Turbo Sessions!!!!

Caroline_ie

I just found this, you might also find it interresting.

Quick sessions

If you want benefits quickly then the turbo is an excellent tool but you do really have to work. The other side of this is that the sessions can become boring. Sorry, that’s BORING!!.

30 minutes (A)

Do warm up before this session for at least 10 minutes to get your heart rate up into the training zone. The warm-up time is NOT included in the set time.
This is the simplest session of all, a time trial. Instead of risking life and limb on the road just do a 30-minute all-out session and see how far you get. Make sure that any resistance setting used is recorded so you can repeat the test under the same conditions and see what improvements you are getting. As an added twist you can do this as a brick session after a swim and/or add a run afterwards. If you have access to a running track then you can do this session then a track session as well -- excellent training.

30 minutes (B)

If you only have 30 minutes and want a progressing workout then this is probably as good as it gets and you can see and feel improvements quite quickly. For sprint and Standard distance this is probably the shortest session that will get an improvement. This set is extensible in blocks of 10 minutes (interval set plus steady state).

• Warm-up for 10 minutes at 90-95 rpm bringing the pulse rate up to your training zone
• Change into the big ring at the front and choose a sprocket (small ring at the back) that you know you can hold at 90 rpm for 1 minute
• Go for 30 seconds at 95 rpm then back off (make easier) by 1 sprocket for 30 seconds at 90 rpm
• Repeat this for 5 minutes (5 sets of 30 seconds on, 30 seconds off)
• Work for 5 minutes in the ’off’ sprocket at 95 rpm (keep in the training zone)
• Repeat the 5 sets of 30 seconds on, 30 seconds off
• Cool down for 5 minutes using the same chain ring and sprocket as for the warm-up

45 minutes

Yes, it’s actually 46 minutes! As you improve you can work a progressively harder set of sprockets or add more resistance to the system.

• Warm-up for 10 minutes at 90-95 rpm bringing the pulse rate up to your training zone
• Change into the big ring and work up through the sprockets holding 95 rpm on each for 5 minutes with the third one being a sprocket that you know you can just hold for 5 minutes
• Do the interval set from the earlier session (5 minutes of 30 seconds on, 30 seconds off)
• Go back down the sprockets in 2 minute steps holding 95 rpm on each
• Cool down for 5 minutes using the same chain ring and sprocket as for the warm-up

Muscular Endurance

A 75 minute session from Dave Stanton - pre-season when you’ve got a good bit of winter base riding behind you. The aim is to progressively build this workout as the race season nears; ie week 1 as shown, week 2 as 6 x 7 mins with 3 mins recovery, week 3 as 6 x 8 mins with 3 mins recovery. Then progress to 3 x 10 mins, 3 x 12, etc, until 3 x 20 mins. At this point you’ll be well prepared for a 40k PB.
Warm up (20mins)

• 10 mins easy spinning bringing HR up to 60%
• 10 mins SL (single leg) as 1 min left, 1 min right concentrating on smooth pedal action

Main set (45mins)

• 6 x 6 mins at or near LTHR (Lactate Tolerance HR) with 3 mins easy spinning recovery. Aim for 85-100 rpm and this is intended to be race pace training; ie any harder you’ll blow up, any easier and 6 mins is not a struggle.

Warm down (7-10mins easy spinning)

Morgan

You can also get turbo training programs from the Tacx website:

http://www.tacx.com/beleef+tacx.php?language=EN&ttop=Training%20programmes&lvlMain=18&lvlSub=46&lvlSubSub=74

pgibbo

A mate of mine has some of the Chris Carmichael DVDs for TT sessions. We did the Cadence one and the Power one last night. They are very good - well from my novice viewpoint anyway.

Has anyone else used these DVDs or have any other recommendations?

danburke

How about with rollers?

pgibbo

danburke wrote: »

How about with rollers?

