Hardest thing(s) you found from endurance events?

[Bordcla]

The worst advice I've read in this thread is to screw long rides and just focus on getting fast. I know plenty of crit riders who would destroy me on an hour-long crit, but could not hang with me over 150 km.

"Endurance" is built on a foundation of aerobic fitness primarily, and this can't be built quickly, or by doing only 2-hour or shorter rides, even at high intensity. The science is clear on this.

The other benefits of doing longer rides are that these will allow you to uncover other issues relating to just sitting on a bike for this long. A position, a saddle or a pair of shoes that is fine for 2 hours might become excruciating, and even potentially hurtful after 3 hours. Better sort this out ASAP and not wait to your event.

Plus, as mentioned, nutrition is something you have to train for and experiment with to find what works for you.

Make sure you include one longer ride per week minimum. Make it progressively longer. By the time your long ride gets to 4.5 or 5 hours, that's probably long enough. Try a few other events like sportives to get used to the "on the day" dynamics and test your fitness.

As others have mentioned, pacing is key, and by that I mean starting slower than you think. Long rides and sportives are a good way to test this out, too.

Focus your training on aerobic system development, and you should do well.

Best of luck!

[AJS914]

Boshk, how is the training going?

Velonews recently did a podcast and article on training for the Dirty Kanza 200. It probably has lot of relevant info:

https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/podcas ... 200_471505

[bm0p700f]

heat gets me now. while I am fine on long rides when its cool this year I have suffered. LBL was a fail. After 120 miles of riding hard I literally keeled over and got taken to hospital. oddly they did not spot what wrong - dehyradated and lacking sugar.

This summer 12hrs and 24hr TT's have been awful. In the national 12hr which was cold and windy I was fine. The others though were warm or hot. I managed 12.5hrs of the 24hr before my stomach said no more and the welsh 12hr and breckland 12hr where awful. I simply could not drink or eat in the heat. so I think the event for me is the straffpuffer. 24hr race in scotland in january. no danger of it being too hot.

I would echo the above. training for long rides for me involves lots of hours on the bike riding slowly. I am happy at 16 mph then when doing a TT or a race I can turn up the volume on demand. Its really quite simple. Ride alot, do long rides once a week and most of all enjoy it. Right now i am getting back into XC riding. So a longer sunday ride is 10 mph off road exploring suffolk.

[RussellS]

The worst advice I've read in this thread is to screw long rides and just focus on getting fast.

Not sure where you read that. My advice for training is to focus on SPEED. Speed above everything else. Speed on short rides, speed on long rides. Always focus on riding as fast as possible to get yourself in the absolute best condition possible. I'm pretty sure everyone will agree that a person who rides a double century in 10 hours is in much better condition than a person who rides a double century in 20 hours. Once you are fast on a 200k ride, then a 300k isn't a big concern. And once you are fast on a 300k, then a 400k isn't a big deal. And once you speed through a 400k, a 600k isn't a big deal either. And if you race through a 600k, then a 1200k is very very very doable. Being fast on all the short rides makes the long rides easy. Pros ride short 120-150 mile rides at a fast 25 mph. I doubt they would have any problem at all riding a 250 mile ride.

[TobinHatesYou]

The worst advice I've read in this thread is to screw long rides and just focus on getting fast.

Not sure where you read that. My advice for training is to focus on SPEED. Speed above everything else. Speed on short rides, speed on long rides. Always focus on riding as fast as possible to get yourself in the absolute best condition possible. I'm pretty sure everyone will agree that a person who rides a double century in 10 hours is in much better condition than a person who rides a double century in 20 hours. Once you are fast on a 200k ride, then a 300k isn't a big concern. And once you are fast on a 300k, then a 400k isn't a big deal. And once you speed through a 400k, a 600k isn't a big deal either. And if you race through a 600k, then a 1200k is very very very doable. Being fast on all the short rides makes the long rides easy. Pros ride short 120-150 mile rides at a fast 25 mph. I doubt they would have any problem at all riding a 250 mile ride.

Pros are pros. Not many of us are anywhere approaching pro level.

Focusing on speed is fine as long as you know you can complete the distance in a minimum acceptable time. The best way to train for a century or double century, is, *gasp*, to build up to that distance and keep riding them. Ride them faster yes, but you have to combine that with the distance to accurately replicate the different types of fatigue, inflammation, bone discomfort, calorie deficits, dehydration, etc. affect you.

Training by riding faster for much shorter distances is not optimal, not even close. Doing a 2 hour ride at 85% FT is a very inefficient way to make yourself better at riding 5 hours at 60% FT. 8 hours at 50%, 15 hours, etc. Not only recruiting your leg muscles differently at such dissimilar intensities, but the way your body delivers energy to your skeletal and cardiovascular muscles changes too. Nutrition strategies are also going to be different.

