Question about base miles to get ready for racing

[TiDude]

I've been told that a good way to attain cycling fitness prior to racing is to log in 6 months of "base miles" at rate of my lactate threshold minus 10 BPM. Any comments on this method? I currently own a Garmin 305 and Ciclomaster HAC4 both with HR monitors. Is this a good method to use when building base miles?

[STARNUT]

huh?

LT - 10bpm is just below you TT pace I think. I don't use a HRM anymore but that sounds a bit "hard". Although its better than LSD miles which only train you to ride around going well, slow.

I always like to keep some intensity in my base miles to keep "tuned up". A few 2X20min FTP intervals twice a week in addition to a few other tricks seesm to work well for me. The point of the base miles is to be working toward something. If you ride around for 6 months the same way you'll reach a plateau at about week 6 and you'll not progress past that since your rideing at the same pace in week 15 as you were in week 2. The body is pretty amazing in its ability to adapt pretty quick to stimuli. Mix it up............at a few intervals here an there. Also the all important test after a "block".

Starnut

[Skillgannon]

This year I did 4 weeks of base. 17 hours (my first week of training, came from 2 hour weeks x 4 and then 0 hour weeks x 8 months), 25 hours and 30 hours from memory spending 85% of my time between 130bpm and 150bpm. After that, I was done with base. For someone just returning to the sport after 8 months off, 1x30 hour base week was enugh. Was planning on doing more after my recovery week, but....

Base should be done between 130 and 150bpm (65-75%max) on an assumed HR max of 200. Just easy stuff, not stressing out at all...and 6 months of base sounds bullsh*t to me unless you really dont have any aerobic base. I was struggling to ride 20 minutes after returning to the bike (basically, my body was shot), but my aerobic fitnes sbuilt up ridiculously fast during my accelerated base. If you have some sort of fitness, I'd say 2-3 months is plenty of base, but I would mix in some E2 (150-170bpm) and high cadence work to a) stop you from going bonkers b) work on other energy systems and fitness components.

[FWCC_neil]

Hi there, I think what you have been told is a bit of a fudge of an idea put forward in Joe Friel at trainingbible.com. This idea was to include Aerobic Threshold time trials into the base phase as a way of monitoring increases in endurance through reduced fatigue during the tests.

The test is carried out at your Aerobic Threshold, this is typically 20bpm lower than your Lactate Threshold so this is where the confusion arose I suspect.

With a Powermeter you ride at this pace for between 1-4 hours (dependant on your goals) and then after you look at the average values for power and HR in the first and second halves. What you'd expect is that in order to maintain your HR at the Aerobic Threshold value you had to decrese your power output. You put the numbers into a calculation and get out a fatigue index.

I hope this clears up any confusion you might be having. I have to say I've used this for my training this year and it is a million times more interesting than just LSD miles.

[John979]

With a Powermeter you ride at this pace for between 1-4 hours (dependant on your goals) and then after you look at the average values for power and HR in the first and second halves. What you'd expect is that in order to maintain your HR at the Aerobic Threshold value you had to decrese your power output. You put the numbers into a calculation and get out a fatigue index.

If you have a PM, why worry? I don't know a single person with a PM who adjusts their power levels based upon HR feedback. In addition, I think the correct advice to the above should be that if HR is the only feedback mechanism, start slower...

[IanB]

...with a Powermeter you ride at this pace for between 1-4 hours (dependant on your goals) and then after you look at the average values for power and HR in the first and second halves. What you'd expect is that in order to maintain your HR at the Aerobic Threshold value you had to decrese your power output. You put the numbers into a calculation and get out a fatigue index...

Neil, welcome aboard.

Your fatigue index is an interesting approach. I tend to look at things the other way around, that is ride at a constant wattage and observe the increase in HR required to maintain that output at the end of the ride. This ensures I get a proper workout at the correct intensity (relative to my lower lactate threshold), and not risk slipping into zone 1. As I get fitter I increase my wattage for the same HR - this improvement is tracked simply by dividing average watts by average HR. Higher number the better.

