High Intensity Interval Training

Some time ago,  I wrote an article called "Do This and You Will Win".  In that post, I suggested  performing interval training as follows:  "ride absolutely as hard as you can for one minute, then soft pedal as easy as you can for three minutes, repeat 5-8 times or until you think you see Jesus." Assuming that the rider also raced on the weekends, these intervals would be done once a week. 
Since writing that article, I have read numerous critiques of interval training, and heard talk from fellow racers about what they think is the best interval training method.  This made me wonder what is the best interval training protocol or if there even is a best method.  As I think back, I can not even remember exactly the source of my High-Intensity Interval Training (HIT) method.  It certainly didn't come from Lemond's "Complete Book of Cycling."  Nor did it come from Edward 'Eddie B' Borysewicz's "Bicycle Road Racing:  The Complete Program for Training and Competition."  And it definitely did not come from Joe Friel's "Cyclist's Training Bible" (though all are recommended books).  My best guess is that I adopted my interval protocol from an article that I read in Bicycling Magazine, probably a couple decades ago, and it probably was written by Edmund Burke (who was well known for writing science-based training articles).

So my current question is two-fold.  First, is my previously recommended method  for improving cycling performance good advice?  And second, are there other HIT protocols that are equal or better? Or to put it another way, is there an ultimate interval?

The importance of intervals

Before I go straight to the answer, I should first explain the importance of HIT, and why it has value.  It is well established among exercise physiologists and others, that any amount of exercise followed by recovery will increase fitness for sedentary (unfit) individuals.  For beginner and moderately-trained cyclists, increased duration and increased frequency of riding combined with recovery is all that is required to further increase fitness.  Unfortunately, this method of increasing fitness has a ceiling and once this threshold is reached, no amount of increased typical or ordinary riding (aka sub-maximal exercise or below threshold markers) will continue to improve a rider's fitness.  As Laursen & Jenkins state, "in the highly trained athlete, an additional increase in sub-maximal exercise training (i.e. volume) does not appear to further enhance either endurance performance or associated variables such as maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), anaerobic threshold, economy of motion and oxidative muscle enzymes".   In citing Ben Londeree's research, the authors note that "it appears that once an individual has reached a VO2max >60ml/kg/min, endurance performance is not improved by a further increase in submaximal training volume."  This is not meant to downplay the importance of high-volume training, but to highlight that there is a fixed limit for improving fitness by this method alone.   

 Interestingly, not only is adding a HIT program to your training necessary to reach your full cycling potential, but it can also dramatically speed up the rate at which fitness is achieved.  It is generally believed that it can take several years to go from being an unfit to a highly fit bike racer; however research suggests otherwise.  For example:  Hickson showed that after just 10 weeks of HIT, VO2max could be rapidly increased (+44%; p<0.05) and four of his subjects approached or exceeded 60ml/kg/min in this short time frame.  This does not mean that any cyclist can become an elite rider (>70ml/kg/min for men and >60 for women) in a very short period, though many can become "highly fit" (>60 ml/kg/min for men, >52 ml/kg/min for women) in a relatively short period of time.    Fitness gains initially occur rapidly and  depend on the volume, intensity and frequency of training; as greater fitness is achieved, it appears that the development of the physiological capacities witnessed in elite athletes does not continue to come about quickly.  It may take years of high training loads before an individual reaches his or her full athletic potential through vascular and muscular adaptations.  Outside of developing one's physiology, it can also take years to fully master the sport by developing racing and psychological skills (tactics, equipment, diet, technique, psychology, etc).   

Another interesting and valuable fact about HIT is that, to a significant degree, when compared to aerobic (submaximal) training alone,  it can reduce the exercise time required to achieve or maintain a particular level of fitness, as illustrated by Johnathan P. Little, and especially by Iaia FM, Hellsten Y, Nielsen JJ et al. In short, if you have limited time to exercise/train, then interval training is even more important and efficient for the gaining and maintaining fitness.

I have mentioned  VO2max quite a few times in this article, so it is important to understand a few basics points about it.  VO2max (also maximal oxygen consumption, maximal oxygen uptake, peak oxygen uptake or maximal aerobic capacity) reflects the physical fitness of the individual; it is the maximum capacity of an individual's body to transport and use oxygen during incremental exercise.  While there certainly are other measures of fitness, maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) is widely accepted as the single best measure of cardiovascular fitness and maximal aerobic power.  In this article, 60 ml/kg/min is used as the critical minimal threshold number for defining a "highly trained cyclist".  For perspective and to see the full spectrum of comparative VO2 max measurements, classified from unfit (32 ml/kg/min) to world class cyclists (90 ml/kg/min) see my article "Comparative Measurements of Maximal Outputs for Cyclist".

