Brevet this October - insane idea?

[indysteel]

I think Darcy's advice--about doing a metric and then a century--is good.

My calculator tells me that if I add 6 miles a week to my "long" ride then I will be up to 200k by the end of September - that seems a reasonable way to build my mileage base.

That makes it sound pretty doable, although if you end up being like me, the mileage progression isn't quite so linear. Like you, I accomplished a pretty significant goal within my first year of cycling in that I bought my first road bike in July of 2006 and did a 160-mile one-day ride exactly a year later. In building up to that mileage, I experienced certain mileage "plateaus."

During my first summer/fall of riding, I got up to about the 45-mile mark without too much fuss. After that, it took some consistent weeks of training to learn how to eat and drink and to get used to the aches and pains that set in after about 3 hours on the bike. After I got used to 45 or so miles, I quickly ramped up to about 60-65 miles (roughly a metric), again without too much fuss. From there, my body needed to adjust again. I spent some time "exploring" the 4-5 hour mark. How to eat, how to drink, how to stretch, when to take a break and when to grunt it out. The season ended at about that point, and I more or less put the bike up for the winter and worked on building my aerobic base with spinning.

When spring came, after a few somewhat painful weeks, I quickly ramped up my mileage back to the 60-mile mark. I then started to also do some speed work. For me, being in the saddle for long hours was a lot easier if I was riding with other people, but most of my riding companions were faster than me. If I was going to ride with my friends, I needed to get faster. So, mixed into my long weekend rides, I added some weekday training rides. My strength and endurance really improved at that point.

It was at this point that I did my first century over Memorial Day, 2007. In preparation for it, I was riding about 150 miles a week and my longest ride to date was 75 miles two weeks before. It was a relatively hilly century and that, probably more than the mileage, made it hard. I finished, but there were times during the ride that it really hurt. It was my first real taste of the mental toughness required for century plus rides.

It took a good week to recover, but after the century, I kicked it up a gear and started riding 200 or more miles a week. Most of my long rides were in the 65-mile range (because that's about the longest ride CIBA offers), but I usually rode that distance both Saturday and Sunday so my body was adjusting to long hours in the saddle. I was also finally able to do some hilly rides in Southern Indiana without feeling like I was going to die, too.

By the time my first year anniversary came around, I felt pretty strong and decided to do the RAIN ride on a bit of a whim. Some of my friends thought I was in over my head, but I felt confident enough to try. I'd also note that I was pretty nervous, too. It was all I could do to keep my breakfast down.

As it turns out, I felt like a million bucks during that ride. A nice tail wind and relatively comfortable temps helped, but I just felt inherently strong. I did it with a friend who had just finished a cross-country bike trip, and she made for an excellent partner. We did the ride with a 19 mph average and finished in the top third of the finishers. I have to admit that it was one of my prouder moments. I went on that year to do my first week-long tour in September, riding about 400 miles in six days in the hills of Tennessee. Again, I was pretty proud of that.

So, I wholly believe that we can set our sights on pretty ambitious goals. That said, you really need to listen to what your body wants and needs. It likely won't be as simple as doing longer and longer rides each week. Your body will need time to adjust to certain hurdles. If you push too hard, it will push back. But what's the worst that can happen if you try? You train hard and decide ultimately to put it off until next year? So what? There's no shame in that. I will add this, too. It is a lot more fun to do a century (or more) for which you've adequately trained. Yes, it's possible to gut them out, but there's no real joy in it, at least for me.

[DarcyInOregon]

Catrin, what is your average speed and your average cadence? Those two numbers are important for your training schedule. Just for an ordinary century without too much climbing, a cyclist needs a minimum of a 12 mph average. When you bike distance with longer continuous climbs, speed going up the climbs becomes more important so that the average speed doesn't fall too critically low, so that you don't become a DNF due to not being fast enough. In other words if your average speed is 13 on the flats and rollers, but only 6 on the climbing, then your overall average speed will fall below 12 and you will have time problems. The cadence is important too because too low of a cadence requires more effort and tires the body faster; i.e. a higher spin is more efficient for distance.

Also, be flexible with your goals. I know cyclists who are naturally talented at climbing, who can do miles of continuous climbing with steep grades and they love it. Other cyclists dread climbing and the climbing takes so much energy they lose blood sugar and glycogen and suffer going for distance. You have to get out and find routes with at least 3-5 miles of continuous climbing, keep the speed up, and keep the cadence up. You might discover you hate climbing with a passion and there is nothing wrong with that choice. Some people are naturally gifted climbers, others have to work real hard at it, and some decide the pain is not worth the gain.

Another aspect of your goal is to consider how you want to do the long distances. For example, when I do distance my goal is always to be normal at the end of the ride, go home, have a nice dinner, soak in the tub, do chores and the next day I get up and there is no pain and stiffness. Other people do long distance and can't walk for two weeks.

And, some people do distance and decide that metrics is the distance they prefer. Just about every cyclist on a metric is capable of doing a century, but most of them prefer doing a metric. Century cyclists understand this point. You might finish a metric and realize that is all the distance you want to do, and that is ok, because if your life depended upon it, you could do a century in a pinch, but your preference is to do the metric.

