I’ve been a life long cyclist who mountain bikes, cycle tours and rides 2-3 times / week. So this year aged 48 I decided to get a coach as I found that my usual 1 or 2 mid week 2 hour evening rides and 1 weekend 2-3 hour ride was keeping me fit, but my average speed of 13-15mph was woeful and I probably could use the time I had in a much more constructive manner to build a really good base for cycle touring.

I found a good coach and my first task was to perform an FTP. (During the summer months when I mountain bike I can quite happily climb at 175 bpm for 10 minutes (max HR 190) without too much trouble). I performed the FTP and obtained a woeful FTP of 230 watts. The test itself was not fun and I ended up going to bed feeling wired and struggled to sleep. I’d never done one before.

From this value my Training Peaks calendar was constructed and I was prescribed 5 rides / week. Ranging from 1 to 1.5 hour turbo rides and one 3hr + weekend ride.

The turbo rides have been a lot of steady state work at 85 – 95% of FTP with some stress based workout to deduce one minute CP …

Now everything seemed to start off well and although the sessions were hard I completed them, but by week two I found my sleep really started suffering. At first I blamed the windy weather as that hasn’t helped, but on reflection and looking at heart rate data I have done sessions where my HR has been at 160 bpm raising to 170 bpm for 45 mins. And I think the poor sleep is also due to the turbo sessions.

When I compared my HR for the 1.5 hour turbo ride with an old ride I did prior to coaching I noticed that my outdoor rides had a HR profile that was in tune with the terrain I was riding. The high peaks up to 170 were for 15 mins max and I might have one or maybe two per ride, but there were loads of < 140 bpm sections. The turbo ride however were more a slightly positive increasing line but it was held constant with very little < 150 bpm recovery.

I am planning on discussing with my coach, but I am interested as to how you go about starting to coach someone who has never been coached before. So you get an FTP from someone, but how do you know whether they can handle a steady state workout of 3 * 10 mins @95% ftp or whether instead you prescribe 3 * 7 mins @95% ftp. Just really interested to understand how you come up with the initial TSS value that stresses the individual, but does not end up drilling them into the ground?

I have always had an issue whereby if I ride too hard or too long then my sleep is totally messed up and I don’t think I can change that. Come to the conclusion it’s genetic and I just shouldn’t do it.

My sleep is also messed up after hard training. I think its quite normal; but it does make recovery a bit of a struggle. Race days are even worse, but I think thats the left over adrenaline contributing too

So did your coach load your ride history into trainingpeaks so you have a base CTL/ATL? It sounds like the ramp rate (your 7 day ATL vs 42 day CTL) is causing your fatigue. I only use trainingpeaks for logging rides, use their WKO4 software for the actual analysis (it pulls all the rides in from trainingpeaks). It’s very easy to see where you are in terms of training load, so you don’t overdo it in the early stages of a plan.

I found a good coach

How do you know this?

The turbo rides have been a lot of steady state work at 85 – 95% of FTP with some stress based workout to deduce one minute CP …

95% of FTP for the 1 – 1.5hr turbo rides sounds to me like a huge amount of stress to place yourself under to build a base for cycle touring, I would’ve thought that steady state would refer to Z2 / 3 rides with the odd short interval. So I’m not surprised you’re knackered with that level of fatigue build up.

I have always had an issue whereby if I ride too hard or too long then my sleep is totally messed up and I don’t think I can change that. Come to the conclusion it’s genetic and I just shouldn’t do it.

Did you explain this to your ‘good’ coach?

I can quite happily climb at 175 bpm for 10 minutes (max HR 190) without too much trouble).

Going well, my threshold is low 170s from a Max around 190 and holding it for 10 mins is really not easy. I can hold it for 20 mins on a turbo but not a lot more, and it’s grim.

I performed the FTP and obtained a woeful FTP of 230 watts. The test itself was not fun and I ended up going to bed feeling wired and struggled to sleep. I’d never done one before.

I have always had an issue whereby if I ride too hard or too long then my sleep is totally messed up and I don’t think I can change that.

