Joe Friel

Aging: My Eyes...

 and Prescription Cycling Sunglasses 

It's been quite a while since I posted here. I used to think I was simply too busy due to travel, but now that I'm on vacation in Boulder for the summer I'm coming to realize that I'm just lazy. It's well past the time to get involved again. 

-------------------------------------------------

Lately I've been thinking a lot about my age.

I’m 69. When I was younger it never occurred to me that I’d ever be this old. But some how it happened. In the following weeks I’ll write about some of the physiological changes I’ve experienced due to aging and what I’ve learned about them. It isn’t pretty. Some are big deals – such as tendencies to add body fat and slow recovery from exercise. Others are merely nuisances. That’s where I’m going with this first post on the topic.

One of the greatest inconveniences of aging, I’ve found, is the loss of near vision – the need for bifocals. It seems that every product on the market, from home thermostats to cell phones, was designed by someone who is 30 years old with excellent eyes. Why do they all use such small fonts? Don’t they understand that it’s mostly people over 50 who can most easily afford them? In this hard-to-read category are bicycle handlebar computers and head units.

Some head units are easier on old eyes than others. But in the aero position with the head tucked in and low, the only way to read my Garmin 800 is to raise up to get some distance between my eyeballs and the head unit thus greatly increasing drag, or to wear bifocals which is beyond nuisance. I’ve tried stick-on bifocals on my prescription Oakley sunglasses. That didn’t work too well. I’m nearsighted so having a bifocal on top of the prescription lens made for fuzzy vision up close. They worked OK with non-prescription sunglasses but became cloudy over time. And without the prescription lens, looking up the road was always a bit blurry. Exasperating.

Recently I heard of a company making prescription-cycling lenses using a new digital technology - ADS Sports Eyewear. So I had a pair of lenses made for some Oakley frames. What a difference! Now with a free-form, digital, progressive bifocal I can easily read my head unit while low in the time trial position, and I can see clearly up the road. It’s remarkable how such a seemingly small thing as this could so greatly improve my enjoyment of riding a bike.

In addition, my peripheral vision with a wrap-around frame is just as crisp and clear, as it is front and center. And the ADS lenses are no thicker than my old non-prescription Oakley lenses. This is a clear improvement over the prescription, wrap-around sunglasses I’ve had before with the corrective lens “sandwiched” on to a standard, non-prescription lens. That technology made for limited peripheral vision and bulky, ugly sunglasses – and without bifocals.

I was so impressed by ADS’s lenses and service that I asked them to be one of my sponsors (you can see them in my new sponsor section on the right side of my blog home page).

The price for a pair of ADS sunglasses depends on several variables. ADS can use your existing frames so long as they are in good condition and will work with their lens. The lens-only price ranges from $119.00 for a clear, single vision lens to $219.00 for the polarized version.  A progressive bifocal section in the bottom will add about $200.00 to the lens price. Or you can buy a lens and frame package. Frame prices average between $79.00 and $200.00. Standard cycling frames are available from several companies such as Oakley, Nike, Adidas, Kaenon, Wiley, Bolle and Smith. The ADS web page for cycling sunglasses shows your options. All of the sunglasses on the page are prescription-ready.

In my next post I’ll comment on recovery devices I’ve been trying out over the last several months and what I’ve discovered about them. All, of course, from the perspective of aging. That will be followed by the topic of body weight and aging. Again, I’ve been tinkering, reading research and found some interesting stuff.

Another Block Periodization Study

Earlier this month I reported on a study of block periodization that found it superior to a traditional (linear) periodization model. This study lasted 4 weeks with well-trained cyclists in the two groups (Block and Traditional periodization) doing the same workouts. The only difference was that the Block group did 5 of the 8 high intensity training sessions (HIT) in the first week and then only 1 HIT per week in the following 3 weeks. The Traditional group did 2 HIT each week. They both also did low intensity training (LIT).

The results were rather remarkable. The Block group had an increase in VO2max of 4.6%, peak power at VO2max rose 2.1%, and their power at approximately their aerobic thresholds rose a whopping 10%. There were no changes for the Traditional periodization group, which seems strange but may tell us that 4 weeks of traditional periodization is not enough to stimulate significant change. Perhaps.

So along comes a 12-week follow-up study  from the same Norwegian group of researchers at Lillehammer University. They used the same study design only did the above 4-week mesocycle 3 times for each group. The results were even more remarkable. I’ll come back to that shortly. But first let’s take a look at what the researchers called “high” and “low” intensity workouts.

Using heart rate monitors, all workouts were divided into three zones:

            Zone 1                        60-82% of max HR (MHR)

            Zone 2                        83-87% of MHR

            Zone 3                        88-100% of MHR

At 82% of MHR an athlete is usually in the vicinity of their lactate threshold heart rate (LTHR), the point at which heavy breathing begins and is marked by the sensation of being “redlined.” Some athletes’ LTHRs are at a higher percentage of MHR and some are lower. (This is why I recommend LTHR rather than MHR for setting up heart rate zones; it’s simply a more accurate way of defining the most critical heart rate intensity for serious athletes.)

All of the cyclists (15 well-trained riders) in this study did LIT in zone 1. Their HIT was in zone 3. These HIT sessions are critical to understanding this study as these are more than likely what produced the remarkable results.

All HIT was done as intervals. They did either 6 x 5 minutes at zone 3 with 2.5-minute recoveries, or 5 x 6 minutes at zone 3 with 3-minute recoveries. So they totaled 30 minutes of zone 3 in a single session. These are killer workouts. Extremely hard. If you use my heart rate zone system, their zone 3 is the equivalent of my high zone 5b and zone 5c. In other words, the athletes were doing intervals at right around their VO2max. Other research has shown that well-trained cyclists can only maintain their VO2max velocity for about 3 to 5 minutes. VO2max velocity and VO2max heart rate aren’t exactly the same thing but I think it safe to say that each interval was nearly a max effort. And the recoveries were very brief. For a VO2max interval I usually assign a recovery after each that is about the same duration as the preceding high-intensity piece. Here they did recoveries that were only half as long.

I wouldn’t recommend doing such a workout, let alone 5 times in a week as the Block athletes did in this study. I can imagine how difficult it must have been for the subjects to finish each subsequent session in the 5 HIT-session weeks (in weeks 1, 5 and 9).

But the results were, indeed, impressive. And as may be expected, the numbers were higher than with the 4-week study I reviewed above. In this more recent research VO2max for the Block athletes rose on average 8.8% compared with 3.7% for the Traditional group. Power at 2mmol/L lactate (about aerobic threshold) rose 22% for Block and 10% for Traditional. They also did a 40-minute time trial to see what average power they could produce. The Block athletes’ rose 8.2% while the Traditionals’ went up 4.1%. The difference between these time trial results was insignificant.

The protocol used for the Block group in both of these studies is similar to what is sometimes called “crash” training as described in my Triathlete’s Training Bible, Cyclist’s Training Bible, and Mountain Biker’s Training Bible  books. In this extreme training strategy, workload is greatly increased for several days followed by several days of reduced training. This has been shown to stimulate significant changes in fitness, but the risks are also extreme. You can read more about it in my books.

This is an excellent study as research on periodization of endurance athletes is rare. There are only a few as most use weight lifting as their sport focus. And the fact that this one lasted 12 weeks also makes it exceptional. The downside of all periodization studies is what I mentioned in my last piece on the subject—both the subjects and the researchers know who is following which protocol. That always introduces the placebo effect as a variable.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that block periodization is superior to traditional (linear) periodization for the advanced athlete. By “advanced” what I mean is someone who has been training seriously and consistently for years, has attained a very high level of performance, and is so close to their potential that producing greater fitness improvements is extremely difficult to do. Most professional endurance athletes and elite age group athletes fall into this category. They would more than likely benefit from a block periodization program—if they know how to do it. It’s not as simple as it seems from these studies and requires careful planning to pull off.

Athletes who are not what I am calling advanced here are still better off following a more traditional periodization program as described in my books. For them a block plan may well produce a loss of fitness since the training emphasis is focused on only one or two abilities in each mesocycle.

Crash training may be done by either group but must be used with caution as it can easily result in injury, illness and burnout. Again, read more about it in my Training Bible books before attempting it.

Rønnestad BR, Ellefsen S, Nygaard H, Zacharoff EE, Vikmoen O, Hansen J. 2012. Effects of 12 weeks of block periodization on performance and performance indices in well-trained cyclists. Scand J Med Sci Sports [epub ahead of print]. 

Tapering and Peaking Review

I was asked twice this week how I taper athletes for their A-priority races, once by an athlete and also by a coach. I told them that I would write about it in my blog, but later realized I had already done so several times. So rather than do it all over again I’ll just provide the links to four posts on the topic. I’ll also summarize each so you can pick out the one that best matches your interests, should you want to read about it (click on the title to go to the post).

 Peaking 

In this post from 2009 you will find an explanation of the three elements of race preparedness – fitness, fatigue and form. This is essential to understanding what’s happening when you peak properly. It goes on to describe the basics of the peaking process through the interplay of intensity and rest/recovery with an emphasis on the latter.

More on Peaking 

This post is also from 2009 and is a follow up to the one above providing graphic illustrations of how I taper and peak athletes. This will make much more sense if you use a power meter (bike) or speed-distance device (run) along with the Performance Management Chart (PMC) at TrainingPeaks or WKO+ software. The two charts show the actual peaking design for a road cyclist and an Ironman triathlete. 

