Training With Zero Metrics

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
DOUG
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:54 pm

by DOUG

scapie wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 1:16 am

vo2 max isn't really that important. for all you know i could have made that up. it is weight dependant, so the lighter you are the the higher it will be. also the way it is tested and the accuracy of the machine has a big impact on the end result. IMO its not really that relevant to anything. If you can get over 60 then you're going good.

in terms of power, i agree with you doug. i cherry picked those numbers from strava koms. its not like i can do that anytime i like. those are some of the best numbers i've done in the past 6 or so months. the thing with bike racing is there is so much more to it than just raw power. being able to make a couple of one off efforts at reasonably high power does not make you a good bike racer and it absolutely does not mean you will win races.

imo an amateur rider is someone who doesn't get paid to ride. that covers pretty much everyone who races except for a very very small number of the population. what you need to do is differentiate by experience. someone who has been riding for 1-2 years won't be the same as someone who has been riding for 5 or 6+ years. if you have done some racing you will have a far deeper understanding of the sport and of your own body, what you are good at, what you are not etc..
I agree, and I race as well so understand that w/kg doesnt win races alone (it doesn't hurt though). Weighing in at only 62kg that much is abundantly clear when I jump into a crit and try and ride off the front. Its also why I'm a Cat 1 MTB'er and only Cat 2 on the road. Im not suggesting you are pro either (by definition) but those numbers put you in the conversation with domestic pro's and at the very least a very strong Cat 1 racer. Same goes for your weekly hours on the bike. That equates to about 800+ hours over a 12month period which again is right up there with some I would consider an exceptionally strong amatuer.

Anyway I guess what Im getting at is that you are a very strong rider, far from average for an amatuer thats for sure. So what works for you might not work for others who are training say 10hours a week. I fall into the 10-12 hour a week camp which with 2 small children and a 45+ hour a week job I feel is about my limit for the time being. I really need all the data and fine tuning I can get as it helps me perform at the right time and not "waste" any of my on the bike training. Not trying to put you down or question your methods BTW, they clearly work! It's meant as a compliment really and something Im working towards in my own training! :D

scapie
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:19 am

by scapie

cdncyclist wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 4:00 am
Good point. I wonder how much of the gains that come with people initiating a power based training plan is due to those other factors (starting a training plan, perhaps getting a coach, etc), and nothing to do with the one single element of 'power' - which I suppose is the point of your post.
yeah, I thought I’d just contribute the other side of the coin to those couple of posts on heartrate and zone 3 training. They were both so convoluted with lots of scientific terminology and overly complicated situations and frankly I thought there was a bit of hands on experience and general understanding lacking. I don’t think there is zero value in a scientific (or more strict or data focus or whatever you like…) approach I think that the majority of the improvements people will get, not just to start with, will be through having a routine that fits in with their real world life and is sustainable over a long period of time.

by Weenie


scapie
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:19 am

by scapie

DOUG wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 5:06 am
I fall into the 10-12 hour a week camp ...
10-12hrs is more than enough, I’ve been hosed off plenty of times by guys doing exactly that. Are you trying to get to cat 1 on the road? Crit racing is pretty specialised. If you don’t have a fast finish its difficult to win, especially on those large open circuits where there are multiple big teams and suspiciously strong old guys ha ha.

TheRich
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

scapie wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 1:16 am
DOUG wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 12:40 am
jasjas wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 8:48 pm
With a Vo2 of 75, you are way above most amateur riders, 15 to 18hrs per week is also more than most.

Volume always helps!
Also 5min@6.4W/kg and 10min@5.7W/kg puts him up there with domestic Pro's or at the very least a very strong Cat 1 rider. Definitely not an "average road rider" and a long way from your typical amatuer cyclist.
vo2 max isn't really that important. for all you know i could have made that up. it is weight dependant, so the lighter you are the the higher it will be. also the way it is tested and the accuracy of the machine has a big impact on the end result. IMO its not really that relevant to anything. If you can get over 60 then you're going good.

in terms of power, i agree with you doug. i cherry picked those numbers from strava koms. its not like i can do that anytime i like. those are some of the best numbers i've done in the past 6 or so months. the thing with bike racing is there is so much more to it than just raw power. being able to make a couple of one off efforts at reasonably high power does not make you a good bike racer and it absolutely does not mean you will win races.

imo an amateur rider is someone who doesn't get paid to ride. that covers pretty much everyone who races except for a very very small number of the population. what you need to do is differentiate by experience. someone who has been riding for 1-2 years won't be the same as someone who has been riding for 5 or 6+ years. if you have done some racing you will have a far deeper understanding of the sport and of your own body, what you are good at, what you are not etc..
It isn't important to you, because you have an advantage in it.

