- Jun 16, 2009
- 647
- 0
- 0
Difficult post to title, but I will try and make a better job of explaining my argument.
Having competed as an elite amateur in Europe, (and training / living like a pro) for some time I like to think that I have a reasonable understanding of training for top level cycling.
The main mentality I have seen among amateur (and many pro) riders is that you train hard before the season then you use early season races and some (limited) interval training to sharpen your form and speed. Then you are constantly working on the balance between racing / resting and light training (lots of recovery) to get the balance right to hold top form when needed and a good level the rest of the time. When you are riding poorly it often means you have used up a period of decent form, and need to rest and rebuild.
Generally many guys would like to race more, rest more and train less. For me there was nothing better than finishing a really tough classic each weekend, maybe a midweek crit, and a couple of light 2hr training runs in the week.
some professional riders, esp the some of the Top GC contenders seem to be completely different. They seem to be able to turn up at grand tours with only a handful of race days in their legs and win without looking like it was much bother at all. Beforehand they are "training" 8 hours a day.
I know that most top end amateurs would be terrified of turning up at a really tough race without as many hard racing days as possible in the legs, followed some good recovery. Training alone gets you fit and lays the foundations for "form" - but the superior efforts required in regular racing and the necessary quality rest thereafter develops your condition and gets the top end speed going.
The reason is pretty simple - following the wheels in a race, or attacking, reeling breaks back etc takes you so much deeper than training alone, and far more often. Riding a super hard crit, or a classic where you are really suffering but hanging on and finishing is absolutely priceless for honing the engine. Time and time again I have remarked to myself in races that on several occasions I have gone way deeper than I imagined myself being able to go, and that training would never come close to punishing me like that. It's psycholigical - racing yourself is easier than racing other riders. As getting fit is all about stress + recovery I am of the opinion that psycholigically and physically there is no better way to build form than riding races.
My personal experiences (and those of many guys I have raced with) suggest that too much training and too little racing makes you tired and slow - not sharp and fast.
For that reason I remain immensely suspicious of guys who turn up at the hardest races of the season with very few race miles in their legs, having "trained" really hard prior to the race. Especially if their trainer happens to be a physician, and they trained somewhere quite remote on their own.
Over the last decade I have seen way too many grand tour winners follow this pattern. Lance was notorious for it (reinterpreted as an advantage in preparing specifically for the tour), Rasmussen wouldn't even say where he was, and Contador seems to race less than anyone else.
As far as I'm concerned it is very suspicious.
Having competed as an elite amateur in Europe, (and training / living like a pro) for some time I like to think that I have a reasonable understanding of training for top level cycling.
The main mentality I have seen among amateur (and many pro) riders is that you train hard before the season then you use early season races and some (limited) interval training to sharpen your form and speed. Then you are constantly working on the balance between racing / resting and light training (lots of recovery) to get the balance right to hold top form when needed and a good level the rest of the time. When you are riding poorly it often means you have used up a period of decent form, and need to rest and rebuild.
Generally many guys would like to race more, rest more and train less. For me there was nothing better than finishing a really tough classic each weekend, maybe a midweek crit, and a couple of light 2hr training runs in the week.
some professional riders, esp the some of the Top GC contenders seem to be completely different. They seem to be able to turn up at grand tours with only a handful of race days in their legs and win without looking like it was much bother at all. Beforehand they are "training" 8 hours a day.
I know that most top end amateurs would be terrified of turning up at a really tough race without as many hard racing days as possible in the legs, followed some good recovery. Training alone gets you fit and lays the foundations for "form" - but the superior efforts required in regular racing and the necessary quality rest thereafter develops your condition and gets the top end speed going.
The reason is pretty simple - following the wheels in a race, or attacking, reeling breaks back etc takes you so much deeper than training alone, and far more often. Riding a super hard crit, or a classic where you are really suffering but hanging on and finishing is absolutely priceless for honing the engine. Time and time again I have remarked to myself in races that on several occasions I have gone way deeper than I imagined myself being able to go, and that training would never come close to punishing me like that. It's psycholigical - racing yourself is easier than racing other riders. As getting fit is all about stress + recovery I am of the opinion that psycholigically and physically there is no better way to build form than riding races.
My personal experiences (and those of many guys I have raced with) suggest that too much training and too little racing makes you tired and slow - not sharp and fast.
For that reason I remain immensely suspicious of guys who turn up at the hardest races of the season with very few race miles in their legs, having "trained" really hard prior to the race. Especially if their trainer happens to be a physician, and they trained somewhere quite remote on their own.
Over the last decade I have seen way too many grand tour winners follow this pattern. Lance was notorious for it (reinterpreted as an advantage in preparing specifically for the tour), Rasmussen wouldn't even say where he was, and Contador seems to race less than anyone else.
As far as I'm concerned it is very suspicious.