# TCTP Century Plan Question



## fryerw (Nov 29, 2010)

I picked up the Time Crunched Cyclist book but I’m not certain which century training plan to use (new vs. experienced) for a mid October century I am planning to ride. I’m hoping someone with coaching experience, or training experience with these plans, can make a recommendation about which program I should use. 

I rode mountain bikes quite frequently from my early twenties to early thirties putting in approximately 1500-2000 miles a year, including two centuries, however I haven’t ridden with any regularity in the past ten years (marriage, career, kids etc…). Now that my life now has a bit more predictability I purchased my first road bike back in May. I have only managed to ride about 550 miles since purchase and rides have been between 30-60 miles, but mostly toward the 30 mile end of the range as the FL heat sets in (I have a habit of riding in the middle of the day on the weekends). 

I was initially planning on using the Experienced Century plan however I am now leaning toward the New Century plan as I found the CTS field test was quite brutal for me and I’m not sure if the base I built up so long ago counts for anything at this point. Any and all recommendations and advice is appreciated.

Thanks.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

I would do the new competitor program at least once before going to the experienced program. Even the new competitor programs have very high training loads, and its probably best to try one of those at least once first to see how you respond to it. Even if you find the program easy, its best to be a bit undertrained and fresh as opposed to overtrained.


----------



## fryerw (Nov 29, 2010)

*Thanks Slegros*

I thought a bit more about this last night and came to the same conclusion as you. It's better to start with the easier program for the reasons you mentioned above and it also gives me a better chance to complete the program which may be more difficult if I'm unable to recover sufficiently.

BTW, I used a heart rate monitor to complete the field test and while I knew my max heart rate was high, but I was a bit shocked at the numbers. My first pass at the eight minute test I recorded an average heart rate of 183 with a max of 196. The second pass yielded 182 average with a 193 max. The results are consistent with each other however I am 43 years old and these results were higher than I expected. I had similar max HR numbers a decade ago and thought there would be more of a decline in max heart rate. Anyone else out there with these kind of numbers, or should I suspect a heart rate monitor issue?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

fryerw said:


> BTW, I used a heart rate monitor to complete the field test and while I knew my max heart rate was high, but I was a bit shocked at the numbers. My first pass at the eight minute test I recorded an average heart rate of 183 with a max of 196. The second pass yielded 182 average with a 193 max. The results are consistent with each other however I am 43 years old and these results were higher than I expected. I had similar max HR numbers a decade ago and thought there would be more of a decline in max heart rate. Anyone else out there with these kind of numbers, or should I suspect a heart rate monitor issue?


Wow... Those numbers are exceptional! All I can suggest is maybe try the CTS test again with a different HRM if you suspect the current numbers may be inaccurate. Then again if it is the HRM, and you are doing the training with the same HRM you used to do the test you may be OK. You never know! You might just be really fit!!!


----------



## vontress (Jul 19, 2009)

I am trying to figure out heart rate monitors too. I tested with nutritionist and she tells me my max is 165. My garmin has me running at that for 45 min at a time. I wore my garmin and another HR monitor and they matched. So, I retested on the nutritionists equipment. What do I get... Another number. I'll be watching this closely for answers also.


----------



## fryerw (Nov 29, 2010)

slegros said:


> Wow... Those numbers are exceptional! All I can suggest is maybe try the CTS test again with a different HRM if you suspect the current numbers may be inaccurate. Then again if it is the HRM, and you are doing the training with the same HRM you used to do the test you may be OK. You never know! You might just be really fit!!!


Unfortunately, as much as I would like to consider myself really fit, I definitely don't believe that to be the case! 

I'm also thinking that as long as the HR monitor is the same for training it will be comparable. I do wonder if the Cat eye wireless computer played any part however the distance between the computer and sensor must be very small for it to work so I'm not sure this is the case. I suffered like a dog on those tests so I hate to think of doing them again however I may try one without the batteries in the fork sensor to see if the result is different. Thanks for your feedback, it's much appreciated.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

The only thing I can think of is coded vs. non-coded.... If you are running multiple pieces of electronics with a non-coded HRM you may get interference and faulty readings...... Coded should give you fewer problems with interference. ANT+ seems to be one popular standard of coded. I have run Sigma computers which run their HRMs on a proprietary coded signal with good results.


----------