[Boshk]

Boshk, how is the training going?

Velonews recently did a podcast and article on training for the Dirty Kanza 200. It probably has lot of relevant info:

https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/podcas ... 200_471505

Thanks mate. I'll take a look.

As to the training, nope, not even going to attempt anything that long this year.

I did a couple of 90km on business trip abroad, SFO and UK, found out I have issues with my shoes/cleats and was tired. SFO was hard..up north, Stinson onto Ridgecrest blvd...
Anything under an hour on the same shoes, it doesn't hurt but anything over that, I start to feel it.

The bikes at SFO and UK were Rapha rental bikes, pretty much high end bike.
Trying to figure out why I've developed pain under my right foot only....basically, feels like someone has taped/glued a small peddle on the balls of my feet below the 4th toe.....always in that position.

Never knew there were so many events around the world.
Mallorca 312
LEtape du Tour
Swiss
UK sportives
Taiwan etc etc

[coriordan]

Look up AudaxUK if you want long events in the UK.

There are 100s of 200km+ events around the world - it's a big old place!

[Lewn777]

All these distances being thrown around are somewhat missing the point. 200, 400, 600kms etc. For me it depends on how much elevation gain there's going to be. A 600km route averaging 0-200 meters elevation gain an hour is probably going to be much easier than a 400km ride averaging 600 meters or more altitude gain an hour. Or another way to put it a 200km Everesting is probably way harder than a 400km flat ride.

Also temperature and weather are vital factors, strong winds or temperatures of 30c+ are really noticeable.

Fluids are vital for me because at some point I find it hard to eat. I like a simple water diluted grape cordial drink with a large pinch of Himalayan salt, alternating with a commercial ISO powder drink.

[TobinHatesYou]

Himalayan salt.

Lol.

[Bordcla]

The worst advice I've read in this thread is to screw long rides and just focus on getting fast.

Not sure where you read that. My advice for training is to focus on SPEED. Speed above everything else. Speed on short rides, speed on long rides. Always focus on riding as fast as possible to get yourself in the absolute best condition possible. I'm pretty sure everyone will agree that a person who rides a double century in 10 hours is in much better condition than a person who rides a double century in 20 hours. Once you are fast on a 200k ride, then a 300k isn't a big concern. And once you are fast on a 300k, then a 400k isn't a big deal. And once you speed through a 400k, a 600k isn't a big deal either. And if you race through a 600k, then a 1200k is very very very doable. Being fast on all the short rides makes the long rides easy. Pros ride short 120-150 mile rides at a fast 25 mph. I doubt they would have any problem at all riding a 250 mile ride.

Pros are pros. Not many of us are anywhere approaching pro level.

Focusing on speed is fine as long as you know you can complete the distance in a minimum acceptable time. The best way to train for a century or double century, is, *gasp*, to build up to that distance and keep riding them. Ride them faster yes, but you have to combine that with the distance to accurately replicate the different types of fatigue, inflammation, bone discomfort, calorie deficits, dehydration, etc. affect you.

Training by riding faster for much shorter distances is not optimal, not even close. Doing a 2 hour ride at 85% FT is a very inefficient way to make yourself better at riding 5 hours at 60% FT. 8 hours at 50%, 15 hours, etc. Not only recruiting your leg muscles differently at such dissimilar intensities, but the way your body delivers energy to your skeletal and cardiovascular muscles changes too. Nutrition strategies are also going to be different.

This.

Pros didn't get to the point where they hold 25 mph for 150 miles by riding "as fast as possible" for every distance on every ride.

One of the few absolutes in endurance training is that a large volume of relatively easy training is key, and that is universal across disciplines, even if that'll displease those who would prefer that intensity compensate for volume. It never has and never will. Our bodies just don't work that way.

Speed is needed. In the right dosage, at the right intensity, at the right time. Only.

[Lewn777]

TobinHatesYou LOL

[TobinHatesYou]

I just grind up Power Balance bracelets and magnets for my grape cordial drinks.

[Lewn777]

Tobin the arrogant douche.

[TobinHatesYou]

Come on, you can't laugh at yourself for specifically mentioning that you put Himalayan salt in your water bottles?

[Lewn777]

Come on, you can't laugh at yourself for specifically mentioning that you put Himalayan salt in your water bottles?

What's funny about that?
1. It tastes better.
2. It's purer and less processed than sea salt.
3. It contains potassium and iodine where sea salt does not.
4. It's not particularly expensive.

Instead of laughing at other people due to your silly baises try actually googling something about a subject and finding out some information.
Okay some of the claims for Himalayan salt are Pseudoscience-ish, but no more so than some of the gels, bars and ISO powders most people comsume. Especially coming from someone that falls for the latest marketing-driven innovative marginal upgrade that comes along.