As a life learner, I focused on the sport that was becoming my passion. I read many books and employed Joe Friel as a coach. During the 2-3 years Joe coached me, I learned a lot.
It seemed to me that there were a couple of things on which success hinged:
* 60 Minute Functional Power
* Power to Weight Ratio
The obvious implications were to get more powerful and weigh less. I set about to do this with some success. Over several years my 60 Minute Functional Power went from 270 to 315. This was not without tremendous focus and intense training. My weight dropped from 220 to about 187. These changes created huge gains in my results but at a point, I could not lose more weight and more power gains were allusive.
However, I continued to train and gains continued. I began to think that while important, the 'Holy Grail Indicators' that I was using, were not the whole story. In 2013 and early 2014, I realized that it was not how hard you could go for 60 minutes that mattered, but how hard you could go for the whole race. I found myself overcoming the competition late in the events…..I hung on the first climb but hurt people the 10th. I also realized that these measures I had been using, did not predict anaerobic fitness……..how hard can you go for 30 seconds to 2 minutes???…..how fast can you recover from these short efforts? How many can you do before you crack? My capability in this short effort/recovery was increasing rapidly. I believe this area is neglected in the training of most cyclist…….why? It hurts like heck!Early this year, my weight seemed stuck at 195 and I was very stressed. I am a big cyclist and 5-8 lb. would negatively effect my power to weight ratio. How was it that I was having my best year ever? Answer: This power to weight thing really comes into effect on long steep climbs…….how many races have these? Answer: Not all of them. Why was I now weighing 195? Answer: More muscle?
So what does predict success at this higher level of competition? I looked at my pals, 6-7, who are 60+ and ride like the wind. Hum, weight was all over the place. We varied from 140 lb. to 195 (me). Wow, that is huge. The power output varied from what seemed to be about 240 - 315 watts? Interesting, because we were cycling and racing at similar levels?
Was there any common denominator? What could predict success? My answer is leanness…….yes, waist size. If a rider/racer is super lean, the weight is not a huge factor. If there is no fat, all that is left is bone and muscle. The lean heavier cyclist can be on par with the lean lighter cyclist.
Sure, the lightest guys can climb Mt Lemmon faster but it is not all that big of a difference. The most powerful (heaviest) guys are better on the flats and short climbs but it is not that big of difference either.
Taking a poll of my pals, I found our jean sizes varied from 30-34 inches in the waist……..mostly we are 32's. Interestingly, the 140 lb cyclist and I both use 32 inch jeans……..body makeup and shape are obviously much different. While our weights vary, all of us are really lean. Compared to the general population, our single digit body fat, makes us, maybe, 1 in 1000 among 60+ year old men.
So the bottom line is: Forget your age, sex or size…..you can't
do a darn thing about these. You must however, be extremely lean to excel in cycling. This, you can manage and determine. That's right. Don't work on being lighter, think leaner. They can be the same but not necessarily.
If you think you can do it with training alone, you are dead wrong. You MUST control your diet……this is another subject for a future BLOG.
See ya out there.
PS> Also note that most people highly underestimate the skill needed in bike racing. Riding a bike takes moderate skill. Racing with results requires tremendous skills. You can't acquire and maintain these skills riding, you must race. If you race once or twice a year, how can you get there? Answer: You can't.
No comments:
Post a Comment