Cheers. I meant the DVDs or recommend any other similair tools. Wife would crack up if I arrived home with rollers! Easier to hide a DVD or a book with good TT sessions in them.:eek:

Tackleberry

Would anybody have any views on the following conundrum I've encountered on the trainer?

Basically I'm trying to burn as many calories as possible in an effort to lose 3-4 stone over the next few months, from the software its telling me I'm burning 5-600 calories per hour at my current effort averaging 85rpm for a 2hr spin.

Is this the highest burn I can hope for or does anyone know of techniques that burn even more calories? Basically what is the best way to lose weight on the bike?

At the moment I'm getting 4 or 5 spins in a week, around 2 hours each, trying to keep revs at 95-100rpm, keeping heart rate low enough for highest calorie burn.

A strange debate has also arisen in the area of energy drinks, I started using one a while ago and found it brilliant, maybe its a placebo effect but I'm convinced I feel stronger shortly after taking some on board. However as I'm trying to lose weight, am I kidding myself taking on the calories in an energy drink while hoping to lose calories as well?!!

I feel like its a catch 22 coz with the drink I find it a lot easier to do good fast 2 hour sessions but like I said is it a futile exercise if I'm not actually burning calories? Confusing stuff!

Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated

Caroline_ie

Tackleberry wrote: »

Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated

Do you use a head rate monitor? If Not ... you should -

You should know your Maximum Heart Rate and your correct training zone.

Healthy Heart Zone (Warm up) --- 50 - 60% of maximum heart rate: The easiest zone and probably the best zone for people just starting a fitness program. It can also be used as a warm up for more serious walkers. This zone has been shown to help decrease body fat, blood pressure and cholesterol. It also decreases the risk of degenerative diseases and has a low risk of injury. 85% of calories burned in this zone are fats!

Fitness Zone (Fat Burning) --- 60 - 70% of maximum heart rate: This zone provides the same benefits as the healthy heart zone, but is more intense and burns more total calories. The percent of fat calories is still 85%.

Aerobic Zone (Endurance Training) --- 70 - 80% of maximum heart rate: The aerobic zone will improve your cardiovascular and respiratory system AND increase the size and strength of your heart. This is the preferred zone if you are training for an endurance event. More calories are burned with 50% from fat.

Anaerobic Zone (Performance Training) --- 80 - 90% of maximum heart rate: Benefits of this zone include an improved VO2 maximum (the highest amount of oxygen one can consume during exercise) and thus an improved cardiorespiratory system, and a higher lactate tolerance ability which means your endurance will improve and you'll be able to fight fatigue better. This is a high intensity zone burning more calories, 15 % from fat.

Red Line (Maximum Effort) --- 90 - 100% of maximum heart rate: Although this zone burns the highest number of calories, it is very intense. Most people can only stay in this zone for short periods. You should only train in this zone if you are in very good shape and have been cleared by a physician to do so.

Chips Lovell

Those calorie burning measuresments aren't known for being terribly accurate.

I was on a turbo a few times over Christmas and was burning north of 1,000 an hour. I could have been working harder than you, or the computer could have been calculating it differently. Who knows...

The main thing to remember is that you're trying to burn fat, not calories per se. Your body burns both fats and sugars. The more intensive your heart rate, the higher the proportion of sugars. Since your body only stores a set amount of sugars, you do need to refuel for longer efforts, or else you'll bonk, i.e. end up burning fat only. However, I think you probably know most of this.

