WW 200 training advice please

wersal gummage

well my training for the WW200 is only going to start now.......

all i can really put in is 2x2hours mid week and 1x4 or 5 hours on a sat morning from now till June.

Just wondering - obviously on the long spin on a saturday I'll head for the hills - but I've read on-line that I should push the hardest gear I can manage... is this the best strategy ?? I'm not great on the hills and always find myself in the easiest gears as soon as I hit any kind of gradient. Is it better to do short bursts in a hard gear and stop for a break, or just get into a low gear and keep going ???

Secondly - on the two mid week spins - should I just go for two 60km spins or should i go sprinting one night and hill climb intervals the other night ???

Have never completed anything like this so any advice greatly appreciated it. Can manage 140kms on my own but on the flat.

oh - I'm also commuting 100kms a week the past year but wouldn't really count this.

I know there is a thread on beginners for the WW200 going on group spins - which I had hoped to join but hasn't happened yet.

Thanks.

petethedrummer

I would do the hills in Wicklow in whatever gears get you through the day. As you get more familiar with particular climbs you can try experimenting with harder gears. It doesn't take many repeats of a climb to get an innate sense of how hard you can push it.

seamus

If hills are your problem, then I think that's your target area to work on. They're the place that suck the most energy out of you. 140km on the flat is a good long distance, but it's hard to say how you'll fare on the hills. I've done 100km on the flat and felt little effect afterwards but done a hilly 80km and found myself dead for 48 hours.

Don't underestimate your 100km per week commuting. It provides a good base level fitness. It's 100km more than the guy next to you is getting in.

You can never go wrong simply getting out on the bike and riding, but certain types of training will improve your performance in certain aspects of your riding more quickly than others.
Unfortunately that's about as far as my knowledge of training goes

I started doing intervals last weekend. Actually very useful for squeezing in some additional training. 30 mins warm-up climbing and descending stocking lane, then 6 x short sprints (I think about 15 seconds) with 5 minutes rest between each. I managed to get a fairly good workout in about an hour. A short sprint followed by 5 minutes rest sounds insane, but if you do the sprints as hard as you can summon from your body, then I found that I needed those five minutes, or the bulk thereof, to get my HR back down.
I've only just started doing them, so no idea if they'll be of any use, but the theory is that they should help you climb and ride faster (and therefore more efficiently) and have a knock-on effect on endurance. My legs were jellyish for a couple of hours after the first time, so it does something

A 60km flat spin midweek is really a fitness builder and I would argue that it will provide less than optimal benefit for an event like the WW200. If you do a hilly 2 hour spin with some bastard hills, you might only manage 40km, but you'll get more benefit out of it.

In terms of gearing, "The highest gear you can manage" is a bit misleading, especially for hills. As pete says, as you get to know particular hills, you will get to know whether you can afford to push it hard or whether there's more pain to come and you should ease off. On stocking lane for example, if you decide you're going to really hammer it as far as Massey's, you'll have nothing left to give for the hardest part of the climb. On the other hand, if you know a climb is 500m long with decent room for rest afterwards, then you can push it to the top.

You also need to consider each hill in terms of the whole route. If you push the first few hills you'll find yourself wasted towards the end. The WW200 has its two hardest climbs after 100km of riding has already been done, so pacing oneself is important.

I would always say that hill climbing is an endurance matter, not a speed one. Find a comfy gear, plonk your arse in the saddle and just keep your legs moving until you reach the top. Nothing less motivating than having to stop halfway up a climb.

hillclimber

For the mid week spins I would try to do two 60km spins preferably on undulating terrain to gradually build up your strength. More enjoyable and probaly better for your knees than hill repeats in the early stages anyway. Just my two cents;)

wersal gummage

thanks all, particularly seamus - some food for thought in there !

sorry - hillclimber - i should say a 60km spin to me is very easy, no problem whatsoever and not tired in the slightest afterwards (at an avg. pace of about 27kms) - just wondering if doing two a week is any use or whether i'm better off putting the few hours i have into some kind of hill repeats etc etc.

Raam

wersal gummage wrote: »

thanks all, particularly seamus - some food for thought in there !

sorry - hillclimber - i should say a 60km spin to me is very easy, no problem whatsoever and not tired in the slightest afterwards (at an avg. pace of about 27kms) - just wondering if doing two a week is any use or whether i'm better off putting the few hours i have into some kind of hill repeats etc etc.