Real World Peaking 

Here you will find a discussion of how I was preparing a road cyclist for his A race. The PMC for the athlete is also provided along with more subtle nuances of the indicators of race readiness.

Tri vs. Roadie Peaking Power Distribution 

As the title implies, this very short piece uses two of the athletes I coached in 2010 – a 70.3 triathlete and a road cyclist – to compare graphically how their bike power was distributed by training zones as they went through their final preparations for their A races.

If you search for “peaking” on the home page of my blog you’ll find much more detail on peaking including topics such as projecting race readiness, strong and weak form, and peak performance predictors.

Updates on Compression Clothing and Block Periodization

One of my favorite pastimes is reading sports science research. Most days start with me grabing an abstract from the top of my to-be-read list and seeing what’s new. I know, I’m weird that way. But I expect we are each strange in some way. My weirdness occasionally pays off. Recently I came across some new studies on topics I’ve written about before – compression clothing and block periodization. Here are some research updates.

 Compression clothing

I first wrote on compression clothing in October 2007 after seeing so many athletes in the Hawaii Ironman wearing them in the race that year. They continue to be used extensively in many endurance sports. There wasn’t much in the research literature on them then, and over the years only a little has been added. I’ve continued to follow the topic and done updates periodically (March 2009, February 2011, May 2011). Here are two more recent studies followed by comments.

de Glanville KM, Hamlin MJ. 2012. Positive effect of lower body compression garments on subsequent 40-kM cycling time trial performance. J Strength Cond Res, 26(2):480-6. 

Fourteen male triathletes were divided into two test groups. One group wore a full leg-length compression stockings and the other a similar looking non-compression garment continuously for 24 hours after a 40k time trial. Following the day of recovery while wearing the stockings they took them off and once again did the 40k TT. One week later the groups reversed the clothing worn and repeated the entire 40k time trial-24 hours of recovery wearing the socks-40k time trial protocol.

After wearing the compression stockings performance time in the second time trial improved, on average, by 1.2% and average power increased 3.3% compared with wearing the non-compression stockings. The athletes’ rating of perceived exertion during the subsequent tests did not change significantly.

Born DP, Sperlich B, Holmberg HC. 2013. Bringing light into the dark: effects of compression clothing on performance and recovery. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 8(1):4-18.

This is a review of the existing literature on the effect of compression garments on performance and recovery. The review found little change in performance while wearing the garments, but they noted improvements in recovery when the subjects wore them.

My opinion on compression clothing has not changed since I first wrote about them five years ago. I doubt there is a significant improvement in performance while wearing them. In a triathlon, the time to put them on in T1 is probably greater than any time gained while wearing them. But there may be a post-workout benefit that could speed recovery prior to the next workout or race. I’ll keep watching for this topic in the literature and let you know what I find.

Block periodization

Back in 2011 I described a relatively new way of organizing training time for advanced athletes called “block periodization” (here, here and here). In block periodization the athlete focuses on only one or two aspects of fitness (what I call “abilities:” aerobic endurance, muscular force, speed skills, muscular endurance, anaerobic endurance and sprint power) within a block lasting for a short time – usually three to six weeks. As explained in the above previous blog posts, block periodization is intended only for advanced athletes. Moderately trained athletes are best advised to follow a linear (“classic “or “traditional”) periodization plan as described in my Training Bible books.

There is very little research done on periodization and that which is available usually uses strength athletes as subjects. Such studies of endurance athletes are rare. But here is one that is a recent update on the topic of periodization.

Rønnestad BR, Hansen J, Ellefsen S. 2012. Block periodization of high-intensity aerobic intervals provides superior training effects in trained cyclists. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 

Nineteen experienced and fit cyclists were divided into two groups for this Norwegian study comparing block and traditional periodization. Each group trained for 4 weeks and did 8, high-intensity interval sessions and otherwise low-intensity aerobic training. Their training volume, both for high- and low-intensity workouts, was the same over the 4 weeks. The only difference was how the weeks were structured.

The 10 riders following the block periodization protocol did 5 of their 8 interval sessions in the first week and then only one each in the last 3 weeks (along with the low-intensity sessions). This concentration on only one ability for a brief period of time followed by maintenance is common in block periodization.

The other group of cyclists who followed the traditional periodization plan spread the 8 intense workouts over the 4 weeks doing 2 each week along with the low-intensity sessions on the other days.

So what was the result? Those following a block periodization program improved their VO2max (one physiological indicator of aerobic fitness) by 4.6% (+/-3.7%). This group started with an average VO2max of 62.2 mLO2/kg/minute so they bumped the average up to just over 65. Their peak power at VO2max increased by 2.1% (+/-2.8%). And this group elevated their power at 2mmol/L of lactate (approximately their aerobic thresholds, similar to low zone 2) by 10% (+/-12%). The traditional periodization group saw no significant changes in these same metrics.

