Training while away from the bike

Just got back from a week away.
No bike for a week :-(
Like most holidays space was at a premium, so it was a case of managing as best I could.
I just packed my running shoes and my new sports watch (a Garmin 310xt).

I have a "century ride" lined up for next Sunday (just 7 days time!), so I wanted to do a bit, just to keep in shape.
A bit of running won't improve my "cycling legs" much, but it WILL help me keep my heart and lungs in good condition.
I did a mixture of short running, and one serious section of running from the campsite down to the beach and back up a few times (four climb reps in total - dunno how high, but I'm guessing 50 metres plus per rep).
I'll shortly process the Garmin files, and the stats will be there for all to see.

I am not much of a runner, instead using a bit of running to support my cycling, and the running I did on holiday was a lot better training than none at all, while still giving my body a chance to recover fully before my upcoming "century".

Fancy a go at the "century" yourself (shorter routes are also available!)?
There appears to be some places left - apply here.
Or if you want to wait for the weather, just turn up on the day and pay 30 quid (subject to places remaining!)

Mid-May Weight and training update

It is going to be in two parts, due to time pressures :-)
For now, a quick graphic of how the weight loss is getting on - I have "smoothed" the data using the "90% yesterday's smoothed figure + 10% of today's new, raw, figure" method outlined in The Hacker's Diet, and brought to my attention by Camelin Caine.
The "smoothing doesn't affect the "underlying" picture much - indeed. the raw data shows a slightly GREATER weight loss for the last week or so!

Yep, I'm still losing weight!
About 6 kg (13 lbs) since January 1st!

If you want to see what the "raw" data looks like, I have already published all but the last three weeks worth here (the "raw" data is the "blue" line on the graphic there, with the "green" line being a 3-day average)

On the "training" side of things, I suppose the "big" news is that I purchased a Garmin 310XT watch.

big box, small watch

what's in the box - watch + HRM belt
+accessories

Pedalling along ...

HRM of 159 bpm!
Must be a hill!

So why did I get a GPS watch, rather than a GPS bike computer?

1. I find running to be a quick, convenient "top-up" to my cycling - and GPS bike computers (e.g. the Garmin Edge 500) don't fit well in pockets!
2. Since I don't have bike "rollers" or a "turbo trainer", running gives me a more intense and consistent workout than cycling, which tends to have a lot of start-stop sections due to the nature of road design and other users
3. I can nip into a shop (or behind a bush, ahem) without having to remember to take the computer off the bike each time to keep it away from thieves
4. I wanted a long battery life - the 310XT has a longer life than, say, the Edge 500 (claimed 20 hrs vs claimed 18 hrs) - and that battery life could be a good bit less "in real life"!
5. The 310XT is waterproof - as in you can swim with it (it is designed for triathletes, remember!) - as I cycle a good few miles of canal path from time to time, it is nice if the device isn;t ruined if I fall in! The Edge 500 is only showerproof.

But, surely, you might say, a fancy bike computer can sync up with cadence sensors and power cranks and all that stuff, as well as an HRM belt.
Quite right too, which is why I didn't get a "regular" "runner's watch" - the 310XT is a "triathelete's watch", and, if I later decide I need other types of sensors, it will sync up to them - bike sensors, shoes sensors (running), whatever! It will even, apparently, sync up with gym machines (ANT+ compatible, obviously!), and fancy weighing scales!

The only downsides I have found are:

1. The 310XT can only display 4 data fields, while something like the Edge 500 can display 6
2. I have to remember to tuck my shirt cuff under the watch, otherwise I can't read all the display! (see pics above)

For training rides, I have completed two of note this month - I rode a "century" a couple of weeks ago, and I rode a hilly 60+km ride, too, with three repetitions of the biggest hill in the area.

I also got a 16km run in right at the start of the month.
More to follow!

Heart rate and training - revisited

StravistiX chart of my recent "century" ride
- how can I have a heart rate of 110%?

Last Sundays "century" gave me some good data to have a look at/
The route I rode is the "actual" route I will be riding in just over 3 weeks time.

For those of us without Strava Premium, there is a handy utility called StravistiX, which is available as a "browser extension" for the Chrome browser. It adds an extra "button" to the standard Strava screen which allows "extended statistics" to be shown.
Extra statistics and graphs are then displayed from the ride/run data - the more sensors you have, the more data it can display.
Me, I only have an HRM belt, and of course a GPS device. But StravistiX will also display info from power meters and cadence meters too if you have them. Food pods if you have one, etc., etc.

Anyway, one puts in one's heart rate data and up come some nice bar charts and some stats.