That does seem normal, probably something related to cortisol / stress hormone response saying that you’re not used to working at that level or you’ve pushed hard that day. Training or riding hard will always do it, I know I’m going well when I can do some of my local SS loops and still sleep fairly normally afterwards. A good turbo session gives me that elevated HR for some time afterwards, 12hrs or more.

Just really interested to understand how you come up with the initial TSS value that stresses the individual, but does not end up drilling them into the ground?

I guess that’s what the first few weeks figure out – capacity for recovery after the efforts needed. A good coach should be talking to you about all this and this is where I know some people prefer power meters as a way of telling when to ease off. Training is as much about recovery and in your 40s you’ll need more recovery (I know I do). Better to do one turbo session a week really well than 2 that you’re never that fresh or recovered for.

TBH though, a coach seems like a way to suck the fun out of riding if you’re not planning to race. If you wanted good endurance ability plus added speed/power you could get that from riding fairly normally but with some structure and using a turbo 1hr a week, plus working in blocks.

Ride in the morning, rather than the evening…?

So did your coach load your ride history into trainingpeaks so you have a base CTL/ATL? It sounds like the ramp rate (your 7 day ATL vs 42 day CTL) is causing your fatigue. I only use trainingpeaks for logging rides, use their WKO4 software for the actual analysis (it pulls all the rides in from trainingpeaks). It’s very easy to see where you are in terms of training load, so you don’t overdo it in the early stages of a plan.

Only a handful of my rides were loaded in prior so I am assuming this was used, but can’t be sure.

95% of FTP for the 1 – 1.5hr turbo rides sounds to me like a huge amount of stress to place yourself under to build a base for cycle touring, I would’ve thought that steady state would refer to Z2 / 3 rides with the odd short interval. So I’m not surprised you’re knackered with that level of fatigue build up.

Was told that steady state is a great way to build stamina for endurance rides.

Did you explain this to your ‘good’ coach?

No. Didn’t realise that I’d start suffering sleep issues. I have mentioned it now though.

One other thing I noticed is that on Sunday I did a 3.5 hr hilly endurance ride of Z1/2 with hills being done at Z3/z4. Although average speed was really low 11mph I completed the ride and my garmin recovery displayed “19 hours recovery” Contrast this to the 1.5 hour steady state which was 50 hours and I had another one the next day that displayed 45 hours.

Either garmin recovery is complete twaddle or the turbo sessions really are another level of intensity to my normal rides.

On what planet is 85-95% FTP for 1-1.5 hrs steady state?

TBH though, a coach seems like a way to suck the fun out of riding if you’re not planning to race. If you wanted good endurance ability plus added speed/power you could get that from riding fairly normally but with some structure and using a turbo 1hr a week, plus working in blocks.

Agreed, but I was also beginning to find the same with just going out doing the same 3 or 4 different 30 mile loops and 40 mile weekend one. When you have cycled the same routes and you start remembering where the pot holes are …

Just thought a coach would break that and add some structure so I wasn’t just cycling in the so called “no man’s land” aimlessly and without really gaining much benefit.

Have also joined Audax UK so as to have a monthly challenge. 100km initially, with a 200km in 2 months ..

How long have you had the coach?
From memory, when I got a coach to start with they asked to see a bit of previous ride history, and I was also told to do some general riding (and whatever else I had planned) for a few weeks. Then it was probably 20minute test and then gradually build. But basically it started with sessions that I thought were almost too easy. It definitely didn’t start with sessions drilling 95% of FTP. But it builds and builds and builds – both duration and effort levels. That way they find out what you’re capable of sustaining and how you feel based on the data and how you feedback on the sessions. I assume you provide feedback such as how you felt before/during/after each session?

A 20minute test will only give an indication of FTP and training zones. Your 1hour power (which can be argued is roughly FTP) might be nowhere near 0.95 X 20min power. And similarly your other zones could be out too.

As per previous posts, I would suggest 95% of FTP is too intense for what you need. Does your coach know your aim – i.e. fitness for touring? It might show some quick improvements but from your comments about how you feel it doesn’t sound sustainable. A good coach keeps it sustainable. But also, training will indeed likely be lots of sustained efforts in certain zones. The duration of the efforts will depend on the zone. Unless it is high intensity short intervals with recovery, it won’t fluctuate like just going for an outdoor ride as you’re trying to stretch the boundaries.

Don’t think of your FTP as “woeful”, especially if you are new to being coached. It’s just your FTP. It’s a personal benchmark that a successful training programme should improve, so just use it to measure your own relative progress.

A training programme has to work for you, not the other way round, so if you feel the current approach is not effective, speak to your coach and work out something that suits your situation. There’s no single answer to this, the only measure of a good training programme is whether it helps you achieve your goals.

Did discuss my goals of 200km audax and also a 2 week cycle tour in the summer prior to starting coaching.

I have been providing feedback and although the steady state sessions have been hard and my legs are on fire by the time I’ve finished it felt fine, but it all comes down to whether the level of intensity is just too much for my current level of fitness. I’ve concluded that it is.

A training programme has to work for you, not the other way round, so if you feel the current approach is not effective, speak to your coach and work out something that suits your situation. There’s no single answer to this, the only measure of a good training programme is whether it helps you achieve your goals.

Completely agree. Going to discuss and see what we can do to reduce the intensity, but whilst still getting the benefit of being coached. I am sure that a coach can help deliver better gains with 7 to 9 hours per week than I can myself by just going out and blindly riding my bike.

What has your coach done after you’ve provided feedback about being tired? If he’s not modifying the plan week by and ideally session by session then he’s not coaching you but is just prescribing you a generic workout plan

But will you enjoy the riding ?

Why is an FTP of 230W woeful? Without knowing your weight and your previous training history it could be regarded as anything. If you weighed 50kg then 230W is very good for example, less so if you weighed 100kg. Also if you haven’t performed an FTP test before then you might not be very good at performing the test. With the 8min and 20min tests it takes a couple of goes before you get to know what level of effort you can put out for those durations. Ultimately FTP’s just a number that many training programs and coaches use to scale the workouts.

I agree with the others about the high percentage of FTP for steady state workouts: < 50% is recovery (Z1), 50-70% is endurance (Z2).

As you get older recovery becomes increasingly important both within and between workouts. I’ve been on the trainer this morning and the workout had me doing blocks of 125% of FTP for 60secs then light spinning for 30secs – repeat seven times. By the time I got to the third block of these I couldn’t recover in time to put in the effort. If I’d had 45 seconds recovery rather than 30 seconds then I’d have been fine.

Also turbo sessions are intense – there is no hiding place, no coasting down the far side of a climb, getting a tail wind or draughting your mates. Do a hard turbo session for an hour or so and it’s probably three hours or more of outdoor riding. But that’s what makes it effective, it’s targeted and precise

You say you have found a good coach but you have posted here before talking to them?

The very first thing you should be doing is giving your coach feedback and they should be adjusting your training to suit or telling you exactly what they are expecting.

If that change doesn’t work then keep talking to them, if they still can’t get it right then and they can’t get the balance right then there is something wrong with your coaching relationship and they don’t suit you.

On what planet is 85-95% FTP for 1-1.5 hrs steady state?

It’s not IMHO, hence my ‘how do you know they’re good’ question

Are you sure you need a coach? There’s a mismatch between the problem (boredom/staleness) and the solution (being told to ride in a structured fashion on your turbo).

You can obviously get yourself in shape for a 200km audax (your riding history suggests). I get that a coach might help to make improving fun (again), or help you improve faster. But it’s not doing either at the moment is it?

You main bugbear seems to be:

Agreed, but I was also beginning to find the same with just going out doing the same 3 or 4 different 30 mile loops and 40 mile weekend one. When you have cycled the same routes and you start remembering where the pot holes are …

Just thought a coach would break that and add some structure so I wasn’t just cycling in the so called “no man’s land” aimlessly and without really gaining much benefit.

What’s stopping you mixing it up for yourself? I don’t think a coach is necessarily the solution to this problem. You need a route planner and a little imagination. Think of some new loops/routes for yourself. Vary their length and then ride them at different intensities with less structure than a coach might impose. It will be fun again, without the hassle you are now experiencing.

Speak to anyone who tans the turbo and they’ll tell you it only works with clear objectives in mind, usually race ones. It’s too hard a thing to do week in week out, on top of all other commitments, unless there’s real motivation and real feedback in terms of tangible results.

Laying down a base for cycle touring sounds great, just something that would mentally be very hard to train for via turbo intervals. What are the results – I saw five medieval churches in France when previously I would have only managed four? Just seems a bit mismatched, at least for me – but we’re all motivated to ride in different ways.

Anyhow you said it in the title – it’s about balance. Decent program on the turbo is not going to have you feeling awesome, running around full of beans; it’s going to fatigue you and there will be days when the very last thing you want to do after work is climb on. But some of the data you’re throwing out sounds well out of line – 45 min approaching 90% HR is a huge effort, not some sweet spot twiddling. Most people would ride an empty-the-tank 25 mile time trial around 90% heart rate.

Have you got a local road club you can go out with? If you get the right group it may provide some interest to your rides (new routes, social aspect etc) but also help to push your fitness and speed.
I used to think I was fit on an MTB until I went out with the local road club and had my arse handed to me. 2 years on, and I’m the fittest I’ve ever been by a long way.

Ride in the morning, rather than the evening…?

I’ve toyed with doing something more structured than I do now – but I’ve also noticed that I really can’t train hard at all in the evening if I want to get any (decent) sleep. But yeah, if I was paying a coach rather than using a generic plan, I’d be speaking to them about it already.

Some good sense in posts above.

When you have cycled the same routes and you start remembering where the pot holes are …
Just thought a coach would break that and add some structure so I wasn’t just cycling in the so called “no man’s land” aimlessly and without really gaining much benefit.

Explore and find some new routes, longer ones that you can ride steady, or short ones you can repeat as a sessionto see how you pace the loops?
Realise that riding for 30-40mins in Z1 is a nice way to see the views and pootling the day after a turbo sesh can be good recovery?
Understand an 80-20 or 90-10 rule for training for endurance – 45 min, maybe 1hr on a turbo with a good chunk at Z4-5 is all you need alongside a long Z2 base ride and a mixed-pace for fun ride each week (SS MTB, sessioning DHs with a pedal up in between, etc)?
That’s keeping you out of no-mans land, or should do. Just a basic HRM can do that too.

Sadly, I don’t have the first clue as the most efficient way to train for multi day cycle touring. As previously stated, I have done them before, but I have always found preparation haphazard and have just adopted a go out and ride and build up the hours until I can do 2 * 5 hour back to back rides fully loaded and I’m good to go.

The approach works, but I am 100% convinced that with some structured training I could go do the same rides feeling much stronger and without each consecutive day taking it out of me.

When I cycle tour I try my hardest to keep my HR down as otherwise, for every hard effort I’ll pay for it in the days to come.

So for me, I can’t deduce what type of interval work you should be doing and what benefit you’ll get from it when you do come to cycle tour.

For example the training that you’ll do for a goal of 50 mile TT is most likely very different to the one I need to be doing.

Steady means consistent right?

Doesn’t have to be Z2

Was told that steady state is a great way to build stamina for endurance rides.

Depends on the intensity. Higher intensity isn’t ‘better’ it’s different.

There’s a limit to how “steady state” higher intensity can be though.

I would think most of your sessions should be below FTP and you don’t need to be doing sessions so close to FTP. If you’re touring day after day, then I would think training on days back to back should feature. You’re trying to build a capacity to ride day after day.

As other posts have suggested, you need to really have bought into what the training will take out of you, for the benefit it will bring. And then maybe some of the difficulty sleeping etc would be seen as just a side effect of the training that somehow you need to work round. It maybe your coach can change things but it maybe doing that, that any improvements may not be so quick.