But, to answer TiDude's question - 6 months of base? Crikey, are you training for the RAAM or something
Your question isn't easily answered - training is a *big* subject, with many people having a different take based on their own experience/abilities/in-depth knowledge, but here's my $0.02 all the same:

The amount of base you need will vary in duration dependant on your ability, current level of fitness, goals etc. If you're training with power, establishing (and keeping a check on) your power levels is important. If you're training with HR (for which the Garmin 305 will be fine), then basing your HR zones on your anaerobic threshold (average HR for a 10mile TT) is better than your max HR, IMO. If you've read any training books, these conventions are well covered. A useful table showing various training levels is here: http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp

Secondly, riding purely at a low intensity (zone 2) will become boring. Only ~50% of the time on the bike need be at this speed, but the durations should be long - 3-6hrs. Mixing in some tempo, group riding or general mixed intensity stuff (e.g. hills if you train mainly on the flat) will help you keep some of your "top end" and preserve your sanity.

I've read various articles about using a greater volume/duration of sweet-spot training (i.e. tempo) in preference to LSD. I remain to be convinced that this is a means to all ends, but it'd be worth you reading up on it all the same.

[FWCC_neil]

Hi Ian, thanks for the welcome.

I agree with you about using power to maintain pace rather than HR. But I was trying to answer TiDudes query and he doesn't have a powermeter so for him using a heart rate zone of 20bpm below LaTH is the most useful metric.

The fatigue index calculation is like this.

(2nd half ave' HR / 2nd half ave' Power) - (1st half ave' HR / 1st half ave' Power)

then divide that figure by (1st half ave' HR / 1st half ave' Power) and multiply by 100.

When the figure comes out at less than 5% it's time to increase the duration or intensity. Kind of like a test to tell you when you are ready to move on from base training. Of course this is just what is suggested by trainingbible.com and everyone will do what works for them I just wanted to clarify why I wrote what I did.

[John979]

Looking at some controlled (i.e. cool and adequately ventilated), isopower workouts and some surprising HR data emerges. All numbers for a rider with a functional threshold HR of 167 bpm:

Hour at FTPHR start: 112 bpm
5 min: 157 bpm
10 min: 161 bpm
15 min: 164 bpm
20 min: 165 bpm
25 min: 166 bpm
27 min: 167 bpm

4X4 V02 Max Intervals:
1) begin: 135 bpm; end: 162 bpm; average: 154 bpm
2) begin: 131 bpm; end: 166 bpm; average: 156 bpm
3) begin: 139 bpm; end: 169 bpm; average: 160 bpm
4) begin: 139 bpm; end: 170 bpm; average: 160 bpm

[qwertyui]

Indoor workout, 2*20 min at FTP and 5 minutes easy at 70 % of FTP:

First FTP:
5 min HR 150
20 min HR 165
Average 160

Second 20 min FTP:
5 min HR 160
20 min HR 175
Average 170

5 minutes at 70% of FTP:
Average HR 170


Conclusion: There is no "Threshold HR", on which I could base my indoor workouts. Just go by power.

[TiDude]

Excuse my ignorance here but if I understand your messages correctly you're saying that there really isn't a good way to attain a heartrate lactate threshold? Do I need to buy a power meter?

[qwertyui]

Excuse my ignorance here but if I understand your messages correctly you're saying that there really isn't a good way to attain a heartrate lactate threshold? Do I need to buy a power meter?

Exactly, I haven't found very good correlation with power and HR in different conditions. If you want to base your training on the threshold power, then power meter is very highly recommendable. Otherwise, you can as well base your training on feel or speed instead of HR.

[dm69]

Hi Ian, thanks for the welcome.

I agree with you about using power to maintain pace rather than HR. But I was trying to answer TiDudes query and he doesn't have a powermeter so for him using a heart rate zone of 20bpm below LaTH is the most useful metric.