There is a reason why I emphasize the distinction between "highly fit cyclists" (VO2max >60ml/kg/min) and lesser-fit cyclists (including sedentary individuals): research shows that "highly fit cyclists" do not respond to exercise stimuli in the same manner as unfit and moderately fit cyclists.  Highly fit cyclists typically will not improve from further increased training volume (with enough volume they will actually get worse), whereas lower fit cyclists will almost always improve with increased training volume.  Also, unfit and poorly fit cyclists can dramatically improve their fitness using nearly any HIT protocol, whereas highly fit cyclists not only exhibit considerably smaller gains, but in many cases they will not make any improvements at all with a HIT protocol that is not correctly designed for them (intensity level,  repetitions, rest duration, and frequency).

Research findings from HIT studies

Below (Table One) are some findings from high intensity interval training studies in sedentary and recreationally-active individuals.  (Source: Laursen & Jenkin's, "The Scientific Basis for High-Intensity Interval Training:  Optimizing Training Programmes and Maximizing Performance in Highly Trained Endurance Athletes."  )  The findings are organized by year of publication, and each study is referenced with links at the bottom of this article.  Collectively, they show that lower fit riders respond well to a wide range of interval protocols - and importantly, many of these studies are the foundation for later research that looks for the best HIT protocols for highly fit cyclists.   The general trend seen in these HIT protocols is to lower the work duration as the intensity is increased.  The studies also increase the number of repetitions as the intensity level is lowered to a specific work duration.  Rest between intervals tends to increase in proportion to the amount of work that is done as the intensity increases, and the total number of repetitions is typically determined by fatigue. Tabata's design is a bit of an exception to this trend with a 20 second work duration and a 10 second rest, but his protocol could be described as one 4 minute intermittent high intensity interval.   

key to the abbreviations used in the charts

Surprises

One of the biggest surprise findings for early researchers (and for myself while researching this topic) was that short 20-30 second HIT could improve both VO2max and 40k time trial results.  By training with short, intense intervals which use primary anaerobic energy (see figure 1 below) a person can achieve significant improvements in long sustained efforts, which largely rely on aerobic energy such as 40 kilometer time trialing.  This isn't exactly intuitive.

 The Ultimate Interval

So, what is the ultimate interval?  First we must ask what is it we are trying to enhance?  As we can see from Figure 1 above, short intense events such as track racing require very high anaerobic capacities and endurance events such as 40k time trialing require very high aerobic capacities.  However, for the purposes of this article, I avoid the topic of "sprinting" (5-15 maximal bursts) and focus on HIT for longer time frames that are commonly used in time trialing and criterium racing.  (Sprint training could be discussed in a future article).   With this in mind, I present a collection of findings from high-intensity interval training in highly trained cyclists, below in Table 2.  These are currently the best and most cited studies that I could find on the topic.  It is also important to reiterate that these studies are on highly trained cyclists; as mentioned previously, they respond to exercise stimuli differently than unfit and recreational cyclists.

So, which is the best?  Let me quote one of the lead researchers, Paul Laursen,:  "It is not possible to unequivocally state that one HIT group improved to a greater extent than the other HIT groups."  ("Interval training program optimization in highly trained endurance cyclists").  However, he does go on to pick out the HIT protocol performed at the intensity of Pmax and a duration of Tmax with a 1:2 work-recovery ratio, as being superior by a small margin to the others.    Ian Dille published an excellent article in Bicycling Magazine titled "The Ultimate Interval", in which he describes this particular HIT protocol in understandable terms.   But to call this particular interval the ultimate interval is a little bit premature.  It is extremely effective, but when we look at the last HIT study in table 2, in only 2 weeks, a group of higher fit cyclists (higher starting VO2max) improved nearly as much as the supposed ultimate interval group did in 4 weeks, while using dramatically different protocols. And CRITICALLY: the importance of sample size calculation cannot be overemphasized. The studies that I have cited all have extremely small sample sizes ranging from only 5 to 23 subjects, with most studies having fewer subjects than fingers on my hands.  Size matters, and confidence in research findings goes up considerably with increased sample size, and down with smaller sample size because of variability between subjects (some test subjects may respond VERY different to protocols than others). Therefore, one should be very cautious to pick out one of the studies as definitely the best or ultimate over the others in my post.    

So, what we see is that there are likely MANY different HIT protocol designs that are equally effective.  The general rule for an ideal HIT protocol appears to be to lower the work duration as the intensity is increased, and to increase the number of repetitions as the intensity level is lowered to a specific work duration.  Rest duration between intervals tends to increase in proportion to the amount of work that is done as intensity increases, and the total number of repetitions is typically determined by fatigue.

HIT applied in the real world

I would generally advise executing a HIT regimen based on research and not on intuition or hearsay.  Any of those shown in table 2 are satisfactory.  However, it can be difficult if not impossible to follow these protocols if a person does not have power meters and access to lab equipment for calculating precise PPO, Pmax and Tmax.  Even if you have a power meter, it can be very hard.  For example to determine PPO, you need to find your highest 30-second power output completed during an incremental test where resistance is increased by 15 watts every 30 seconds, starting at a workload of 100watts.  Your Pmax is calculated by finding the corresponding power output that is measured at VO2max during a progressive exercise test, and Tmax is time to exhaustion at Pmax.  Laursen deemed test subjects fully exhausted when they could not keep their cadence above 60 rpm.  Sounds simple?  No, it's not.


You may be able to estimate a PPO by testing yourself on a stationary trainer and using a powermeter device.  After lightly warming up begin riding at 100 watts. Increase power by 30 watts every minute (you will have to control your wattage by cadence primarily) until you reach exhaustion (failure to maintain a 60 rpm cadence).  Wattage at PPO is going to be higher than at Pmax by a small unknown amount.  Pmax can only be determined accurately in a lab environment that can measure VO2max with it's corresponding watt output.   However, you can estimate you Pmax by taking the average wattage produced over a 5 minute maximal effort and multiply that by .934 (based on writings from Andrew Coggan and only applies to highly fit cyclists).

Without a power meter you could just simply follow my simple "no tool" method (other than a watch).  I can not unequivocally state that this protocol is as good as the proven studies below, but based on the principles of HIT it should produce comparably similar results.  All you have to do is ride as hard as you can for one minute and rest three minutes or until you subjectively feel recovered and do it again and again until exhaustion or you see Jesus.  When you see Jesus, that's when you know it's time to stop.

Training volume considerations with HIT

All of the highly trained cyclists in the studies cited maintained a high-volume low intensity (submaximal) training ranging from 285 kilometer plus minus 95 kilometers (177 miles plus minus 59 miles) per week, both before and during the study.  In a review of HIT research Laursen (see 23 below) states that, "a polarized approach to training, whereby about 75% of total training volume is performed at low intensities, and 10-15% is performed at very high intensities, has been suggested as an optimal training intensity distribution for elite athletes who perform intense exercise events."  

For cyclists who race every weekend, I would suggest doing only one interval session per week in order to avoid over-training and consider the weekend races collectively as a second interval.  There are a number of bike racers who use racing to get themselves into shape.  This is tried and true, but I speculate that controlled intervals, bi-weekly as described in Table 2 (below) may be superior.   This may be because while racing will certainly produce stress that can trigger fitness, the efforts produced during a race may not be as completely exhausting as an ideal interval session or with the optimal amounts of intensity and work duration.  And because racing has little to no rest opportunities, most cyclists are likely to race more strategically-minded than HIT-minded. 

