversial and something I rather not touch with a 10 feet wooden stick  |
| 2011-01-31 7:59 PM in reply to: #3154535 |
| Veteran 285 | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 Finally did week 10 test. Big improvements. However, there were a lot of factors. 1. I wasn't fully rested in my last test. 2. Bike fit done two weeks ago. Seat moved forward and height adjusted. 3. Chain oiled. Bike shop laughed at how squeaky it was. 4. Getting better at pacing. 5. Getting better at realizing how much pain I can tolerate and how much pain is too much. 6. Using KK power formula to estimate power. Lot of variables come into play. Seems like a big jump but I'm going to go with it and see if I can perform the upcoming workouts. I'll let that validate this test. Reading for the next phase. And staying on topic. My cadence has been a lot lower than what I raced last season. Seeing the different cadence and power output helps. I usually raced 95-100 rpm. My workouts and tests on the trainer are usually right at 80 rpm. Edited by mrpetey 2011-01-31 8:01 PM |
| 2011-02-01 12:13 AM in reply to: #3154535 |
| Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 So, I had been reading all of you whiners talking about the 6 x 4' sets and thought, how hard could it be???? Then I did it tonight. I knew I was in trouble 1 minute in to the first one. That set destroyed me. But.... I did it |
| 2011-02-01 9:51 AM in reply to: #3332338 |
Extreme Veteran 590 Northern Virginia | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 ChrisM - 2011-02-01 1:13 AM So, I had been reading all of you whiners talking about the 6 x 4' sets and thought, how hard could it be???? Then I did it tonight. I knew I was in trouble 1 minute in to the first one. That set destroyed me. But.... I did it Welcome to the club  |
| 2011-02-01 10:04 AM in reply to: #3332916 |
Expert 1066 Raleigh | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 windandsurf - 2011-02-01 9:51 AM ChrisM - 2011-02-01 1:13 AM So, I had been reading all of you whiners talking about the 6 x 4' sets and thought, how hard could it be???? Then I did it tonight. I knew I was in trouble 1 minute in to the first one. That set destroyed me. But.... I did it Welcome to the club Hah! Yesterday was my week 6 day 1 as well. I've been looking forward to seeing what all the hubub was about on those 6x4's. Ouch! Jorge, you are sick!  |
| 2011-02-01 4:39 PM in reply to: #3154535 |
Extreme Veteran 487 | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 Hi all. I just did my week 1 HR rate test, and I'm not sure whether I should use the whole thing in my calculation. I did the warmup according to the instructions, but maybe it wasn't enough. Anyway, a graph of the 30 min. test period is below. If I average the whole 30min period, I get THR = 156; if I take out the first ten minutes and just use the latter twenty minutes where my HR is near constant, I get THR = 161. Which should I use for the program? Thanks.  |
| 2011-02-02 11:22 AM in reply to: #3154535 |
| Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 I have what I guess is a theoretical question re: the tests. I warm up in erg mode with set watts, then after the w/u switch the CT to 3D mode on a flat loop and start the test. I always start with a "running start," i.e., I don't start the test from a dead stop but just ride throught the beginning, so the watts are already high. Is this realistic? or does it matter since if I am consistent it's only a relative number anyway.... When I was doing HR based tests it wa the same, I guess. I mean I didn't start from zero |
| 2011-02-02 11:26 AM in reply to: #3335258 |
Elite 3779 Ontario | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 You don't need to start from zero - take the running start and enjoy that 15 second advantage. Cause it gets wiped out in a hurry! |
| 2011-02-02 11:32 AM in reply to: #3154535 |
Elite 3779 Ontario | Subject: RE: Cycling Program v3.0 - 2010 - 2011 Jorge - I believe you have incorrectly labelled Week 14 as "Unload week". Where in your definition of "unload" does 2x20min at 100% CP fall? Cause I was trying to figure that out during 40min of fun last night. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK