# Total kJs or Hours?



## DMH1721 (Aug 30, 2010)

This question has been bugging me for awhile and I wanted to know what others thought.

First off, I've been racing and training for 15 years (with the past 5 years off due to an injury but planning on racing next year) -- got pretty far and raced mostly NRC events before going to graduate school -- I was coached for a number of those years, so I understand that side of it and know my body pretty well . . .But . . .

If you know a certain race (depending on how hard that year happens to be) equates to a total work load of X kJs, what is the difference between training so your body can handle that amount of work VS. a certain number of hours.

For example, say a certain race usually comes in around 2600 kJs, but is about 3.5 hours long, is it better to train to handle the work load in terms of kJs or hours. 

For argument sake (though this may be the key) lets set aside the different demands a 5 hour ride has with ( to keep the numbers the same) a total kJs of 2600 VS. a shorter ride totaling the same amount of kJs. 

This post seems kinda confusing but I hope you get my point


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Both time and kJ are a similar metric in this situation. Neither of them tell you the quality of your training -- just the quantity.

In the end, you'll want to be able to do both the kJ and the time. But, what will make or break the race is if the kJs/hr (intensity) at any point are too high for you.


----------



## DMH1721 (Aug 30, 2010)

*Agreed . . .*

That hardest crits I've done are around 950/hour and I would not be able sustain that for a 4hour road race . . .

But . . . 
For this example, let's say that both rides are all done, for the most part, sub-threshold (or sub-max sustained 20 minute effort).

Is there a significant difference between doing a 5-5,5 hour ride at 2500 kJs or a 3-4 hour ride at 2500. 

I understand there is a sigificant kJ/hour difference, but if both of these rides are done at an (for lack of better term) endurance type effort, and you know most of your races don't exceed 2500 kJs, do you really get any benefit of those 1-2 extra hours. 

Here is why I ask: When I had all of the time in the world to train, I would reguarly do 5 hour rides, but I cannot say those were the most high quality hours. After graduating from graduate school and working full time (50+/week), I am looking to get the same benefit (in terms of being able to put the gas on at the end of a race) with less time ie -- better quality training. 

But to your point, I'd say, anecdotally, I can go much harder hours 4-5 on a 550-600 kJ/hour ride than during hours 3-4 on 700-850 kJ/hour ride despite having the same total kJs in my legs at the time I do the last hour hard.


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

This question roughly equates to using training hours versus TRIMP point to plan your training load. I personally use TRIMP points because it better measures the effort, independently of time on the bike. Since Kjs can be had from power it must be equivalent to using TRIMP, therefore you can use it as a measure of your effort to compress your training in the time you have in order to maximise benefits.

Now to get faster in a 2-3 hour race that you spend 2000 Kjs in, you would need to do 1H30-2H trainings with 2000kjs spent. This way you will work harder and get fitter/faster. If you never stress your body, it never adapts.


----------



## johnlh (Sep 12, 2008)

DMH1721 said:


> ...When I had all of the time in the world to train, I would reguarly do 5 hour rides, but I cannot say those were the most high quality hours. After graduating from graduate school and working full time (50+/week)...



You had all the time in the world to train while you were in grad school...AND you graduated?


----------



## DMH1721 (Aug 30, 2010)

*Well . . .*

I meant before graduate school, but I actually found I more time in law school than I thought I would, so even in law school I kept a pretty high training load -- 

Thanks PissedOffCil, that makes total sense and sort of what I was getting at.


----------



## patchito (Jun 30, 2005)

DMH1721 said:


> This question has been bugging me for awhile and I wanted to know what others thought.
> 
> First off, I've been racing and training for 15 years (with the past 5 years off due to an injury but planning on racing next year) -- got pretty far and raced mostly NRC events before going to graduate school -- I was coached for a number of those years, so I understand that side of it and know my body pretty well . . .But . . .
> 
> ...



Kind of an academic exercise. This is what the concept of Training Stress Score was designed to address. If you like thinking about such things, you'll love that. 

You're talking about volume vs. intensity, and you're getting at the root of an endless debate amongst coaches, exercise docs and training geeks.....longer rides at lower intensity levels or HIT (high intensity training).

Which is better? You kind of have to think long and hard about the specific demands of your racing discipline. If you're a stage racer and you're racing for five hours at a clip at sub-threshold intensities, then redline it at threshold for an hour, train accordingly. If you're a kilo track racer, train accordingly. 

That said, the one common denominator with all endurance sports is power at threshold....having a big aerobic engine and working at a high percentage of your genetically endowed VO2 max will get you far. Sorry if I'm obtuse, but I guess what I'm basically saying is "all of the above." You need to mix and match time in the saddle vs. intensity, depending on the time of season or day of the week, and the demands of your sport. This is where the art of training comes into play, and where you need make a plan, but also listen to what your body is telling you and make adjustments.

And from a practical, scheduling standpoint, basing your training on hours is much more sensible. For example, if you're looking at your week and you have to devote certain time blocks to work, picking the kids up from soccer, making love to the wife, etc., then through elimination you can determine that you have X number of hours to train a week. You use that number and plan backwards from your A races and fill in the blanks with periodized plan to get you there. 

**** luck,


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

DMH1721 said:


> I meant before graduate school, but I actually found I more time in law school than I thought I would, so even in law school I kept a pretty high training load --
> 
> Thanks PissedOffCil, that makes total sense and sort of what I was getting at.


You're welcome but patchito's point is perfectly valid too. In a way, I agree with him that it depends on what you compete in but my experience (somewhat limited in MTB endurance up to 8H) is that you never need to train the duration of your race. I completed my first 8H solo this summer yet mostly trained 2H or less and raced up to 5H30 prior to the 8H. I simply needed to take is slow and steady and I went 8H without much of a problem (ok I admit it, my hands we're hurting as hell....)

One point worthy of mention though, and 1 I strongly believe in is VARIETY. Variety is what makes a rider strong, one needs to be able to react to different conditions, whether it's a sprint, climbing or slow & steady so don't limit yourself to a single routine. To excel, you need to practice many things and to work harder on weaknesses without forgetting 
strengths.

For instance I'm a strong climber and pass people on the uphill. These same people pass me once we reach the top though. So I incorporated sprints after hard efforts in my routine and let go most of the climbing. Since I didn't do climbing loops, I didn't develop as much strength as I would have loved. I did get faster on top of hills but lost the habit of pushing harder when it gets tough, I simply downshifted and increased cadence. It didn't hurt but I could have improved further.

It's a hard balance to find, you have to be consistently aware of why people are faster than you and work on that.


----------

