Taking advice graciously

[mattc]

How well do you take advice? I'm a real gannet, harvesting information from all sorts of sources. But at the end of the day you have to filter most of it out, and come up with plans simple enough to follow (you can make subtle changes, but mainly in the off season). This is fine, but I have awkward moments when talking to people who want to give me advice (generally with impeccable intentions). It's hard not to upset people who know stuff, and want to help you by imposing their knowledge on your situation.

One problem is that there is very little nailed-down theory about 'proper' long-distance stuff. There is a lot of folk-lore (which is useful), but modern sports science tends to be aimed at more popular disciplines – short TTs, pro stage racing and the like. Rarely are events over 11 hours considered – let alone 40 or 90 hours.

If I get advice, there are no guarantees. If I follow advice and get injured, there is no comeback. So I have to make my own decisions. This even applies with the healers – I pay an hourly rate to a physio, who will give all sorts of advice, but even if I religiously follow their plans, and do every exercise I'm given, I can't sue them if an injury fails to improve. But if I go back with the same old problem, they'll usually blame my bad habits. Lose-lose.

Then there is my indiscipline. Or rather, my preference for fun over the perfect training plan. If I paid a coach for a 1 year training schedule, I would inevitably have a conversation like the following;
“Hmm. The plan says intervals on Monday 7th. Is that wise after the Scog Mountain 600, coach?”
“Aaargh! That weekend says rest on the schedule: I told you, no 600s until after week 18!”
I can't imagine ever sticking to anyone else's schedule 100%.

I suspect there is no answer to this problem – I just need to nod politely a lot ...

[simonp]

Well, I've failed to stick to any sort of training plan.

I've done over 5,000 miles, though.

And despite it being a friday after a 600, and having boozed (4 pints) on Wednesday and again (1 pint) after swimming club last night, I set a 10,000m PB on the rowing machine.

So I think it'll be ok.  And as long as you've done lots of miles, and some high intensity work, I think you will be too.

[hellymedic]

In the Real World, you have to fit in high intensity, low intensity, rest and recovery, with Work, Wife, Weekends and the Audax Calendar.
Start by planning the immovable, then make flexible plans around them.
Smile sweetly at your advisors, then do what works for you.

[inc]

One problem is that there is very little nailed-down theory about 'proper' long-distance stuff. There is a lot of folk-lore (which is useful), but modern sports science tends to be aimed at more popular disciplines – short TTs, pro stage racing and the like. Rarely are events over 11 hours considered – let alone 40 or 90 hours.

I think this is your problem in finding advice you find useful. Audax is basically riding your bike you don't need to specifically train for it, you should never at Audax speeds get anywhere near taxing your body with the physiological demands of racing which all training information is focused on. That is not to say long distance Audax is easy far from it but the demands are different with more focus on feeding and comfortable position, I suspect there are more DNFs from getting these wrong than not being able to maintain the pace.

[mattc]

This may be presumptious, but I suspect the two male respondents (and not the lady) have misunderstood me slightly!

The problem is not interpreting the information out there (well actually it is a bit of a battle, but I rather enjoy the challenge). What I struggle with is discarding advice from people who mean well, without causing offence.[of course it's easy online, but face-to-face is trickier]

I suspect this is easier if your chosen sport is more mainstream; training for a marathon, etc ... You just pick which magazine's training plan to follow, and then you can simply tell people that is what you are doing

[hellymedic]

One problem is that there is very little nailed-down theory about 'proper' long-distance stuff. There is a lot of folk-lore (which is useful), but modern sports science tends to be aimed at more popular disciplines – short TTs, pro stage racing and the like. Rarely are events over 11 hours considered – let alone 40 or 90 hours.

I think this is your problem in finding advice you find useful. Audax is basically riding your bike you don't need to specifically train for it, you should never at Audax speeds get anywhere near taxing your body with the physiological demands of racing which all training information is focused on. That is not to say long distance Audax is easy far from it but the demands are different with more focus on feeding and comfortable position, I suspect there are more DNFs from getting these wrong than not being able to maintain the pace.

I wish! Given that any hill, even a 2km ride to work at modest speeds, could get my heart rate up to 192, I was going close to maximum capacity on many Audax rides. Any less effort and I never would have got anywhere at all. Being a Lanterne Rouge with aerobic capacity at the left side of the Gaussian curve is quite a challenge!

[inc]

 What I struggle with is discarding advice from people who mean well, without causing offence.

Maybe you should have posted in "the Pub" if you want help with that problem 

[mattc]

Don't tell me where to post !!!           

[hellymedic]

At an Audax reunion in another century, a well-known AUK advised me not to eat any more bread.
I took his sage advice and bonked out on the ride back. Many teacakes were needed for me to complete my homeward journey.
Maybe other AUK would not have needed the bread. I did but would not heed such advice again.

[PloddinPedro]

How well do you take advice? ............One problem is that there is very little nailed-down theory about 'proper' long-distance stuff. There is a lot of folk-lore (which is useful), but modern sports science tends to be aimed at more popular disciplines – short TTs, pro stage racing and the like. Rarely are events over 11 hours considered – let alone 40 or 90 hours.

You are so right - and it's worse for the "more mature" amongst us. Many's the time my interest has been sparked by a headline along the lines of: "training for endurance on longer rides" only to find (a) the writer's idea of a "longer ride" is at best a 175km sportive; and (b) all the content is related to the 20 to 35 year old person whose untrained fitness level I can only dream about from my position the wrong side of 60!

I suspect there is no answer to this problem

Sadly, I think you're right.