What you really want to find out is whether you should be drinking your energy drink. For a two hour spin, no I wouldn't. I'd just rely on water. Sure the sugar may give you a bit of a lift, but you're there to burn fat, not spin faster.

niceonetom

there are some who'll dispute this but loosing weight is simply a matter of burning more calories than you absorb from your diet.

as caroline and el_tonto point out though we burn our calories from different stores depending on the rate at which you're working. basically the harder you work the less fat you burn.

long story short; i'd knock the energy drink on the head and reduce the intensity to a level where a large proportion of the calories you're burning will be coming from your gut - not from the bidon. you may burn fewer calories in a session, but they will be more effective in reducing the paunch. don't make up for the calories later in the day either, spending time at the top of the fat burning zone makes me savagely hungry and it's difficult not to spend the rest of the day eating "because i've earned it".

some people (runners mostly i think) say it's best to do this fat burning exercise first thing in the morning before breakfast. the rationale is that your glycogen stores are at their lowest so the calories you use are all coming out of fat reserves. makes sense to me. but it's very hard to do when you feel weak as a kitten after 15 minutes.

el tonto wrote: »

What you really want to find out is whether you should be drinking your energy drink. For a two hour spin, no I wouldn't. I'd just rely on water. Sure the sugar may give you a bit of a lift, but you're there to burn fat, not spin faster.

i agree. but if you sweat anywhere near as much as i do on the turbo i suggest you put a pinch o' sea-salt in with the water to help stop cramps.

Quigs Snr

niceonetom wrote: »

some people (runners mostly i think) say it's best to do this fat burning exercise first thing in the morning before breakfast. the rationale is that your glycogen stores are at their lowest so the calories you use are all coming out of fat reserves. makes sense to me. but it's very hard to do when you feel weak as a kitten after 15 minutes.

.

Also known as bonk training for those who want to read more. Some studies say it works, others say not. The trick is to not go home and eat the door off the fridge..

Chips Lovell

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Also known as bonk training for those who want to read more. Some studies say it works, others say not. The trick is to not go home and eat the door off the fridge..

I've read before that bonk training is actually really bad for you. Apparently it takes ages for your body to recover from a bonk.

Tackleberry

Thanks for the comments lads n lassies, all makes a lotta sense on paper, quite hard to translate it to the bike! I'll skip using the energy drink until I start doing longer cycles and mountain routes etc. Guess you just have to go without the added boost!

@ Caroline - I used a HRM a few years back but found it a bit of a nuisance, the zones make perfect sense but when you're on the bike there's too many variables like wind, hills, etc to allow you to stick solely to the zones, and it took a lot of the enjoyment out of it, I have similar speeds and revs on the road as on my trainer and do check my pulse during sessions on the trainer and seem to generally keep my HR at around 60-70%, revving around 95rpm, so I'm happy to hear thats probably the most suitable zone for me.

@ Tom - thats great advice I think thats the way I'll go - don't wanna get too scientific or analytical about the whole thing, so I was thinking the simple rule will be to burn more calories than I take in, I'll do as many suitable spins as possible and lock the fridge door, hopefully that'll sort me out!

@ El-tonto - 1000 calories per hour is terrifying, feel useless now! What rpm's, kph, wattage, distance did you do? I presume the hour was done in the high HR zones? Its strange tho - on a 2 hour 60km spin with two hills I burnt 600kcals per hour, while on a much hillier much harder 2 hour 57km spin I only burnt 500kcals - bit weird!?!

Anyway so would you guys agree that the best plan or attack on my gut is as little grub / junk as possible, no energy drinks and miles and miles of 60-70% high rev spins?!!!

short circuit

Tackleberry wrote: »

@ Caroline - I used a HRM a few years back but found it a bit of a nuisance, the zones make perfect sense but when you're on the bike there's too many variables like wind, hills, etc to allow you to stick solely to the zones, and it took a lot of the enjoyment out of it, I have similar speeds and revs on the road as on my trainer and do check my pulse during sessions on the trainer and seem to generally keep my HR at around 60-70%, revving around 95rpm, so I'm happy to hear thats probably the most suitable zone for me.

The variability of external factors is exactly why a HRM is useful .. you could be facing a 20kmph headwind or tail wind, 5% decline or a 12% incline ... at 70% heart rate ... your heart is doing the same work and you stay within the correct zone.