Sadly, I don’t have the first clue as the most efficient way to train for multi day cycle touring.

If you have big days in mind then conditioning and upping the engine will help – pretty sure it’s been covered on here before a few times, a search will bring some threads up.
Read Joe Friel’s blog topics on the concept of base and build phases and what they’re generally made up of. It’s about why base miles help for endurance riders, and how you take that ‘base’ engine and tune it up with turbo work.

Basically, develop your capacity for work and time on bike. Then raise your top end and all your levels go up accordingly so you can cruise at a faster pace. Do strength work too, riding a loaded bike or a SS. I’m no expert but the ime basics aren’t far off that, your coach will know more and how to apply similar plans. Or, he’ll tell us why all that ^ is old or wrong, would be interested if so.

What was your FTHR in the test and how does that compare with your HR during the turbo sessions?

Re-reading the OP, it seems that the 80-95% of FTP for a 60-90min turbo ride isn’t for the entire session but for the ten to fifteen minute intervals within that session.

Since the OP has no historic training data for their coach to analyse she/he has given them a generic plan from which they need feedback as to whether it’s too easy/hard. The OP doesn’t state (as far as I can see) if they are used to turbo training. If not it takes time to adjust to riding on a bike that doesn’t move in any axis – when I started back on the turbo last October after a three year break it took at least three weeks before I wasn’t getting out of the saddle for “a rest” every ten minutes or so.

I use Trainerroad but the principles are the same, just with a different emphasis, whether you use TR, Training Peaks, Sufferfest, Zwift, etc. Generally they work on the principle that to build up an ability you need to increase the required intensity but for a shorter period of time and do that repeatedly. So: big effort then recover and repeat. As you get used to the stress the intervals will increase or the recovery periods will shorten. After three weeks or so you’ll have an easier week where you’ll give your body time to recover then you’ll go again. This applies to all aspects of your power curve.

You don’t mention if you’ve a fan in front of you on the turbo – absolutely essential. The frontal area of a cyclist is between 0.3 & 0.4 m^2 depending on riding position. Outdoors and riding at 15mph which is roughly 7m/s that’s between 2.1 and 2.8 cubic metres of air passing over you per second. Put another way that’s the volume of a typical house every 40 seconds. You’ve got to replicate that airflow when on the turbo otherwise you’ll overheat. Overheating will affect both your HR and your ability to perform the workout. I’ll start turbo workouts almost shivering and even with a decent fan I’m sweating after half an hour. I’ll also have a couple of water bottles to hand.

I wouldn’t really compare HR data between indoor and outdoor rides purely because of the intensity of the former. Once you’ve a few weeks’ workouts done then you’ll be able to compare HR over time but also metrics like average power to average HR and cardiac drift. There’s a bit of discussion on this recently on the very long Trainerroad thread.

3 x 10 in a hour session shouldn’t be too taxing at 90%, typically 10 minutes stepped warm up, 5 minutes rest intervals and a nice long cool down should bring you around the hour mark.

If you’re new to turbos or been away for a while maybe you could ask your coach if it’s cool to break them down a little further (say 6 x 5m) then bring them up gradually as you settle in?

Thinking about it, I’ve spent the last 2-3 months doing sessions mostly no more than about 85% threshold, so I suppose 90% isn’t unreasonable but it should definitely start at perhaps 5min interval length and build up. A coach doesn’t (shouldn’t) find out where you’re at by trying to break you for starters.

If you’re committed then can you do the sessions at the other end of the day? And have more free time or earlier bed time at the other end.

Who else does your coach train and do you know what age and what they train for?

I purchased an 18″ fan as I initially was overheating, but that really does help.

Regarding HR, coach has said he doesn’t use it and everything is done on power. I was quite surprised by that and am going to verify what he means as prior to using power pedals I have historically always ridden to HR. I know that my FTHR is give or take a couple of beats 165bpm.

The issue could of course be that as a result of not doing intervals at ~ FTHR or FTP then I have become unfit at cycling in that zone for that time frame. As a result, when I do such workouts they physically hit me much harder than a normal ride would. I can see this as my HR always gradually climbs up as I tackle each interval.