Average VO2 is around 50, with not a bunch of room for improvement, so your 75 means that you don't have to try very hard to get results that some/most could never acheive.

scapie
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:19 am

by scapie

TheRich wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:52 pm
It isn't important to you, because you have an advantage in it.

Average VO2 is around 50, with not a bunch of room for improvement, so your 75 means that you don't have to try very hard to get results that some/most could never acheive.
where did you get that average number of 50 from? you can improve your max by doing nothing more than just losing weight. you can also improve it with short duration interval training.

when i got that i can assure you i was trying extremely hard.

there is so much more to bike riding that just raw numbers. its very easy to get quite strong. you don't need huge amounts of natural talent. you don't need to spend lots of money on fancy equipment. all you need is a good work ethic. if you think you can't improve because you fall outside of some arbitrary value window then you're just setting yourself a ceiling and you never will.

AJS914
Posts: 3486
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

That is absolutely not true. If all it took was hard work and work ethic then everybody could be a pro cyclist.

Some people are fast responders to exercise stimulus and some are slow responders and some are practically non-responders. Some people are born with a naturally high VO2 max People that that have won the genetic lottery do a little training and then crush people. Others can train day in and day out for years and never achieve that.

TheRich
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

scapie wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:55 am
where did you get that average number of 50 from? you can improve your max by doing nothing more than just losing weight. you can also improve it with short duration interval training.

when i got that i can assure you i was trying extremely hard.

there is so much more to bike riding that just raw numbers. its very easy to get quite strong. you don't need huge amounts of natural talent. you don't need to spend lots of money on fancy equipment. all you need is a good work ethic. if you think you can't improve because you fall outside of some arbitrary value window then you're just setting yourself a ceiling and you never will.
I got it from basically everyone but you, but since you're so well informed, where did you get your information from?

You do work hard, but you started with an advantage and still have that advantage...it's part of your physiology.

Here's something from Andy Coggen about what the potential of an "Average Joe" is: https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slow ... 2830186-2/
"So, if VO2max is, on average, 50 mL/min/kg and increases by, on average, 30%, that means that the average Joe ought to be able to raise their VO2max to about 65 mL/min/kg with training."

You aren't average, enjoy it.

scapie
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:19 am

by scapie

TheRich wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:09 am
Here's something from Andy Coggen about what the potential of an "Average Joe" is: https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slow ... 2830186-2/
"So, if VO2max is, on average, 50 mL/min/kg and increases by, on average, 30%, that means that the average Joe ought to be able to raise their VO2max to about 65 mL/min/kg with training."

You aren't average, enjoy it.
that quote you've posted falls inline with my thinking that anything over 60 is more than adequate.

i'll take the compliment Rich, cheers.
AJS914 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:08 am
That is absolutely not true. If all it took was hard work and work ethic then everybody could be a pro cyclist.
this is incorrect.

and this here, well what do you want me to say to this?
AJS914 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:08 am
Some people are fast responders to exercise stimulus and some are slow responders and some are practically non-responders. Some people are born with a naturally high VO2 max People that that have won the genetic lottery do a little training and then crush people. Others can train day in and day out for years and never achieve that.

TheRich
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

scapie wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:31 am
that quote you've posted falls inline with my thinking that anything over 60 is more than adequate.

i'll take the compliment Rich, cheers.
Being able to wrestle yourself off the couch is adequate, but the point of most people not being able to get to where you are still stands.

We're amateurs, we do what we can with what we have, and hopefully have fun doing it.

scapie
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:19 am

by scapie

TheRich wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:39 am
scapie wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:31 am
that quote you've posted falls inline with my thinking that anything over 60 is more than adequate.

i'll take the compliment Rich, cheers.
Being able to wrestle yourself off the couch is adequate, but the point of most people not being able to get to where you are still stands.

We're amateurs, we do what we can with what we have, and hopefully have fun doing it.
i agree to a certian degree but not entirely and that is kind of the reason why i posted this thread. if you take what Andy is saying that he thinks any average joe could boost his max up to 65 (which i more or less agree with.. maybe its a bit on the high range) then that person would be capable of putting out very good power numbers. getting to exactly the same is me isnt really relevant is it?? like you say, if you are doing what you can with what you've got and enjoying it then you're doing it right.

AJS914
Posts: 3486
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

An average of 50 also means that a lot of people fall below that, some well below that.

TheRich
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

scapie wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:06 am
TheRich wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:39 am
scapie wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:31 am
that quote you've posted falls inline with my thinking that anything over 60 is more than adequate.

i'll take the compliment Rich, cheers.
Being able to wrestle yourself off the couch is adequate, but the point of most people not being able to get to where you are still stands.