Tackleberry wrote: »

@ El-tonto - 1000 calories per hour is terrifying, feel useless now! What rpm's, kph, wattage, distance did you do? I presume the hour was done in the high HR zones? Its strange tho - on a 2 hour 60km spin with two hills I burnt 600kcals per hour, while on a much hillier much harder 2 hour 57km spin I only burnt 500kcals - bit weird!?!

That is honestly savage ... 1000cal per hour ... I'm 80kg and I just use a blanket figure of 650cals per hour of cycling and hope that it will average out ... I just use this figure to make sure that I am not more than 500cals below what I have used .. This is very important .. if you starve yourself, the body will slow down the metabolism and prevent fat loss

And don't worry about the calorie consumption ... none of the devices are accurate. They all use various algorithms .. if you are really serious about what you burn ... you have to get a power meter and measure your wattage. This can be measured fairly accurately .. and will indirectly give the amount of work you've put in.

For me, as you mentioned, it just takes the pleasure away from cycling .. a speedometer will just do me just fine

niceonetom

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Also known as bonk training for those who want to read more. Some studies say it works, others say not. The trick is to not go home and eat the door off the fridge..

i wasn't talking about deliberately inducing a bonk situation - i wouldn't recommend that to anybody. it's quite possible to do at least an hour @65% HRmax before breakfast, i've done it many times, sometimes for up to 2 hours (working up to it incrementally) but it does get very difficult. it's important never to do any high intensity though as with low blood sugar it's very difficult to recover and the muscles just get really sore and heavy, and they stay that way. i have never bonked. come close at the 2+ hour mark, but never actually bonked.

there is the theory that if we train our bodies to be able to deliver a steady stream of energy from fat (by unfuelled morning training say) that that supply will still be available to us when we start introducing sugar into the system too, thus eventually giving better energy supply to the muscles in race situations. again, it makes sense to me, but is purely academic as i don't race and probably won't any time soon.

el tonto wrote: »

I've read before that bonk training is actually really bad for you. Apparently it takes ages for your body to recover from a bonk.

i've read that too - that's why i wouldn't recommend bonking.

Tackleberry wrote: »

Anyway so would you guys agree that the best plan or attack on my gut is as little grub / junk as possible, no energy drinks and miles and miles of 60-70% high rev spins?!!!

basically yeah. energy drinks only when really needed, otherwise your just pouring calories into yourself, which ain't what you need.

i'd also second caroline's recommendation of a HRM. keeps you honest about the effort your putting in (perceived effort is very unreliable), and on the turbo you have no excuse about conditions etc.

Tackleberry

Interesting points about the HRM, got me thinking about getting a basic one. The problem I always had with them is for the zone I want, 60-70%, you have to be ticking over at fairly useless speeds with high revs, just embarassing really! So its hard to stick to the zones, hit a hill and you're over the limit, go downhill and you're below it, tick along on the flat and you're bored and just wanna give it a lash, hit traffic lights and you slow it - they basically just didnt work for me, but 3 of my 5 spins per week are on the trainer so like Tom said they'd work well in that regard.

short circuit wrote: »

.. if you are really serious about what you burn ... you have to get a power meter and measure your wattage. This can be measured fairly accurately .. and will indirectly give the amount of work you've put in

Well I would've thought the wattage you put in results in the calorie burn, so I cant see why you'd look at wattage itself? Is there some kind of method of focusing on wattage that tells you the calories you're burning? If not I cant see why you'd switch attention from HR and Calories? For example I have an average wattage of 170 watts per hour - what does that tell me about the calorie burn?

Quigs Snr

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't recommend the bonk training either. I do have to confess that I did it for a few weeks a number of years ago to lose some weight. My experience of it would match what you read about it. I was quite ill at times as a result of it, lethargic, tired the whole lot. I did lose a lot of weight, but I wouldn't do it again. Not worth it.

I do know of people who have done it to crash weight loss before the race season. All it really does though is destroy your form. I would concur that if you ride at a very casual pace (for me about 130bpm), you can go quite far on an empty stomach before you bonk.