The block periodization group’s numbers are all remarkable given that the gains would have almost certainly been attained in just the first week with only 5 hard workouts. That makes me wonder. One of the problems with such a study is that it isn’t possible to use a double-blind protocol in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know who is following which protocol. This raises the question of a placebo effect. But also note that some of the block periodization subjects had decreases in both their VO2max (-0.7%) and aerobic threshold (-2%) power. That’s a good sign in a way as it confirms what happens in the real world – some positively respond to the protocol and some get worse. It happens in nearly all aspects of training. Such is life.

So far the few studies I’ve seen on the topic have indicated that there may be good reasons for advanced and highly fit athletes to follow a block periodization program. If you fall into this rather small club be sure to read my other blog posts listed above before making such significant changes to your training.

Keep It Simple - Bike Skills

There have been some big gaps between my posts here this winter. This is my busy season with lots of travel. It seems there is never enough time. I’m sure you know the feeling.

In my last blog as an intro to the topic of keeping it simple I explained how I've been on a quest the last couple of years to make training more user friendly by focusing on those few things that are most likely to produce rapid and positive change – what I've come to call the "Big Rocks."  I also explained there that the most basic of the Big Rocks is skills. Unfortunately, this is usually the last thing endurance athletes are concerned about because many see aerobic and muscular fitness as the only aspects of fitness that are truly important to performance. But skills are also related to fitness, just not in a way we’re used to.

Most athletes could make significant and often immediate improvements in performance by refining their sport-specific skills. By "skills" what I mean is the ability to make the movements of the sport in an efficient and effective manner.

"Efficiency" in sport has to do with the metabolic cost of movement – how much stored energy, especially carbohydrate (glycogen and glucose), it takes to make the movement. If the cost is higher than what is necessary and common for advanced athletes then the inefficient athlete, in order to go faster, must either produce excessive effort (and hence a greater cost) or figure out how to reduce the expense (more skillful movement). Most opt for the first choice and give lip service to the second.

I'm using "effective" here to mean making the movements of the sport in such a way as to produce intended and beneficial performance results. In other words, an effective endurance athlete is one who is fast and powerful. This usually also requires making changes in one’s skills.

So what I'd like to do next is get down to the Big Rocks of efficiency and effectiveness – the skills of sport. And since the readers of this blog are typically triathletes and road cyclists I will focus on three sports — swimming, biking, and running. In the interest of the cyclists I'll start with the bike so they can skip the swim and run posts that are to follow (when I again find time!).

There is only one Big Rock for cycling. Pretty simple. This is the starting point every season for every cyclist regardless of the their level of performance – pro or novice.

Get a Bike Fit

This is so simple it's almost embarrassing. Regardless, get a bike fit done every year at the start of the winter base training period. Yes, every year. Even if it’s the same bike you were fit on last year. Things change. You get stronger or weaker, more or less flexible, have developed a little niggling injury or gotten rid of one, will do different types of races in the coming season, or forgot that you lowered your saddle by 3mm six months ago or changed to a new stem. You may also learn, unfortunately, that the bike you are riding simply doesn't fit you. The frame is too big or too small. I hope that isn't the case as it means a big out-of-pocket. I see riders in this sad situation in almost every race I go to, especially triathlons.

Go to a professional bike fitter to have this done. Don't have your spouse or friend do it (unless he or she is a professional fitter). Don't ask a training partner to take a look while you're riding along. Use a professional. Bike fitting used to nearly be all art; now it is mostly a science. A good fitter will put you in a position that optimizes your physique, physiology, and purpose. You'll learn how to sit on a saddle (many do it wrong), what your head, spine and hip posture should be, and how to be more aerodynamic.

The bottom line is that your pedaling and bike handling efficiency and effectiveness will improve after a good fit. You’ll waste less energy and be more powerful. And your risk of injury in the coming season will be decreased.

If you are a road cyclist who does crits, road races and time trials you'll more than likely need two bike fits. Triathletes typically need only fit the bike they race on.

If you're unsure who to go to for a fit ask around with others in your sport. A good fit will cost you a few bucks ($100-200 is common in the US but can be a lot more depending on what is done). If you are truly serious about improving performance on the bike it's some of the best money you'll spend. You'll come away after an hour or two as a better cyclist without even breaking a sweat.

In the next post I’ll write about swimming. While becoming more efficient and effective on the bike is quite simple, the swim is much more complex. 

Keep It Simple

Training for peak performance in endurance sport does not need to be complicated. I came to understand that only recently. More than 30 years ago I earned a masters degree in exercise science while competing in endurance sports. One thing I always liked was the complexity of training. I'm a nerd at heart--or at least an "engineer" who likes to solve the difficult problems. To date I have written or contributed to 13 books on the topic. All have been somewhat complex, at least to many who have read them and written to me with questions. They never seemed complex to me, but they apparently were.

