Author Topic: 'Training' recovery times...  (Read 3150 times)

'Training' recovery times...
« on: 20 February, 2023, 09:03:55 pm »
My Garmin (Edge) suggested I took 4 days(!) to recover (or easy training/riding) from a recent ride.  Any ideas how accurate this is & on what is it based?

I've had a HRM strap for a couple of months, don't use it all the time, but on this 70km ride, zones were roughly...

Zone 2: 7%
Zone 3: 75%
Zone 4 17%

This is apparently training effect of Aerobic 5 Overreaching tempo, Anaerobic 2.5    Load 325.(?)

I can pootle along in upper zone 2, if no headwind, or hills.  If I concentrate I can maintain mid  zone 3.  But keeping up with traffic or decent hills, goes zone 4.

Any ideas/ tips?
Cycle and recycle.   SS Wilson

Re: 'Training' recovery times...
« Reply #1 on: 20 February, 2023, 09:34:21 pm »
It’ll be based on what is called training load. If you’re only sporadically using the HR strap (assuming you don’t have a power meter) then your Edge won’t have a good view of how much “stress / load” you’ve been putting your body under.

Whether you should spend that much time in Z3 if you want to get faster is another discussion. Z3 being the zone that has the junk miles classification.

I’ll leave you with this thought,  training makes you weaker, recovery from that training rebuilds you stronger.  Insufficient recovery you’ll just get slower and weaker and build fatigue until you get an overuse injury.

Re: 'Training' recovery times...
« Reply #2 on: 20 February, 2023, 09:51:54 pm »
Wot he said. I think it would be correc to say that all mainstream grainy programs would recommend going much slower (80% zone2) with 20% in zone 5. Roughly speaking. Generally the mantra I hear is that us amateurs make the easy sessions too hard and the hard sessions too easy.

Re: 'Training' recovery times...
« Reply #3 on: 20 February, 2023, 09:55:16 pm »
My Edge used to tell me I needed more than 24hr recovery from my e-bike commute.

It's talking shite.

Re: 'Training' recovery times...
« Reply #4 on: 20 February, 2023, 11:03:06 pm »
Thanks all. Interesting. 'Junk miles' is a new one on me.  Will attempt more zone 2. 

Breathing technique is interesting, my HR show definite decrease, if I concentrate on breathing more steadily/deeper.

Cycle and recycle.   SS Wilson

Re: 'Training' recovery times...
« Reply #5 on: 24 February, 2023, 09:44:42 am »
Thanks all. Interesting. 'Junk miles' is a new one on me.  Will attempt more zone 2.

These guys have a good article on the zones (they have lots of good articles)

https://www.highnorth.co.uk/articles/cycling-training-zones/

Essentially Z3 should be used sparingly in training.

Re: 'Training' recovery times...
« Reply #6 on: 24 February, 2023, 11:11:25 am »
Wot he said. I think it would be correc to say that all mainstream grainy programs would recommend going much slower (80% zone2) with 20% in zone 5. Roughly speaking. Generally the mantra I hear is that us amateurs make the easy sessions too hard and the hard sessions too easy.
It's all volume dependent though. 4 hours of zone 2 a week with 1 hour of all other zones combined isn't going to make you much fitter. If you are doing big volumes (>8hours a week?), then it makes sense (and people who do big volumes often tend to have a high enough zone 2 that they can ride there without crawling up every tiny rise).

Re: 'Training' recovery times...
« Reply #7 on: 02 March, 2023, 09:46:14 pm »
Wot he said. I think it would be correc to say that all mainstream grainy programs would recommend going much slower (80% zone2) with 20% in zone 5. Roughly speaking. Generally the mantra I hear is that us amateurs make the easy sessions too hard and the hard sessions too easy.
It's all volume dependent though. 4 hours of zone 2 a week with 1 hour of all other zones combined isn't going to make you much fitter. If you are doing big volumes (>8hours a week?), then it makes sense (and people who do big volumes often tend to have a high enough zone 2 that they can ride there without crawling up every tiny rise).

This, exactly.

It's not really correct to call zone 3 junk miles but there are some real cautions:

- Zones are not really well defined physiologically - heart rate percentages are actually quite variable, lactate levels vary dramatically by individual etc etc. With time and practice ventilatory thresholds are, I think useful, but these need to be learnt. Broadly I tend to place vt1 at the top of 'Z2' and vt2 at the top of Z4 in a 5 zone system. Vt's are well correllated with heart rate on an individual basis after allowing for fatigue.

- All zones (certainly 2 up) deliver training effects and all zones will improve mitochondrial activity etc (possibly excepting very hard short duration anaerobic work which we're not thinking aobut here)

- Unfortunately higher intensity training causes more fatigue (no really Sherlock!) and high volumes will lead to overtraining, which is actually pretty bad, or need too much recovery between sessions

- so athletes wanting and needing to do regular and high volume training to extract the most they fair better on a diet of lots of Z2 and a (relatively) little proper hard work. The balance changes with season and periodisation.

If volume is low then proportionately more Z3 may well be OK or even more benificial. This is the basis of the 'sweet spot' programs that abound. My (personal) view is that these are either too low volume or too risky in terms of fatigue/overtraining to be optimal. Also, if you're at the upper end of such a program in volume terms you are likely to fair better on a diet of easier and harder (Chris' comment above applies).


Other considerations are that if you are building volume and fitness, Z2 is less likely to leave you injured and, as Duncan said, when you're fit it's not slow. The Tour peloton spends a lot of time in Z2 and they crack on though the countryside.

In terms of Z3, if your 70km ride took aobut 3 hours(?) that's a lot of Z3. A bit like running a marathon. You should be tired. Last summer I did a 3 1/2 hour Z3 run when I got a bit carried away and I could still feel it in my legs a week later.

Mike


Edited to add - and if you don't record heart rate (possibly and power) often your Garmin won't be all that accurate, as per L CC

Re: 'Training' recovery times...
« Reply #8 on: 03 March, 2023, 08:30:58 am »
The OP, did not say they were limited to four hours a week, however you aren’t going to get very far on that kind of volume no matter what you do.

It is important to remember that while you can see training improvements on four hours per week with a well-executed polarized plan, you are still far away from the optimal training dose. That’s true whether your four hours is polarized, sweet spot or all high intensity.

Re: 'Training' recovery times...
« Reply #9 on: 03 March, 2023, 11:14:21 am »
Thanks.

Yep, low volume. ATM probably av 110km/wk. 

Probably too many variables in my kind of riding, including many of my rides incorporating tracks, on 28/32mm tyres, weather, & randomnly 'pushing' myself / 'keeping up with traffic'.  Also probably doesn't 'help' with me having a 'touring'/exploring,  rather than 'training' attititude...

Recent:
70km:  Moving   3h15  300m   Z2  25% 45min    Z3 70% 2h15    Z4 5% 10min 
70km:  Moving   3h45  400m   Z2  40% 1h30      Z3 55% 2h        Z4 5% 10min
70km:  Moving   4h      825m   Z2  60% 2h20      Z3 40% 1.5h
70km:  Moving   3h45  830m   Z2  35% 1h20      Z3 50% 2h       Z4 15% 30min   Most recent.   "Recovery 3.5 dys"

Relaxed
40km:  Moving 2hr 150m  Z1 5%  Z2 80%1h40,   Z3 15% 20min

May see if I can do regular 30km ish, with minimal stopping, monitor the variables, and see what happens...

edit.
Cycle and recycle.   SS Wilson