Thursday, September 7, 2017

Reflections on Training

The start of Viscous Cycle Gran Fondo Winthrop 2016. Frame from cool video by C. Warren, Sept. 25, 2016. 
I've been thinking about the experience of athletic performance. Why do we enjoy being out on a bicycle riding hard? When out on a ride, how does one characterize the sensations, feelings, pains, fatigue, heightened focus, fear, anger, excitement, points of calmness and of slowness, sounds, boredom, clarity, satisfaction, and all the other kinds of things that happen? What might make an effort all out? How might it be well described in words or in numbers? Can the meaning and interpretation of an all out effort even be expressed? These are some of the questions that I've been wondering about.

With science we can characterize performance. In my training I rely a good deal on heart rate and I've been following a fairly structured approach - especially with respect to patterns of periodization, how one balances hard and easy efforts and rest, during workouts, across weeks, across months, and for the whole year. Perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, to go fast, the research seems to show that you should either go easy (about 80% of your training time) or go hard (about 20% of your training time). But, crucially, you should generally avoid the middle ground, with some exceptions.

I've been riding with a heart rate monitor and being quite disciplined about keeping my heart rate within the targeted zones, and building in recovery days and weeks. Sometimes I think that by relying on heart rate I miss out. By focusing on numbers, I worry that I might not be as in touch with my bodily sensations, which arise from different levels of effort. In other words, perhaps the heart rate monitor is a kind of cheating. On the other hand, perhaps if I use a heart rate monitor in particular ways I'll learn more about the sensations that come from exercise. I conclude that the heart rate monitor as a double-edge sword. And therefore it is up to me to learn how to use it well.

Generally, I think that I can readily tell the difference between Zone 1 and high Zone 2 or above without heart rate feedback. But, the difference between high Zone 1 and low  Zone 2 can be hard to detect.  (I use a slightly different scale and rely on an estimate of my threshold heart-rate to compute my zones but it works to be about the same.)


Norwegian Scale
Zone                % Max Heart Rate              
1                      55-75                
2                      75-85                
3                      85-90             
4                      90-95        
5                      95-100

Often enough I'm not able to tell the difference between Zone 1 and below Zone 1.  That is to say, I can be peddling along happily on a "recovery ride" in Zone 1, and all of a sudden I'm in Zone 0.  Or, at times, I can be peddling happily in high Zone 2 and my heart rate creeps into Zone 3 without my awareness. 

Learning how to adjust my gears and my peddling-rate such that I stay in Zone 2 in rolling up-and-down terrain is a challenge. And, of course, on downhills of any substantial length or steepness it can be hopeless. Stop peddling and my heart rate drops like a rock; peddle and I'm going dangerously fast.  Chasing Zone 2 is easy for 2 hours and not too bad for 3 hours.  But, staying in Zone 2  (not Zone 1 and not Zone 3) for 4-5 hours takes a lot of concentration. 

I've found it takes a good deal of discipline to stay within a zone and, at times, alas, I compulsively check my heart rate which takes my attention away from attending to my environment and my bodily sensations, especially those related to smooth peddling. While I don't like the distraction of checking my heart rate, I believe in the importance of staying within my workout zones. I'm in the midst of a fascinating tension. How might I resolve it? The heart rate monitor diminishes my experience but improves my training.

Similarly, the differences between high Zone 4 and Zone 5 can be hard to sense. Nevertheless, within my body, I am sometimes aware of very small differences. I am sure, for example, that at least at present, and when I'm rested, there is a very substantial physiological difference between 161-163 bpm and 164-166 bpm heart rates, at least when riding on rollers. At present, I think my lactate threshold is 163 - about 2 beats per minute higher that my last test. I think this is true, based on how I feel when doing intervals on my rollers.

Relatedly, 2 x 20 min. at high Zone 4 leads to a completely different kind of fatigue than 6 x 8 min. Zone 5 efforts.  And, both of these interval workouts feel quite different than how I feel after 5 hours in Zone 2. Not all kinds of fatigue are equal.

Can I detect the difference between Zone 3 and Zone 4, that middle ground?  Nope. Forget it - it all seems to be about the same. Nevertheless, the research seems to show that there are key physiological differences among Zones 1 - 5, differences that matter a lot in a training program and athletic performance.

Another key measure, of course, is power. I don't use a power meter. Perhaps I should! I only have the very crudest sense of my power output, namely some estimate related to my peddling rate, my gear, the wind, hills, and so forth. With heart rate (a kind of input to my body) and power readings (the output of my body) a huge amount can be learned about how one's training is going. And, then of course, there is peddling rate (what's the difference between 80 rpm and 105 rpm?), measures of neuromuscular efficiency, measures of fatigue, temperature, and on and on. How does paying attention to such measures change the cycling experience?

And then, of course, there are calories (the protein v. carbohydrate kind) and fluid in-take. Just like training periodization one can periodize the number and kinds of calories. Recently, I've found that consistently drinking a post-workout protein drink to be very helpful with my recovery. At least that is my subjective sense. And, I'm pretty sure that a 45 min. fasted recovery ride in the morning does wonders; indeed, evidently such rides teach my body to burn fat. I think, too, that you can learn how to drink and eat efficiently while riding hard.  This summer, instead of drinking say at the top of a climb, I've been drinking in the middle or two-thirds up a climb - testing the belief I can teach myself to drink fluids efficiently with an elevated heart rate. 

This business of "quantifying self" is of course taken to the extreme in professional cycling. Still, even for ordinary mortals, the technology and methods trickle down. We too can quantify ourselves. But, what do we gain and what do we lose? And, when you are 55 and seek to have fun and grow who cares about the numbers? The famous sprinter Mario Cipollini was quoted as saying this:
We know everything about their watts, their heart rates, but of what interest? That doesn’t tell us anything about them. If we knew that a rider cannot produce more than 450 watts, then yes, that would be interesting to see on a screen that’s he’s reached his limit, but then again this is just data, useless gadgets that imitate Formula 1 and can only interest people who know nothing about cycling. Mario Cipollini
And Alberto Contador was quoted as saying this: 
In the end, the only thing I'm worried about is being healthy, and arriving to the start of the Tour de France in optimal condition. Every year cycling is more mathematical, but fortunately it is still not entirely mathematics and depends many times on training and also the feeling and how you know your body to arrive in optimal condition. Alberto Contador
And so I think there is something very interesting about the intersection between the quantification of performance and the meanings that we invoke about our bodies when we ride.

In any case, in 1965 these guys were racing on bikes similar to mine.  They are racing on gravel, at least in part. I wonder how they quantified their performance? Whatever! These racers seem to be enjoying themselves, at least by some definition of fun!  Check out the awesome video: 60 Cycles, 


Here's some Quebec gravel from 1965!  60 Cycles, 16 min. film,
directed by Jean-Claude Labrecqu, from the
National Film Board of Canada.
There have only been a few times where I've run, cycled, or x-country skied fast, with a radical and intense feeling of heightened focus and calmness. That feeling of pushing, pushing, pushing yet responding with an odd feeling of effortlessness. In those moments, something special happens. Even without that rare experience - can it even by obtained when you are old? - whether riding easy or hard, when dry or wet, being alone or in a group peddling a bike and moving along through the wind is almost always life-giving and rejuvenating.

I'm lucky to be alive. To be able to experience the pleasures of turning my peddles is a remarkable gift.

Looking forward to Gran Fondo Winthrop. I hope the Diamond Creek Fire slows and that the forests and properties in the Methow Valley are safe and that its possible for us to visit Winthrop and ride without bothering the fire fighters and incident personnel.




No comments:

Post a Comment