Recovering from a bonk is difficult as el tonto mentioned. Thats why when I see some Tour rider collapse in the alpes one day and tear the field apart the next I get very suspicious, anyone here who has bonked, and I mean really bonked to the point where you are delirious, seeing flashing yellow dots everywhere, dribbling on yourself, semi concious running on autopilot not taking in any of the things you are hearing or seeing. You were hungry a while ago but now you are so hungry you are too sick to eat. It has happened to me in a few races. You barely remember anything afterwards, you want to sleep or eat or get sick, or all of them. You want to sleep on the bike. At the finish you want to curl up on the footpath for a nap and that footpath feels like the softest bed in the world. When you wake up you would eat a Nissan Micra if it was the closest thing to you. Its happened to me more than once and I can tell you no matter what massage I got or food I had or whatever I was never full of beans on the bike the next day.... Le Bonk should be avoided. Unless of course Dr Ferrari is your roomate.

short circuit

Tackleberry wrote: »

Interesting points about the HRM, got me thinking about getting a basic one. The problem I always had with them is for the zone I want, 60-70%, you have to be ticking over at fairly useless speeds with high revs, just embarassing really! So its hard to stick to the zones, hit a hill and you're over the limit, go downhill and you're below it, tick along on the flat and you're bored and just wanna give it a lash, hit traffic lights and you slow it - they basically just didnt work for me, but 3 of my 5 spins per week are on the trainer so like Tom said they'd work well in that regard.

If you find 60 - 70% too easy ... it might be because you are using a wrong Max. heart rate. Unless MHR is measured ... any other formula will only be approximate. There are few tests which you can do to get your MHR .. look it up on the web ... but a word of warning ... you have to be reasonably fit before you do any of the tests.

Also, there is the 80-20 rule .. 80% of training around 70%MHR and only 20% of hard miles. So within the 80%, you are not allowed on hills on which you can't spin up at 70%MHR in your lowest gear. Keep them for the 20% workouts.

Tackleberry wrote: »

Well I would've thought the wattage you put in results in the calorie burn, so I cant see why you'd look at wattage itself? Is there some kind of method of focusing on wattage that tells you the calories you're burning? If not I cant see why you'd switch attention from HR and Calories? For example I have an average wattage of 170 watts per hour - what does that tell me about the calorie burn?

1 kJ = 1 calorie (or kcal).
1000 J = 1 kJ.
1 watt = 1 J/s.

So for El Tonto's 1000 calorie/hr (3600s) workout

1000 cal/3600s * 1kJ/1cal * 1000J/1kJ = 278 J/s = 278 watts is what he needs to maintain for the hour and this would be regardless of whether he was a 50kg climber or a 90kg sprinter

I am sure someone will correct me on the above ... but that's mu theory.

Tackleberry

short circuit wrote: »

1000 cal/3600s * 1kJ/1cal * 1000J/1kJ = 278 J/s = 278 watts is what he needs to maintain for the hour and this would be regardless of whether he was a 50kg climber or a 90kg sprinter

I am sure someone will correct me on the above ... but that's mu theory.

Very interesting stuff, but a bit too hard to keep checkin that you're in your correct HR zone while watching your wattage and your speed all at the same time tho, guess its all good anyway, but I hate getting too scientific about the sport, maybe there is a spot on program you can use on the trainer that considers all three elements but sounds like you'd need a scientist to come up with it!?!

Anyway I don't think its as simple as going out on the trainer for an hour and staying at an average of 278 watts because how do the HR zones fit into that? I suppose the fitter you get the easier those watts become, and your zones will probably ultimately fit that measurement, but if you're targeting weight loss or any specific improvements it would seem that the HR zones are the best measurement? Basically as it was said previously, you could burn the 1000 calories but you might've been at 80-90% effort to do it and thereby not burn the correct type of fat?