We're amateurs, we do what we can with what we have, and hopefully have fun doing it.
i agree to a certian degree but not entirely and that is kind of the reason why i posted this thread. if you take what Andy is saying that he thinks any average joe could boost his max up to 65 (which i more or less agree with.. maybe its a bit on the high range) then that person would be capable of putting out very good power numbers. getting to exactly the same is me isnt really relevant is it?? like you say, if you are doing what you can with what you've got and enjoying it then you're doing it right.
Your post was about how easy it is, it's not. I end up riding with a bunch of people and I can tell that if you're pushing over 3w/kg, you're doing pretty good...according to Coggen's math you should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5w/kg, so even if you hung out around the house for a few months, you'd still be able to put a hurt on the vast majority of cyclists.

I don't mean to be negative, just pointing out your advantage and that what works for you won't work for others. Some people like coaches and/or data for the motivation and feedback they provide. I could be better if I had more structure, but that's not what I want and I'm doing pretty well without it, so I'm not singling you out about that either.

It's not that those things are unimportant, they're unimportant to some and they can get away with it where others can't.

scapie
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:19 am

by scapie

TheRich wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:44 am
Your post was about how easy it is, it's not. I end up riding with a bunch of people and I can tell that if you're pushing over 3w/kg, you're doing pretty good...according to Coggen's math you should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5w/kg, so even if you hung out around the house for a few months, you'd still be able to put a hurt on the vast majority of cyclists.

I don't mean to be negative, just pointing out your advantage and that what works for you won't work for others. Some people like coaches and/or data for the motivation and feedback they provide. I could be better if I had more structure, but that's not what I want and I'm doing pretty well without it, so I'm not singling you out about that either.

It's not that those things are unimportant, they're unimportant to some and they can get away with it where others can't.
no, my post was not at all about how easy it is..
scapie wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 8:44 am
I think most new cyclists seem to think there is some secret programming routine that you can do which makes you fast. Unfortunately that isn’t the case. You get strong by pushing hard on the pedals. There is no shortcuts...
what i'm doing is just putting out a different perspective (purely anecdotal i know, but doesn't seem to be talked about often) to the last few posts in the training thread. the zone 3 thread and power base training rant have had nearly 20,000 views and it seems there is a majority so fixated on w/kg or heartrate zones, ftp or % of it or some micro specific details which for someone who is beginner to moderate level trained it really doesn't matter that much.

User avatar
Lelandjt
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:10 am

by Lelandjt

Are there any pros that just ride anymore? Like they get on a bike nearly every day and do whatever ride they feel like but through pushing hard, doing plenty of volume, and genetic gifts they are at a WT level?

No power meters, heart monitors, lab testing, or structured training rides.

TheRich
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

scapie wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:13 am
TheRich wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:44 am
Your post was about how easy it is, it's not. I end up riding with a bunch of people and I can tell that if you're pushing over 3w/kg, you're doing pretty good...according to Coggen's math you should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5w/kg, so even if you hung out around the house for a few months, you'd still be able to put a hurt on the vast majority of cyclists.

I don't mean to be negative, just pointing out your advantage and that what works for you won't work for others. Some people like coaches and/or data for the motivation and feedback they provide. I could be better if I had more structure, but that's not what I want and I'm doing pretty well without it, so I'm not singling you out about that either.

It's not that those things are unimportant, they're unimportant to some and they can get away with it where others can't.
no, my post was not at all about how easy it is..
scapie wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 8:44 am
I think most new cyclists seem to think there is some secret programming routine that you can do which makes you fast. Unfortunately that isn’t the case. You get strong by pushing hard on the pedals. There is no shortcuts...
what i'm doing is just putting out a different perspective (purely anecdotal i know, but doesn't seem to be talked about often) to the last few posts in the training thread. the zone 3 thread and power base training rant have had nearly 20,000 views and it seems there is a majority so fixated on w/kg or heartrate zones, ftp or % of it or some micro specific details which for someone who is beginner to moderate level trained it really doesn't matter that much.
Why would you think it's strange that workouts are discussed? Because you get results without them? This is a cycling forum, cycling workouts are discussed here just like running, swimming or weightlifting workouts are discussed on their forums.

If you're riding 15-18 hours on top of a full time job, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that others are obsessed. I'm retired, working (very little) as a bike tour guide and I MAY do a 15 hour week a few times a year. Not everyone has a decade of 750hr/year base and genetic advantages so forgive us for trying to find a more time efficient approach.
Last edited by TheRich on Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post