Don't bother with hill repeats. The biggest challenge on the day is the distance, so get used to riding long distances and spending 6+ hours in the saddle.

Don't push the hardest gear you can manage, spin the easiest gear which keeps you feeling comfortable.

Lumen

You have gears for a reason. Use them. Whilst you can gain specific adaptations from pushing hard gears, unless you're planning to do the WW200 on a fixie those adapations will be much less useful than building your endurance, and that requires as many hours in the saddle as you can spare.

wersal gummage

thanks raam and lumen - pretty much exactly what i was looking for

chakattack

wersal gummage wrote: »

thanks all, particularly seamus - some food for thought in there !

sorry - hillclimber - i should say a 60km spin to me is very easy, no problem whatsoever and not tired in the slightest afterwards (at an avg. pace of about 27kms) - just wondering if doing two a week is any use or whether i'm better off putting the few hours i have into some kind of hill repeats etc etc.

Some good advice here.

Cycle faster if it's too easy. If you are doing intervals of any sort, either do hill reps where you go harder than usual for 3-5 mins or during your two hour spin include 3 - 4 intervals where you ride hard and steady for 15-20 mins (feeling the burn, heavy breathing but easy enough that you can finish it).

Really short sprints aren't much use for the WW200.

The first type will help you on the hills, the second will help you stay with a fast bunch.

Are you doing 100km commuting + 2 x 2 hrs + 4 - 5 hrs? In that case you'll fly it.

Everyone struggles on the hills, find a gear you can spin comfortably, get in a groove you can maintain and keep going until the top, when the end is in sight you can drop a few gears, get out of the saddle, sprint over the top and then hammer the descent

wersal gummage

chakattack wrote: »

Are you doing 100km commuting + 2 x 2 hrs + 4 - 5 hrs? In that case you'll fly it.

Yes - have been doing the 100kms all along but will add in a 60km spin on a monday & thursday and a 4 or 5 hour on a sat morning starting next week. got up a good level of fitness last year, cycling a lot between march and september but i haven't really been out on the bike much over the winter (bar the commuting).

thanks for the advice on the intervals.

smacl

Doing to WW200 myself as well for the first time this year. In addition to the advice given, I think it helps to have cycled all the hills on the route at least once before the day, so you know what to expect. Slieve Maan, Shay Elliot after 100k in is most likely the toughest bit, so incorporating them at the end of one of your weekend spins could be a good idea.

Lumen

I wouldn't obsess about the hills too much. If you have appropriate gearing then cycling up hills (against gravity) is no more difficult than going along the flat (against the wind). Force is force.

There is just a bit more effort involved per km, which sort of makes the 192km or whatever it is this year feel a bit more like 240km in terms of total effort.

Cookie_Monster

smacl wrote: »

Doing to WW200 myself as well for the first time this year. In addition to the advice given, I think it helps to have cycled all the hills on the route at least once before the day, so you know what to expect. Slieve Maan, Shay Elliot after 100k in is most likely the toughest bit, so incorporating them at the end of one of your weekend spins could be a good idea.

+1

I've just completed the entire route ( in 3 parts). I think it helps immensely to know what's coming and where and when. Even from doing the same hills over and over you get to know when you're there and don't get as demoralised as easily IMO. There's loads of nasty little hills from Avoca back to Ashford

I think it's important to get hills in regardless of what others say, why wouldn't you take the opportunity to get used to similar conditions as well as distance?

get on your bike

Agree about it being nasty from avoca to ashford then the coast road after a long way is nasty. I personally don't like de laragh to rathdrum Rd.

smacl

Lumen wrote: »

There is just a bit more effort involved per km, which sort of makes the 192km or whatever it is this year feel a bit more like 240km in terms of total effort.

Depends on your weight, being a bit heavier (82kg) on a heavy bike, I find the hills more arduous than the wind. Guy I cycle with who is about 65kg finds the reverse. Personally, I find knowing how far away the top is on the way up, and knowing where the bends and big potholes are on the way down, makes it that bit easier.

wersal gummage

smacl wrote: »

Depends on your weight, being a bit heavier (82kg) on a heavy bike, I find the hills more arduous than the wind.

think thats part of my problem too - at 92kgs

smacl

Wouldn't worry too much about it, there's loads of bigger guys out there in the mountains on their bikes. Most of 'em pass me going up hills Certainly try a few hills to get some practice in.