In the last couple of years I've tried to simplify things. This started because so many athletes, especially triathletes, kept asking me the same questions after reading my best selling book of the bunch, The Triathlete's Training Bible. My first book, The Cyclist's Training Bible, was the same way, I suppose, but since there was only one sport to master it came across as less complex. Simplicity and brief statements of how to do it were clearly missing from both. So a couple of years ago I wrote Your Best Triathlon which, essentially, walks the serious triathlete through his or her season by suggesting weekly and monthly routines along with daily workouts as the season progresses toward the first, big A-priority race of the year. I've gotten very few questions from the readers of that book asking what they should do or why, since that was described in each chapter. (A similar book for road cyclists is still lurking in the back of my mind.)

In the past year I've done clinics and camps (see my 2013 appearance schedule in the right hand column of this page--click here if viewing this in an email) in which I've tried to further simplify training. It's amazing how much better athletes perform when they fully understand what they need to do to improve and how to go about making the changes. When I'm with athletes in clinics and camps I tell them about the "Big Rocks"--the very few, most important things that must be done to improve performance. And I do mean "few." There really aren't that many things one must do to perform well in endurance sport. The key is knowing what the Big Rocks are and incorporating them.

There are lots of "little rocks"--and even tiny sand particles--that many in sport science and coaching insist must be done by every athlete. I used to subscribe to this way of seeing training, also. And, I'll have to admit, still like discussing the merits of such minutiae. With a background in exercise science it can be fun to talk about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" with another would-be scientist.

The little rocks, and even the sand particles become increasingly important as the absolute performance of the athlete improves. At the highest level of sport everything is a Big Rock. There's no room for anything to be done even somewhat haphazardly for a world class athlete, especially one who makes a living from competing. But it isn't that way for the rest of us "normal" people.

So how did I come to this simplified conclusion in my coaching career? Golf. Yes, golf. Talk about a game with a lot of little rocks! I started playing in 1966. By 1972 I had mostly given up the game due to the pressures of earning a living and being a father. Becoming good at golf is at least as challenging as becoming a good endurance athlete. By 1998 my wife had started playing so I saw the game as a good way for us to spend quality time together. As training partners we were a failure--the couple workouts were too easy for me and too hard for her. Golf would allow us to spend some time together each week. I had no idea I'd come to take it so seriously.

I figured, and rightly so, that the best way to learn the game would be to do what I tell serious endurance athletes to do--hire a coach. Over the last 15 years I've had perhaps six golf coaches. My handicap, the best gauge of how you are doing, has gone from 19 to 7. Lower, in this sport, is good. The coaches get most of the credit for this.

The best golf coach I've had is the one I'm now wroking with--Kay Kennedy, a former LPGA player, who is now an instructor at McCormick Ranch Golf Course in Scottsdale, Ariz. What Kay is good at is keeping it simple. I listen to other instructors on the practice tee with their clients and hear a lot of little rocks. All it seems to do is freeze the student. They will stand staring at the ball in the address position for a looong time before initiating a feeble, and obviously, confused swing. During the time in which they appear to be golf statues they are going through a long checklist of what all must be done in the 1.5 seconds, at most, that the ensuing swing will take.

Kay simplifies it. She will watch me hit a few shots and suggest one small change. Then we work on that one for the remainder of the lesson until it is well engrained. That's largely the reason my handicap has dropped by 3 strokes since I began working with her about four years ago. It's simple.

I soon learned to adopt and adapt her recipe for simplicity and teach it to those I am trying to help in my clinics and camps. The camps are by far the best when it comes to obvious performance improvement. By the end of a triathlon camp, which I do far more of than cycling camps (another entire blog post could address why this is), the improvements are usually obvious and measurable in a matter of a few days.

The starting place for these improvements is the refinement of skills. Endurance athletes, with the possible exception of 1500-meter pool swimmers, show little more than a passing interest in skills. For us it's cardiovascular and, perhaps, muscular fitness that really matters. Everything else is a distant third. But most amateur athletes would see a bigger return on their time investment, at least initially, by mastering the skills of their sport rather than trying to continually push their heart rates higher in some strange quest to find their max beats per minute.

Skill is the true heart and soul of any sport. If one is sloppy in their movements, energy is wasted and it takes a great deal of "extra" fitness to overcome the loss. I've learned to start my camps and clinics with skill refinement. It's remarkable how rapidly the athletes improve after that.

But keeping it simple is much more than just skills. It's also how we train--the daily workouts, the weekly scheduling, and the long-term planning. In the next couple of posts, as time permits (this is my busy time of year with camps and clinics), I'll touch on the Big Rocks of skills and training.