I think you said your long distance now is around 30 miles. You need to change it and 30 miles is your short ride. When 30 miles is your short ride, and you rarely do a ride under 25 miles anymore, and your preferred distance is 40-50 miles, then you are ready for the metric. When your preferred distance moves up to 70 miles, you are ready for the century. You will know it because after every long ride you feel real good, and your perception of the terrain shifts, so that once what used to appear to be huge hills are just now slight bumps in the road.

And, train with a GPS bike computer so that you learn to recognize the grades, how steep you can go, when you need to shift down, and even what grades are just so steep it is smarter to get off the bike and walk.

Finally, there does get to be a time problem with all of the training. The cycling is fantastic, but most of us have only so much time we can spend on it.

[OakLeaf]

Just for an ordinary century without too much climbing, a cyclist needs a minimum of a 12 mph average.

The cut-off for a 200K brevet is 13:30. That's a 9.1 mph average.

You have to get out and find routes with at least 3-5 miles of continuous climbing

She's in Indiana. She probably can't go anywhere without climbing a 15% grade, but she'd probably have to go at least 200 miles south to find a 3 mile climb. I'm biased because I live in similar terrain, but IMO the short steep stuff is at least as hard as long and shallow. And anyway, the brevet she's planning will be in terrain very similar to where she lives. There's no reason for her to train in very different terrain.

And, train with a GPS bike computer so that you learn to recognize the grades, how steep you can go, when you need to shift down, and even what grades are just so steep it is smarter to get off the bike and walk.

I love my GPS, but for one thing, the real-time grade isn't super accurate (if you really need a gadget, a $20 bubble inclinometer is the way to go) - and more to the point, you don't need a gadget to figure out your own legs. She'll learn to climb by climbing, not by staring at a computer screen. She'll learn how it feels when her legs are running out of steam and she's going to have to unclip. She'll learn when to power up a hill and when to sit and spin. No gadgets required.

[DarcyInOregon]

The cut-off for a 200K brevet is 13:30. That's a 9.1 mph average..

Are you including the time for stops? Some cyclists don't need much time to use the toilet facilities and to eat and drink, and others need a lot of time. It is reasonable to assume 3 hours of total stop time over a 125 mile distance for a fairly new cyclist. It means she has 10.5 hours to complete 125 miles.

I live in similar terrain, but IMO the short steep stuff is at least as hard as long and shallow. And anyway, the brevet she's planning will be in terrain very similar to where she lives. There's no reason for her to train in very different terrain...

Dang, you get long and shallow? I do a 4-mile climb to my house and the lowest grade is 5% and the steepest is 18%. Nasty. I've never been on a ride that has a climb that is long and shallow, or if it was, I just thought of it as being a 3% grade, not a climb.

I thought Catrin had said she wanted to do a brevet in another state and it would be hilly. I live in a state that is mountains and valleys, so when I think hilly I think of long steep grades, not short steep rollers. You are correct, it is a different training technique if the hills are 1/2 mile or less.

[Catrin]

I thought Catrin had said she wanted to do a brevet in another state and it would be hilly. I live in a state that is mountains and valleys, so when I think hilly I think of long steep grades, not short steep rollers. You are correct, it is a different training technique if the hills are 1/2 mile or less.

Well, hilly in that it is in southern Ohio and more hilly than Central Indiana - that is different from being in the mountains What would be a good training technique if the hills are short and steep?

I am about an hours drive from southern Indiana - and they DO have hills there - they may not be long, but they can get very steep and there are a lot of them!

[DarcyInOregon]

Well, hilly in that it is in southern Ohio and more hilly than Central Indiana - that is different from being in the mountains What would be a good training technique if the hills are short and steep?

I am about an hours drive from southern Indiana - and they DO have hills there - they may not be long, but they can get very steep and there are a lot of them!

Catrin, short and steep is a lot of fun to ride. You get a lot of speed going down one side, pedal if you have to, then accelerate at the bottom of the next hill and don't start shifting down until the cadence starts to fall. If you get enough speed, even if the grade is 15-18%, you can reach the top and still not be in your lowest gears, and your speed might not drop below 12 mph. It takes practice and a positive attitude about how fun it all is. If the hill is about a half mile high, you can still make it half way or more to the top before the speed really starts to drop.

I consider myself a slow cyclist, not really slow, but I have enough ascents and headwinds in any given ride that I doubt if my speed will ever be significant, plus I can't get my average cadence to go over 75, and thus my average speed falls anywhere between 13.0 and 16.5, typically between 14 and 15.5. Last month I was out on a long solo ride, on roads I know well. I turned left off of one rural road onto another rural road and about 1/4 mile down was the glimmer of a male cyclist. Since I knew the road I knew there was a nice descent, followed by a sharp hill with a steep curve, and I thought, hmm, I bet I can take the cyclist on the hill. I gained on the male cyclist by picking up the cadence, then gearing up when I reached the descent, pedaled like mad, and I got the male cyclist about a 1/3 of the way up the hill, passed him at about 16 mph. His head turned to look at me when I passed him, he saw I was a female, and he shouted, "hey you are a girl!" and then he shouted after me "I am slow because I forgot to pump up my tires." Now that was fun. You see what he did wrong, he didn't accelerate down the descent, and when he got to the bottom of the descent he saw a steep hill in front of him and he downshifted at the bottom into his lowest gear, thereby dropping his speed immediately, and when I passed him he was going maybe 4 mph. When I crested the top I was still going 11-12 mph.