Lumen

smacl wrote: »

Depends on your weight, being a bit heavier (82kg) on a heavy bike, I find the hills more arduous than the wind. Guy I cycle with who is about 65kg finds the reverse.

wersal gummage wrote: »

think thats part of my problem too - at 92kgs

That just indicates that you're under geared and/or going too hard up the hills.

There is no need to approach the WW200 like a series of hillclimb TTs.

Whatever your power/weight is, there will always be people faster than you.

seamus

wersal gummage wrote: »

think thats part of my problem too - at 92kgs

You could easily drop just 2 of them before the WW200 and you get a 2% increase in power for free. That's 4km of the WW200.

mloc123

seamus wrote: »

You could easily drop just 2 of them before the WW200 and you get a 2% increase in power for free. That's 4km of the WW200.

2% increase in power/weight... not power

seamus

Sssh!

velo.2010

chakattack wrote: »

Everyone struggles on the hills,

How dare you assume so!:D

get on your bike wrote: »

. I personally don't like de laragh to rathdrum Rd.

Possibly the most energy draining road in Wicklow. Up/down, up/down. Did it out and back two weeks ago. Surface out of Laragh is a prime example of what the harsh winter did to our roads.

blorg

smacl wrote: »

Depends on your weight, being a bit heavier (82kg) on a heavy bike, I find the hills more arduous than the wind.

The point is, for any given gradient, there is a speed you can try to do on the flat that will be harder. This holds irrespective of your weight. What speed on the flat corresponds exactly with what gradient will depend on your weight but this isn't particularly relevant.

You can train for hills on the flat, but the problem is that most people don't have the motivation to push themselves hard enough on the flat and will slack off/freewheel, etc. A flat TT is as hard as a hillclimb TT, if you are doing it right.

smacl

blorg wrote: »

The point is, for any given gradient, there is a speed you can try to do on the flat that will be harder. This holds irrespective of your weight.

True, but say we invert your argument. Given a fixed course comprised of flat and hilly sections, the heavier you are, the greater the proportion of the total energy you expend over the course will be taken by the hills. If you use gearing to regulate your energy output, you slow down and spend more time in the hills. If you try to keep your pace consistent, you use more energy. Either way you cut it, you have to lift the extra mass over the extra elevation, which requires extra energy.

So the equivalent flat distance you would have to ride to mimic a hilly course is dependent on your weight.

Lumen

smacl wrote: »

So the equivalent flat distance you would have to ride to mimic a hilly course is dependent on your weight.

Yes, but this is irrelevant for training purposes. If you want to do specific training for an event which will require spending 8 hours slightly out of breath and 1 hour coasting downhill, then as training it doesn't matter whether you're slightly out of breath on a hill or slightly out of breath on a flat road. Assuming you have appropriate gearing. And even if you don't, you can just use a lower cadence.

Cookie_Monster

Lumen wrote: »

Yes, but this is irrelevant for training purposes. If you want to do specific training for an event which will require spending 8 hours slightly out of breath and 1 hour coasting downhill, then as training it doesn't matter whether you're slightly out of breath on a hill or slightly out of breath on a flat road. Assuming you have appropriate gearing. And even if you don't, you can just use a lower cadence.

ah come on now,

there's a huge difference between struggling up a steep hill at 8kph in lowest gear and cruising along the flat sections in a high gear at 30-40 kph.

your not* going to be pushing yourself to go 50 on the flat section of the w200 so it feels the same as climbing so why train like that?

*well you might but then you're probably fit enough

Lumen

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

there's a huge difference between struggling up a steep hill at 8kph in lowest gear and cruising along the flat sections in a high gear at 30-40 kph.

Not if the cadence is the same. Go and do 100km at 40kph and 50rpm and tell me it's easy.

If someone is "struggling up a steep hill at 8kph in lowest gear" then they need more appropriate gearing.

seamus

blorg wrote: »

You can train for hills on the flat, but the problem is that most people don't have the motivation to push themselves hard enough on the flat and will slack off/freewheel, etc. A flat TT is as hard as a hillclimb TT, if you are doing it right.

This. You can do the same training on the flat as in the hills (and cover a lot more miles), but it requires you to mentally think, "push, push, push". It's too easy to take your foot off the gas and just spin.
On the other hand, if you're going up a hill, you don't have to think at all, just keep going. If you take your foot off the gas, you will slow down quickly.

This is why I'd recommend a shorter hilly spin instead of a longer flat spin if the aim is to improve strength for hill climbing.