Here's the downside of doing that (at least for me): I'm going to wind up with a lot of athletes and coaches who are mad at me because I've omitted their "Big Rocks" from those I emphasize. Mine have been learned from more than 30 years of reading research and observing athletes of all abilities. Might my ideas of what the Big Rocks are change at some point in the future? Sure. That's a possibility. My view of the world of sport is always evolving. That's simply the way learning works. Those who refuse to change their minds on anything, or even consider another way, are doomed to a life without progress during which they become "dinosaurs." The people we tend to admire most are the free thinkers who have come to change their minds on important topics and move on. Currently, one of the best at this is professor Tim Noakes, a sport scientist at the University of Cape Town. I had the great honor of meeting him while in South Africa recently. I'll tell you about him in another post. Time permitting.

In my next few posts I'll tell you about the Big Rocks when it comes to sport skills.

Pedaling, Tri-Novice and Runner's Trots

I get lots of questions from athletes in my email. Here are three recent ones.

Pedaling Technique

Q: While riding this weekend and working on my form, I recall you saying not to lift on the backstroke of the pedal, just un-weight it. May I ask why? 

A: If you ride steady (not climbing or sprinting) for a long time and try to pull up on the pedals one of two things will happen. Either your hip flexors will tire very quickly and you'll soon stop doing it or you will slow your cadence tremendously simply because you can't maintain a high cadence and pull up at the same time very easily. Even the pros don't do that. The slide I used to illustrate this involved two national team riders. And if you recall even they had a hard time getting their leg weight off of the recovery side pedal. When climbing and sprinting you can pull up as the cadence is very low (climbing) or the duration is very brief (sprinting).

Tri-Novice

Q: My name is Matt I'm a 34 year old new cyclist.
 I am just starting out.
Should I be getting caught up with my posture , training programs, computers on my bike to tell me rpm and speed.
What should a person just starting out concentrate on? 
My goal is eventually an Ironman.
There is so much literature its frustrating. I just wanna ride right.
 I don't even know what these training ratios mean.
Can you lead me to a beginner article or book or something please.


A: It is confusing. When I started in the 1970s it was exactly the opposite—almost no info at all, except from my training mates and an occasional magazine article. I wrote a book about how to get started in triathlon called, “Your First Triathlon.” I think it will help you figure out what’s important. To see it go here. http://velogear.com/product/velopress-your-first-triathlon-80100-1.htm

Runner’s Trots

Q: I met you at a tri camp recently and mentioned to you that I was having trouble with having to use the bathroom about 20 minutes into my runs. It is very frustrating and to be honest, really depressing. You said you may have some information that could help me. I would appreciate any help.

A: What you're experiencing is not unusual for runners but is rare in other sports. This may be because of the upright position, jarring, and effect of gravity while running compared with other sports. One study found that 25-30% of runners experience this. It’s been a while since I read the literature on this topic, but there used to be only two theories for what causes “runner's trots.” The first is intestinal ischemia--decreased blood flow to the gut. There has not been much support for this theory. The other is an increase in a hormone called motilin that increases the movement of the bowels. This has been more widely accepted. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), you can't do anything to directly decrease motilin production. So what can you do? There's no science on this, but here are suggestions from what Owen Anderson, PhD once suggested in Running Research News that may help.

* Know your own bowel patterns and habits and adapt your running schedule to them.

* Avoid fiber in the 12 hours or so before long runs with calories coming mostly from liquids.

* An hour or more before the run drink warm fluids or a light meal to stimulate the gastric-colic reflex - food in the stomach stimulates the large bowel to empty.

* Run a 10-15 minute loop at the start of your run that brings you back past your house where you can use the bathroom.

* Train your bowels to empty first thing in the morning out of bed by going straight to the bathroom. This may take weeks to accomplish.

None of these are perfect, I realize. Unfortunately, this is one of those things we need to figure out for ourselves given our unique situations.

My Most Read Blog Posts of 2012

The following are the five most read posts on my blog in 2012. There is only one that is new to the list. The others are perennials.

1. A Quick Guide to Setting Zones (November, 2009)

This one moved up from #3 last year. If you want to know how to set your heart rate, power, or pace zones for cycling, running or swimming this should help. It takes you through the step-by-step process of setting them up. It’s one I send readers to who have questions along these lines.

2. Road Bike Posture (September, 2007)

This one was also #2 two of the last three years - #1 in 2011. It discusses hip position in a seated position on a road bike and shows examples of two riders, one with a position I like and another that’s not quite as nice, but common.

3. Simplified Base Bicycle Training (December, 2008)

This was #5 last year. It’s basic advice for the road cyclist in the winter months. Here I discuss “Christmas Star” riders, training patiently, and the 3 abilities I have riders work on at this time in the season.