1.  Hickson RC, Bomze HA, Holloszy JO. Linear increase in aerobic power induced by a strenuous program of endurance exercise
2. Henritze J, Weltman A, Schurrer RL, et al. Effects of training at and above the lactate threshold on the lactate threshold and maximal oxygen uptake
3.  Simoneau JA, Lortie G, Boulay MR, et al. Human skeletal muscle fiber type alteration with high-intensity intermittent training
4.  Simoneau JA, Lortie G, Boulay MR, et al. Effects of two high-intensity intermittent training programs interspaced by detraining on human skeletal muscle and performance
5.  Green HJ, Fraser IG. Differential effects of exercise intensity on serum uric acid concentration
6.  Nevill ME, Boobis LH, Brooks S, et al.  Effect of training on muscle metabolism during treadmill sprinting
7.  Keith SP, Jacobs I, McLellan TM. Adaptations to training at the individual anaerobic threshold
8.  Linossier MT, Dennis C, Dormois D, et al.  Ergometric and metabolic adaptation to a 5-s sprint interval training
9.  Burke J, Thayer R, Belcamino M. Comparison of effects of two interval-training programmes on lactate and ventilatory thresholds
10.  Lindsay FH, Hawley JA, Myburgh KH, et al. Improved athletic performance in highly trained cyclists after interval training
11.  Tabata I, Mishimura K, Kouzaki M, et al.  Effects of moderate intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity
12.  Westgarth-Taylor C, Hawley JA, Rickard S, et al.  Metabolic and performance adaptations to interval training in endurance trained cyclists
13.  MacDougall JD, Hicks AL, MacDonald JR, et al.  Muscle performance and enzymatic adaptations to sprint interval training
14.  Ray CA.  Sympathetic adaptations to one-legged training
15.  Green H, Tupling R, Roy B, et al.  Adaptations in skeletal muscle exercise metabolism to a sustained session of heavy intermittent exercise
16.  Rodas G, Ventura Jl, Dadefau JA, et al.  A short training programme for the rapid improvement of both aerobic and anaerobic metabolism
17.  Parra J, Cadefau JA, Rodas G, et al.  The distribution of rest periods affects performance and adaptations of energy metabolism induced by high-intensity training in human muscle
18.  Harmer AR, McKenna MJ, Sutton JR, et al.  Skeletal muscle metabolic and ionic adaptations during intense exercise following sprint training in humans
19.  Laursen PB, Shing CM, Peake JM, et al.  Interval training program optimization in highly trained endurance cyclists
20.  Laursen PB, Blanchard MA, Jenkins DG  Acute high-intensity interval training improves Tvent and peak power output in highly trained males
21.  Laursen PB, Shing CM, Peake JM, et al.  Influence of high-intensity interval training on adaptations in well-trained cyclists
22. Spencer MR, Gastin PB Energy system contribution during 200- to 1500- m running in highly trained athletes
23.  Laursen PB Training for intense exercise performance:  high-intensity or high-volume training? 

The Ideal Cadence for Competitive Bicycling

Some time ago I wrote an article about Myths in Cycling regarding crank arm length and cited Dr. James Martin's powerpoint entitled, ""Myth and Science in Cycling:  Crank Length and Pedaling Technique"
As a result, I touched upon the topic of "ideal cadence", which has lead me to pursue this topic more thoroughly.

Sprinting:

Based on Dr. Martin's research and others, an ideal cadence for sprinting is around 120 rpm.  This isn't too surprising or controversial.  Sprinting is pretty straight forward.  Just pure power in a short burst of usually 5 to 15 seconds.  The side graphic shows this.  However, the myth that he busts isn't on cadence's effect on sprinting; it's on standard crank arm length's effect on sprinting (basically there's very little difference between standard crank sizes on performance).

Gear Choice:

 Another interesting point about gear choice (which affects cadence) for sprinting  is that for longer sprints such as 30 seconds versus 10 to 15 seconds, a bigger gear choice is desirable.  Research shows that the reason for this is  that muscle fatigue occurs more due to the total number of muscle contractions than by the duration of the contractions during extended maximal efforts.    Basically it's more ideal to grind a bigger gear on a long sprint than to be "spun out", especially when another gear choice is available.

Below is a gear chart of speeds (via Sheldon Brown's Gear Calculator) produced using a 52 and a 53 front chain ring and a 10 speed cassette ranging from 11 teeth to 21 teeth.  On a flat course most riders would sprint well in a 53/52 x 14 or 13.  Professional riders may sprint in a 12 rear cog, and Kevin Sireau may use an 11 to sprint with. 

Cadence:
The information about crank-arm length from Dr. Martin is pretty clear. Standard sizes are nearly equally efficient, but the topic of ideal cadence came up and it generated a bit of controversy among my peers.  I posted a data graphic that illustrated that 60 rpm cadence (pedal revolutions per minute) was more efficient than 100 rpm.  The myth that this busted was that higher cadences are better for performance than lower.

This flies in the face of the dogma that higher cadence is better, something that I have been told since I began cycling competitively.   I was concerned about this contradictory information to the point that I  contacted Dr. Martin via email for clarification.  He confirmed the facts as such:  "The effect of pedaling rate on metabolic cost is pretty well established. Heart rate generally tracks well with met cost but its not the same thing. Also, there is individual variability in responses so you may be a bit different than the mean."  (Cool, Dr. Martin!)