Cookie_Monster

Lumen wrote: »

If someone is "struggling up a steep hill at 8kph in lowest gear" then they need more appropriate gearing.

well I guess my gearing is massively inappropriate then...

smacl

Lumen wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether you're slightly out of breath on a hill or slightly out of breath on a flat road. Assuming you have appropriate gearing. And even if you don't, you can just use a lower cadence.

True, but you need to experience a fair few hills to know what gear / cadence and hence speed you should be using for different gradients and lengths of climb. As a novice, I'm pretty sure I get this wrong, pushing too hard in too high a gear, rather than dropping down, spinning faster and pacing myself better. By spending more time in the hills, I'd hope to overcome this deficiency in my technique, so that even the steepest climbs aren't difficult, they just take a bit longer. Oh yeah, looking forward to that day...

Lumen

smacl wrote: »

True, but you need to experience a fair few hills to know what gear / cadence and hence speed you should be using for different gradients and lengths of climb. As a novice, I'm pretty sure I get this wrong, pushing too hard in too high a gear, rather than dropping down, spinning faster and pacing myself better. By spending more time in the hills, I'd hope to overcome this deficiency in my technique, so that even the steepest climbs aren't difficult, they just take a bit longer. Oh yeah, looking forward to that day...

It's not complicated. Higher cadence is better. IMO 80rpm is a sensible target for climbing. If you can't do that without running out of gears or running out of breath, get more gears.

There are people who can do the WW200 on a fixie for whom such advice is unnecessary, but they know who they are.

By all means seek out hills if that butters your muffin, but since there are people who have trained for the WW200 entirely indoors, it's hardly necessary.

smacl

Lumen wrote: »

By all means seek out hills if that butters your muffin, but since there are people who have trained for the WW200 entirely indoors, it's hardly necessary.

I'd say that was a barrel of laughs for them, but hardly the approach you would advocate surely? Call me old fashioned, but if I'm training for an event that includes cycling up hills, cycling up some similar hills, or even the actual hills, seems like a reasonable part of my preparation. What's possible for some is a far cry from what's sensible for many.

Lumen

smacl wrote: »

I'd say that was a barrel of laughs for them, but hardly the approach you would advocate surely?

I'm just advocating not obsessing about hills. If you have appropriate gearing the gradient doesn't matter. For reasons I don't understand (pride? optimism? ignorance?) many people have inappropriate gearing and therefore make hills hard for no reason.

Personally speaking, I tend to cycle on the flat, because that's what's near my house. If I have three hours to spare I'll do three hours as hard as possible. It makes no difference whether there are hills or not, except that descending in Wicklow tends to waste time I could otherwise spend pedalling hard.

smacl

Lumen wrote: »

For reasons I don't understand (pride? optimism? ignorance?) many people have inappropriate gearing and therefore make hills hard for no reason.

Experience perhaps?

blorg

smacl wrote: »

Experience perhaps?

Partially, but there is a solid segment that seem to think that using difficult gears to grind up hills is somehow more masculine, or worthy, or something. This can take years to beat out of them... Some resist even after their knees give out from the practice.

The advice that you can train for the hills on the flat is true, although it is more difficult to make to commitment to actually push yourself. The advice was given though in the context of someone not having time to get out to Wicklow during the week and trying to fit in sessions. If you can do hills, they are worth doing, and probably easier, but flat can be just as worthwhile- from a pure training/physiological adaptation point of view, if you do flat right. What country has been most successful on Alpe d'Huez?

The other suggestion of doing each hill on the course individually before the event is also very good advice; from a psychological point of view it will be invaluable on the day if you have actually done each of the climbs before.

seamus

blorg wrote: »

Partially, but there is a solid segment that seem to think that using difficult gears to grind up hills is somehow more masculine, or worthy, or something.

Well there's also people like me for whom my minimum 34/28 will let me spin up all but the steepest of hills. I'm not really willing to make any major gear changes when I can still get up these hills albeit at a cadence of 65/70 rpm. Especially when the goal is get better

smacl

blorg wrote: »

Partially, but there is a solid segment that seem to think that using difficult gears to grind up hills is somehow more masculine, or worthy, or something.

This is a habit I've fallen into that I've recently been trying to reverse. Going up hills faster by using the same lowish cadence in a higher gear, rather than increasing cadence in the same or even a lower gear. Stupid I know, but a habit nonetheless.