4. Cleat Position (January, 2007)  

This was the first blog post I ever wrote and it continues to be one of the most read of all time. It is slowly slipping down the list having been #1 or #2 for the last five years. Here I discuss a midsole alternative to the traditional forefoot cleat position for cycling shoes. There have been numerous comments posted to this blog by readers, many of which describe their experience after moving their cleats. Some with pictures. There have also been follow-up posts to this blog which you can find by doing a search on “cleat position” on the home page www.joefrielsblog.com. And, yes, I still use a midsole cleat and wouldn’t go back.

5. Why You Need a Power Meter (January, 2012)

This is the only new addition to the list. And its popularity confirms what I find no matter where in the world I travel to speak – more roadies, triathletes, mountain bikers and other cyclists are adopting power-based training. Just a couple of years ago if I asked a crowd of 100 at one of my talks how many have power meters, two or three hands would go up. Now it’s more like 25 to 30. There are probably lots of reason for this, but contributing factors are more products available in the past year and prices have remained stable or even come down a bit. In a few years I expect to see well over half of an audience using power meters in addition to their heart rate monitors.

On to 2013.

Five Fundamentals of Training

This is the time of year when most endurance athletes are starting to think about and perhaps even plan for the coming season. That makes it a good time to remember what’s most important when it comes to training for peak performance – the basics. Here are five fundamentals I frequently remind myself of when designing a training plan. There are certainly more than five concerns, but I believe these are the most basic. I’ve linked each of them to a previous, more expanded discussion in case you want to learn more.

1. Train with moderation. Frequently doing extreme workouts that leave you tired for two or more or days afterward do more harm than good. If you’re not recovered from most of your training sessions within 48 hours of their completion then you’re not training with moderation. This will eventually catch up with you. Over the long term, the body responds best when the adaptive changes required are slight. This is not to say you should never do extremely hard workouts. In fact, it’s been shown that a block of several days of pushing one’s limits results in a greatly increased level of fitness once adequate recovery has also had time to remove the resulting fatigue. In my Training Bible books  I call this “crash” training. For most athletes this should not be done more frequently than once every six weeks.

2. Train consistently.  If you follow the first fundamental in your training then this one probably won’t require anything more of you. It will more than likely take care of itself. Moderation usually results in consistent training. That means you don’t miss workouts. In training, zero is a big number. If you have a lot of them in your training log then you are giving away hard-earned fitness. Sometimes zeroes simply can’t be avoided. With the holiday season now in full swing it’s likely you’ll miss a workout or two. The good news is that it’s probably several weeks until your first A-priority race of 2013. Zeroes in the last 12 weeks prior to your race significantly degrade performance.

3. Make workouts increasingly like the race. As the training year progresses your workouts should become increasingly like whatever it is you are training for. What you’ve done in the last six weeks of build period training before the race has a greater impact on how well you will perform on race day than what you did in the first six weeks of base period training. If those last six weeks were devoted to race-like sessions then you will be ready to race well. If the workouts were unlike the race then you are giving away performance. That seems apparent to most athletes and yet this time of year I read of a lot of athletes following what they call a “reverse” periodization plan. What this means is that their workouts are race-like in the base period but not like the race at all in the build period – training becomes less like the race as the season progresses. It’s reversed. That’s what true reverse periodization would be (periodization is correctly based on what you are training for, not the modulation of absolute intensity and duration). What I think most of them mean is that they are training with high intensity now and will do more miles later in the year. For events like an Ironman that is not reversed at all. That’s becoming more race-like. But for a cyclist who does crits that could be disastrous at the first race. Lots of miles done slowly in the last few weeks before such a short, high-intensity race is a sure way to race poorly.

4. Intensity is the key. Sports science hasn’t been around very long as compared with the other sciences. There are only a few things we have definitively learned from it about training. Perhaps the most common lesson is that the key to performance is how you modulate the intensity (power, pace, speed, effort, heart rate) of training. Performance is not dependent on how many miles or hours you do in a week - volume. Unfortunately, most athletes seem to think volume is the Holy Grail. For the experienced and serious athlete, in their order of importance, the keys to performance are 1) race-like workout intensity, 2) race-like workout duration, and 3) weekly volume. In fact, #3 is a distant third. I think the reason volume is so revered by athletes is that it’s easy to measure. Just add up the daily miles. Intensity, on the other hand, is hard to quantify. Now I should point out that this holds true only for the experienced and serious athlete – those who have been training with a performance focus for three or more years. Novices do benefit remarkably by focusing on duration and training frequency (volume). That’s because any intensity – including very low – will prove beneficial for them. They just need to get to the finish line.