The fatigue index calculation is like this.

(2nd half ave' HR / 2nd half ave' Power) - (1st half ave' HR / 1st half ave' Power)

then divide that figure by (1st half ave' HR / 1st half ave' Power) and multiply by 100.

When the figure comes out at less than 5% it's time to increase the duration or intensity. Kind of like a test to tell you when you are ready to move on from base training. Of course this is just what is suggested by trainingbible.com and everyone will do what works for them I just wanted to clarify why I wrote what I did.

Sweet test. Could be valuable when working on endurance at the start of the year...once you get to a desired of level of fatigue (or lack of) then you KNOW your body has adapted and can handle the desired workload over a period of time. THEN you know you can move onto the fun stuff and the stuff that makes you actually ride faster...HIGH intensity.

HRM training on its own is a weird way of training and you have to know your body very well to get an idea of how much effort your actually putting in. PM training only tells you how hard your pushing on the pedals but combining BOTH gives you total feedback on everything you would need to know.

IMO i think im better off using PE most of the time as I dont have a PM as of yet (probably wont for the next few years either). But when I buy a PM I could see myself using my HR!!! A lot more...strange that .

[wogamax]

+1 I don't use strict power zones for endurance work. I find the PM more useful for shorter intervals. If I am not mistaken, their are a number of PM users who shift over to their HRM's on longer sessions. It took me all of last season to try strict power pacing in short TT's and that was fine for the most part, but when gaining fitness and working up the cardiovascular system, why not still use HR? The point is both metrics change and, at least to me, both are useful to observe.

[John979]

Excuse my ignorance here but if I understand your messages correctly you're saying that there really isn't a good way to attain a heartrate lactate threshold? Do I need to buy a power meter?

For years people trained without heart rate monitors. For years people trained without power meters. Obviously, training can be accomplished without a power meter or a heart rate monitor. However, each technology advance made training more effective, especially for those with limited time.

Interestingly, most of those I know who train by a power meter have a much simpler approach to training than those who do not train with a power meter. Having an independent measure of one's effort generally causes training to become focused around two measurements: power and cadence.

The purpose of training is not to increase heart rate, increase lactate threshold, increase V02 Max or increase cadence. Rather, the purpose of training is to maximize power for a given time period. With this in mind, coupled with an understanding the power curve concept, training decomposes into a handful of workouts roughly centered on a rider's optimal cadence; most throw away CTS and Training Bible based Chinese menu drills.

Add Cycling Peaks Software WKO+ and a rider has all the tools required for optimal training. The concepts of normalized power, training stress score, chronic training load, acute training load and training stress score are a huge advance over approaches previously available to cyclists. For many, a PM and CPS has led to an interesting paradigm shift away from strict periodization to training that is very hard but controlled and relies more on monitoring than planning, kinda like it was 30 years ago...

I highly recommend 5 resources: Dr. Coggan's book on training and racing with a power meter, all the articles on the Cycling Peaks Software website, the Google Groups Wattage Forum and the books "Maximum Performance for Cyclists" by Dr. Michael J. Ross and "High-Performance Cycling" edited by Asker E. Jeukendrup, Ph.D.

[qwertyui]

+1 I don't use strict power zones for endurance work. I find the PM more useful for shorter intervals. If I am not mistaken, their are a number of PM users who shift over to their HRM's on longer sessions. It took me all of last season to try strict power pacing in short TT's and that was fine for the most part, but when gaining fitness and working up the cardiovascular system, why not still use HR? The point is both metrics change and, at least to me, both are useful to observe.

The rides when one is really gaining fitness and improving cardiovascular system are those interval type of rides, e.g. 2*20 min near FTP or 4*5 min close to VO2max.

Then those longer, old style 4-6 hour endurance rides, which may be good for dropping weight or social riding, those can be ridden without much looking into power meter.