Chips Lovell

Quigs Snr wrote: »

...anyone here who has bonked, and I mean really bonked to the point where you are delirious, seeing flashing yellow dots everywhere, dribbling on yourself, semi concious running on autopilot not taking in any of the things you are hearing or seeing. You were hungry a while ago but now you are so hungry you are too sick to eat. It has happened to me in a few races. You barely remember anything afterwards, you want to sleep or eat or get sick, or all of them. You want to sleep on the bike. At the finish you want to curl up on the footpath for a nap and that footpath feels like the softest bed in the world. When you wake up you would eat a Nissan Micra if it was the closest thing to you.

How can anyone not want to race after reading this?

Chips Lovell

short circuit wrote: »

If you find 60 - 70% too easy ... it might be because you are using a wrong Max. heart rate. Unless MHR is measured ... any other formula will only be approximate. There are few tests which you can do to get your MHR .. look it up on the web ... but a word of warning ... you have to be reasonably fit before you do any of the tests.

I think it's easy to underestimate your MHR. I know when I started using HRM I thought mine was 182. I hit that once and I was suffering like a dog. Within months I had revised it up to 191. I thought that was it until a few months ago I hit 193. That may be it. I was almost seeing stars at that point.

short circuit wrote: »

So for El Tonto's 1000 calorie/hr (3600s) workout

1000 cal/3600s * 1kJ/1cal * 1000J/1kJ = 278 J/s = 278 watts is what he needs to maintain for the hour and this would be regardless of whether he was a 50kg climber or a 90kg sprinter

That sounds about right. I was keeping the wattage above 300, so it would make sense it averaged out at 278 taking into account short breaks etc.

Gavin

equation looks right, constants are wrong
1 calorie = 4.18400 joules

cantalach

Verb wrote: »

equation looks right, constants are wrong
1 calorie = 4.18400 joules

You beat me to it. But he has also omitted something else from the calculation: the efficiency of the human body. For cycling, this is typically in the 20-25% range (this is what's used by gym stationary bikes). What this means is that for every 1000 kCal that you burn, only 200-250 kCal are converted into useful power in the cranks. So the revised calculations are:

Burning 1,000 kCal is the same as burning 4,184,000 joules.

This works out at 1,162 joules/sec, i.e. 1,162 W.

Working off 22.5% efficiency, this will produce 262 W in the cranks.

short circuit

Verb wrote: »

equation looks right, constants are wrong
1 calorie = 4.18400 joules

cantalach wrote: »

You beat me to it. But he has also omitted something else from the calculation: the efficiency of the human body. For cycling, this is typically in the 20-25% range (this is what's used by gym stationary bikes). What this means is that for every 1000 kCal that you burn, only 200-250 kCal are converted into useful power in the cranks. So the revised calculations are:

Burning 1,000 kCal is the same as burning 4,184,000 joules.

This works out at 1,162 joules/sec, i.e. 1,162 W.

Working off 22.5% efficiency, this will produce 262 W in the cranks.

Thanks guys .... thought it wasn't that easy ... ... I like the way how I missed 2 constants and still came to the right answer ... feels like school when you knew the answer beforehand .. and just worked out to reach that ..

Too many geeks around in this forum ...

but like I said ... as long as my weight doesn't increase / decrease over any 2 month period ... unless I am specifically aiming for it ... I assume that my input and output are just fine

cantalach

short circuit wrote: »

Too many geeks around in this forum ...

Yep. Now lets mix in some real world data to have even more 'fun'...

According to Chris Carmichael's latest tweets, Armstrong averaged 359 W over 46m44s when climbing some mountain in Hawaii yesterday. This works out at 1,067 kCal or 8 Nutrigrain bars!

danburke

Should you not be working off your lactic acid threshold instead of your maximum heart rate?

I read this ages ago and its a geat guide http://www.amazon.com/Cyclists-Training-Bible-Joe-Friel/dp/1931382212