Short hills are fun. Long continuous climbs are painful. And of course it is not possible to accelerate at the bottom of every short hill but with increased cycling fitness those type of short steep hills are easy to do, just slower and in a lower gear.

One of the worse sounds to hear is a "swoosh swoosh" coming up fast behind you on a hill. That happens to me. I will be on a climb and being pleased with myself, thinking wow this is the fastest I've gone up this hill, and there is that swoosh swoosh sound and it is a male cyclist coming up fast behind me and then passing me on the hill going over 20 mph, and the male cyclist is invariably a senior with gray or white hair and probably over the age of 65. But then I am not skinny and I don't ride a titanium racing bike either.

Other people can probably contribute to the hill climbing techniques. Others might have an even faster and easier way to climb the short hills than I do.

[Crankin]

I think all of these "rules" and figures that are being quoted to Catrin might be enough to scare anyone off, even if they were just thinking about doing longer distances.
Frankly, I find the key to surviving long distances with lots of hills is to climb slowly, on purpose. I don't care if I am going 4.5 mph, because I know I will get up the hills, and I also will finish my ride not feeling like I am ready to die.
I know brevets have a time limit, but most centuries don't. But, often, I get to the end of a long, hilly ride before the people who were going up the hill faster than me, because somewhere along the way, they ran out of gas.
Catrin, I think you can do it. Increase your mileage slowly, as you plan to, experiment with your nutrition/hydration, and ride hills. And don't underestimate how much of this is mental. I never ride really long climbs at home, but I was was able to do many 5-10 mile climbs, with serious gradients on my tour, because 1) I ride lots of short steep climbs at home and 2) I knew I would have to do this, I made up my mind I would and I wouldn't even consider getting in the support van.

[OakLeaf]

If you get enough speed, even if the grade is 15-18%, you can reach the top and still not be in your lowest gears, and your speed might not drop below 12 mph.... If the hill is about a half mile high, you can still make it half way or more to the top before the speed really starts to drop.

Me, not so much. Don't want to be discouraging, but if anything I'm over-bold on the descents. As a motorcyclist, I'm not in the least intimidated by 45 mph on the bici - that's about as fast as I get around here, given the size of myself and my local hills.

I'm slow now, but as an ex-racer, I consider myself very good at maintaining cadence and nailing shift points. But if I'm saving energy for a long ride and not hammering up the hills, I'll be in my 30x27 well before I get to the top of anything 15% or more. Plus, the steepest ones are usually the tallest, too, so the laws of physics dictate you'll only get so much benefit from the hills that lead up to it.

Catrin, it's just a matter of practice. IMO it's really too early to for you be stressing about a lot of this stuff. Get comfortable maintaining cadence and shifting smoothly in the flats and smaller hills. Get used to accelerating from a stop. The hills will come when you're ready for them.

[Catrin]

Darcy, IndySteel, LPH, Knotted, Zen, and Oakleaf,

Thank you, all of you, for your encouragement and comments. I have also been discussing this with my personal trainer who is a mountain biker (also does road riding) and we are going to tweak my workouts to help support this work. I am summarizing your comments to him at his request so he can help me with this.

Darcy - right now my average speed is a little low, it ranges between 10.9 to 11.5 depending on the day. I am unsure what my average cadence is, every time I think to look at it it seems to be between 80-95 unless I am going up-hill. My uphill speeds have been improving, anywhere from 8.5-11.5 but there are not many real hills in Central Indiana to practice on.

I am already working on alternative places that I can drive to in southern Indiana where this is not a problem. My speed on flats/rollers seems to be between 12-15 at this point - but I have been focusing more on skills rather than speed. Now I have a bike that doesn't hurt me to ride it, that will help. My touring bike isn't a speed demon, but the LHT isn't shabby either.

I just learned how to ride last year, and am very pleased to report that riding 28-29 miles does not leave me overly tired. Really not tired at all, so my next target "long ride" will be 35 after I do a 30. After that I hope to go up in 6-7 mile increments - we will see what my body happens to think about that

Right now I have one "long ride" a week, and as many shorter rides as I can fit in. Last week I managed to ride close to 100 miles over 4 rides which is something of a personal record of mine

As I progress I would LIKE to have two long rides a week, time and body permitting, and a couple of shorter rides. 4 days a week has been what I am targeting for, though am trying to listen to my body, and sometimes my schedule or the weather (like today) just doesn't allow it.

IndySteel - thanks for the gentle reminder that our bodies do not often know how to improve in a linear fashion - I will certainly keep your experience in mind. It really is helpful to me to read/hear of the personal experience of others for sure.