For example, if you go out and just ride your bike, unless you are actively doing it would you perform 3 * 12min @90% FTP with 5 minutes rest. I know I don’t, I just ride my bike and let the terrain dictate how hard the ride will be.

Where as riding on a smart trainer in ergo mode you are forced to do the efforts.

The reason few (if anyone) uses HR for training is that power is the input, HR is the result of the cumulative stress so your HR naturally drifts during efforts so if you start a set of intervals at say 150bpm then over time your power output declines. Conversely if you maintain power then your HR rises.

The other point is that there’s a hysteresis or lag in HR values because it’s the body reacting to the effort. You start a 30 second anaerobic effort: your power rises near instantly to the required output but it might take 20 seconds for your HR to respond then when the interval comes to an end it takes maybe a minute or more to drop back to its previous value. Power is power but HR could be anything!

So with power a workout can state: 5 mins at 40% FTP then 30 seconds at 125%, 30 seconds at 40% (repeat eight times) and you can ride to those values and get the required adaptation. Substitute FTHR for FTP and you can’t be that precise, in fact you couldn’t physically do it.

As you note, your HR rises for each interval. Let’s just say the workout is for VO2 max intervals. (I’ll assume there’s a linear relationship between FTP & FTHR) Using HR you’d ride at say 120% of FTHR but because of cardiac drift each successive interval would require less and less power to produce that. By the end of a set you might actually be riding at your FTP, not 120% of it, so you aren’t getting the required adaptation the workout is designed to give.

Forgot to add: HR is also affected by things like (de)hydration, environment, lack of sleep, life stresses, whether and what you’ve eaten recently. Basically it’s a mess! The only HR value you can rely upon is one you take first thing on waking in the morning before you even get out of bed or even sit up.

It may well be that since you’ve been riding to HR zones your workouts have been easing in intensity through their duration. Now you are working the the more precise power values you are struggling because the workload isn’t decreasing in the manner you’ve been accustomed to.

It may well be that since you’ve been riding to HR zones your workouts have been easing in intensity through their duration. Now you are working the the more precise power values you are struggling because the workload isn’t decreasing in the manner you’ve been accustomed to.

I suspect that is exactly the reason behind the sleep issues. I’m just not used to interval based workouts. I think it is as simple as that. I did a steady state one last week and when I’d finished my legs were on fire. I never ride my bike outdoors to that extent.

It’s a great learning exercise and I don’t doubt that I can become a stronger cyclist by following a plan rather than just blindly riding my bike.

I disagree slightly. You need power and heart rate. Power alone doesn’t tell you the physiological response the effort is having on the body. Yes, heart rate may be up or down on a day due to sleep, illness, stress etc etc. But over time you will see trends. Power/heart rate ratio and power/heart rate drift are useful indicators of efficiency and also therefore when it might be time to change your interval efforts (time/power level/recovery etc).

@mtbtomo – we’re arguing slightly different things here.

Understanding what a given input does to your HR, breathing, etc. is important but there’s all those other inputs to consider as well. Using HR to control input is somewhat like using your car’s engine temperature to control its speed.

@whitestone – Yeah, I get that. I think we’re actually probably in violent agreement 🙂

I’m just pointing out, or questioning whether the coach has seemingly dismissed heart rate as a data set. Train to power during sessions for sure, for the reasons you mention, but without heart rate recording you’re missing a large piece of the puzzle when analysing the data.

We’re missing a large amount of info from the OP regarding his(?) problem anyway. The OP posted this:

Regarding HR, coach has said he doesn’t use it and everything is done on power.

Which can be taken two ways:

1) HR data is ignored altogether.
2) HR data is not used in determining workout intensities but is analysed later.

At the moment we don’t know which path the coach follows.

I’ll quote myself here:

It may well be that since you’ve been riding to HR zones your workouts have been easing in intensity through their duration. Now you are working the the more precise power values you are struggling because the workload isn’t decreasing in the manner you’ve been accustomed to.