5. Rest when needed. If you employ an appropriate training load you will frequently need to reduce the stress of training in order for your body to recover and adapt. Continued stress without rest eventually results in a breakdown of some sort – overtraining, illness, injury, or mental burnout. How often you recover and what exactly you do to enhance recovery is an individual matter. Some athletes recover quickly, others slowly. Some recover with light exercise; others need a day off. So there is no set pattern that all of us should follow. For some the best plan is to have no plan – recovery on demand. Recover when your body says it’s time and until it’s ready to go again. Unfortunately, many athletes are extremely poor at listening to their bodies and are likely to disregard the common indicators of fatigue thus pressing ahead in order to get their weekly miles number in the training log. These folks need a plan for when to rest. Such a plan should include weekly, monthly, and annual rest periods.

Periodization on Demand

Some time ago I wrote about recovery on demand. This is a method of training in which recovery is not planned in advance, but rather done when the need arises. For the athlete who is good at self-monitoring, this is a very effective way of recovering as it maximizes one’s use of training time. Unfortunately, many athletes tend to ignore their body’s signs of overreaching and with such a method would probably press ahead without ever allowing time for recovery, eventually resulting in full-blown overtraining.

“Periodization on demand” is a similar concept. Most athletes think that periodization is a rigid system in which a training plan is created which must be followed regardless of all other factors. My books have probably given that impression as everything on the plan is quite detailed and time-specific. I still think that’s a good idea as it provides a roadmap for where you are going. It doesn’t, however, mean that you must follow it without change. There can be several factors that require straying, such as illness, injury, periods of mental stress, unusual demands on your time, and more. One such factor that is seldom discussed is rate of adaptation – how quickly your fitness changes.

Physiologically, the purpose of training is stress the body with some combination of workout intensity, duration and frequency causing it to adapt. We call this adaptation “fitness.” The planning of periodization assumes the body will achieve a given level of fitness at a given time by following the plan. That may well be the case. Historically, the problem with this assumption has been that there was little in the way of data to confirm that the planned adaptation had occurred. That’s now changing due to technology.

A power meter for cycling or a GPS for running has taken some of the guesswork out of the measurement of adaptation. Such devices (there are more to come) allow you to more accurately measure performance changes – if you know what to measure. (I touched on this idea in my last blog post.) 

Typically, in the Base period an endurance athlete wants to improve aerobic endurance, muscular force and speed skill. The first two can be measured using some combination of a heart rate monitor, power meter and GPS. Speed skill is still difficult for us to measure in a field test. But expect that to change when second generation power meters – yet to be released – provide more analytical information on pedaling mechanics such as individual leg contribution to power output and the range of effective force application to the pedal per stroke. In the mean time, we can easily measure aerobic endurance and muscular force adaptation.

I’ve previously written about the “Efficiency Factor” (EF) as a way of gauging changes in aerobic endurance. It’s based on the simple concept that as aerobic fitness improves, heart rate decreases at any given power output (or speed in running) [Lucia, et al, Heart rate and performance parameters in elite cyclists: A longitudinal study. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2000, 32(10):1777-82]. Or, to reverse that, if heart rate stays the same, over time, power (or running speed) will increase as aerobic fitness improves. Heart rate by itself tells us absolutely nothing about fitness. It must be compared with something to have meaning.

This brings us back to the idea of periodization on demand. The optimal way to train, I believe, is to frequently measure your adaptation changing your training only when it’s evident that fitness has plateaued at a higher level or achieved a predetermined level. By doing this you take the guesswork out of training and move on to a newer form of stress only when your body says it’s time rather than when the plan changes. Again, this doesn’t mean don’t plan. Follow it, but be willing to change it when the time is right. This will usually require that you modify the plan going forward.

How about I give you an example of this from my own training.

I use a block training form of periodization. With this method the focus of training during any given period (“block”) is quite focused with generally only one or two aspects of fitness being addressed. In block 1 this fall I focused on aerobic endurance as measured by EF. The accompanying chart shows the progression over the course of four weeks (Oct 17-Nov 17). During this time I did the same EF workout 17 times. This involved warming up for 30 minutes and then riding one hour at a fixed aerobic threshold heart rate in low zone 2 (120-125, in my case), followed by a 30-minute cool down. I used the same two courses for these sessions and the same equipment with the workouts at about the same time of day. After the workout I compared normalized power for that hour with average heart rate for the same hour (NP/AHR). That produced a ratio that ranged from a low of 1.29 to a high of 1.45. You can easily see the progression of EF in the chart. Only the EF workouts are shown here (the blank days were missed workouts due to travel, easy recovery rides, or a cycling camp from Nov 1-3). 

By the middle of November it was obvious that my aerobic endurance (as reflected in the EF ratio) had plateaued. Power had increased at the same heart rate but was no longer rising. It was time to move on to the next training block, which I am currently in.

The takeaway message here is not block training or aerobic endurance training, but rather making changes to training when your body says it’s time, rather than when the plan calls for it. Some day we’ll have software that does such monitoring for you and suggests when it’s time to change your training and what those changes might be. Until then you need to pay close attention to that which is appropriate and measurable.