But what heart rate should one use?
the highest heart rate I have come measured for myself is 181 bpm - uphill, and I failed to complete the hill because I "ran out of steam", and it was after I had done a circular course with the hill a few times, so my HR was ratcheting up.
I find if I am tired, i just can't push myslef hard enough to get up to that high a heart rate!
So my Max HR is 181 bpm, right?

Except when I put that number into StravistiX I get the chart at the top of the page.
Fine, except that the 2top" band ends at 110% of my Maximum Heart Rate.
Ask a doctor - that doesn't happen. Maximum is maximum!

Which brings me onto the strange idea of "sport-related Maximum Heart rate".
Apparently, because running uses more muscles than cycling, a person can achive a higher "maximum" heart rate while running than they can while cycling.
So the idea of a different maximum heart rate for different sports came about.
To the theorist, it is, of course, complete rubbish.
Just because a sport can't normally stimulate you enough to reach your "true" "maximum" heart rate doesn't mean that particular biological limit has changed at all.

But, nonetheless, it is an idea that has gained quite a bit of traction for it's "functional" aspects.
What percentage of my "functional maximum" heart rate can I achieve, is perghaps the question then?

Well, the highest heart rate I have achieved while cycling is 172 bpm, and just like the various suggested ways of getting up to your maximum "functional" heart rate, it was at the top of a significant climb that had three distict phases - two short, sharp slopes, just to "soften the rider up a bit", and then a longer climb of varying gradient, finishing 170 metres above the start (the gradual gradient of some of the parts means it doesn't qualify for a Strava Cat 3 climb, although the later part of the climb qualifies as a Cat 4 climb!). So it was a long climb that ratchets up the heart rate!

So, if instead of my "true" maximum heart rate (181 bpm) which was achieved by running, what happens if I use my "functional cycling" maximum heart rate of 172 bpm instead?

"functional cycling" maximum heart rate of 172 bpm

"true" maximum heart rate of 181 bpm

Look what a difference that makes to the stats!
The various "quartiles" for heart rate don't change (it was the SAME HR data I used for both charts!),
the "toughness" doesn't change (which is only right and proper, becausee the data is the SAME DATA FROM THE SAME RIDE), but look how the "Training Impulse" has jumped from 496 to 581.
Training Impulse is calculated in a similar way to Strava's "Suffer Score", so by using a lower maximum heart rate, it appears I am doing more training!

And yet the same set of ride data forms the basis of both graphs!

So the "true" training MUST be the same!
I think that the StravistiX charts must be expecting me to use my "functional cycling" maximum heart rate, rather than my "true" heart rate, as then the ability to get 110% of "maximum" heart rate is no so impossible - indeed, a figure (at 100%) of 184 bpm is not so far from my "measured" (running) figure of 181 bpm.

Just think about this, though.
Next time you side a rider achieve a large "Suffer Score" in Strava, think about whether that rider has made the same heart rate assumtions that you have.
Have I training in the "top zone" for 29 seconds, or have I trained in it for over 4 minutes?
The two graphs both suggest one of the answers, but clearly they can't both be "right"

On a more practical note, given the length of the ride I ahve a bit more time in the 140 to 150 bpm region that perhaps I should - I faded rather badly towards the end. I had the "Heart Rate" alarm on my watch set to 150 bpm, and only passed that on hills.
I think I ought to move that down to 140 bpm, so that I conserve my strength a little more for the later parts of the event!

First Century of 2015, and enjoying my new Garmin 310xt.

I have a "charity" ride coming up in a month, so I thought I would check the route.

The organisers very helpfully sent me a TCX file of the route, which I loaded into Garmin Connect, then converted to a route, then uploaded to my Garmin Watch.
Navigation on a 310xt is a bit basic, but still VERY helpful.

ALDI bike special today.

Another bike event from ALDI.
I think I might pop down and get a few more of those cans of tyre repair spray.
There are panniers and other stuff, too, but I have plenty of panniers already!
(5 sets and a "single"). Must write a "comparitive" review on them ALL soon!
They have jackets, and shorts and lights and helmets and allsorts, as well!

Enjoy!

Update 4th May 2015:
they didn't have any of the tyre foam cans in my local store, and I didn't fancy a CO2 kit (with three (iirc)  cannisters - so I just bought a couple of colourful cables locks (one pink, one orange, with keys ends to match!), and a pair of running socks.
The Aldi panniers are pretty good for the price, but ... I already have a pair, as well as several other sets of variously shaped panniers (mentioned above!).
Of course, I cycled to the store! - driving to a cycle store is not very eco-friendly!

Training and Weight Loss - End of April 2015 update

Well, that's April done.
No health issues, and quite a bit of training.

The thermodynamic weight loss model, burn up more calories than you stuff in your face and you'll get thinner, really seems to be the working for me.
So, on to April's training.
No "big news", just steady training and slow weight loss.