But hold the door, this isn't entirely settled.  Several of my peers have challenged this idea.  They point to examples of Lance Armstrong time-trialing at 100 plus cadence and beating the competition and the fact that The Cycling Hour World Record has been set with cadences above 100.  Add to that the fact that most professional and elite athletes will generally ride at higher cadences (90-105) while racing as well.  This naturally leads one to think that these riders must be riding at the ideal cadence and that  lower cadences such as 60 is just wrong. 

So I set out to resolve this, and here's what I found:  Both are true.  Basically.  I looked at dozens of research papers (see sources below) on the effects of cadence and efficiency and found over and over that Dr. Martin was right, but with a caveat.  Lower cadences are more efficient for the vast majority of normal riders who do not have huge aerobic capacities and can not sustain large power outputs. 

Two possible explanations for why efficiency and higher cadence numbers go up as power output goes up for elite and professional riders.  One is heat generation within the muscle fibers and the other is muscle composition.  Cyclists across the board are generally only about 24% efficient when pedaling.  Efficiency is a measure of work performed for energy used.  Or for cyclists we'll say, less oxygen used, less fuel burned, means more efficient.

Net mechanical efficiency for muscle movements is generally low for all cyclists due to the loss of free energy as heat.   As power output increases, so does the temperature within the muscle.  This temperature factor may have an effect on efficiency with the speed at which a muscle contracts (or cadence).  Additionally, it matters which type of muscle fiber that is contracting.  Fast twitch and slow twitch fibers have different contractile properties in terms of efficiency and optimal speed of contracting.  As work load (or power output) goes up, more and more muscles fibers are recruited to do work.  As a result of either-and-or heat build-up in the muscle fibers and the type of fiber being recruited, both efficiency and cadence go up as power output increases.  

Take a look at the graphic below.  It's a great illustration of how elite riders become more efficient with higher cadences at greater levels of power output.  

This data comes from Øivind Foss and Jostein Hallén's article, "The most economical cadence increases with increasing workload"  It is extremely important to note that the six rider's in this study are elite cyclists with a VO2 max of an average of 69 ml/kg/min which puts them far outside of  the power output of most cyclists.  These elite riders are capable of sustaining 350 watts for an hour (time trialing around 29mph) whereas a cat 5 or untrained rider can only sustain from 130 to 200 watts for an hour (time trialing around 20-23 mph).  Big difference.

Cadence During Races
Now lets discuss cadence in practical terms regarding racing.  Cadence should largely be ignored during criterium racing.  No more thought should be applied to cadence in criterium racing than to what your respiratory rate is (that is zero).  The focus should be staying close; tight in the draft of the cyclist in front of you at all cost.  The reason for this is that the efficiency of drafting can be upwards to 36% energy savings whereas ideal cadence may only be single digit percent savings of energy.   With that said, it is also worth mentioning that the nature of criterium racing is very much "gas on- gas off" (full power and zero pedaling), high cadences are easier for accelerating and a bit easier on your connective tissues in your knee and leg (especially with long riding without rest or variation).  Again, for criterium racing, focus on drafting and let cadence take care of itself. 

Ideal cadence is more important for time trialing, where every second counts, because it's a race against the clock.  In the case of the elite cyclists above, clearly an 80 cadence is the most efficient to ride at (coincidentally 350 watts happens to be their average lactate threshold).  Time trialing at a lesser efficient cadence of 60 or 100 would cost approximately 9 watts of power (my estimate) and would result in about a 30 second time difference over a 40 kilometer time trial.  (my calculations come from  the American College of Sports Medicine formula  and the bike calculator).  So an ideal cadence is important.

But here's the problem.  It is not possible to maintain exactly 80 rpm while time trialing at a maximal effort in the real world for several reasons.   Firstly, there is a fairly big change in the power  requirement between gear changes at a fixed cadence.    See the gear chart below to see what I mean.  There's about a 2.1 to a 2.8 mph difference between gear changes, which translates to a difference of nearly 100 watts of power in the upper gear sizes. 

Additionally there are several other factors beyond power that affect you on the road, such as wind changes and road grade changes.  As a result, cadence (and often gearing on hilly courses) must constantly be adjusted for these factors.

The elite riders studied in Øivind Foss and Jostein Hallén's article, "The most economical cadence increases with increasing workload"  (first chart) have an average  VO2 max of 69 and a weight of 78 kg (or 171 lbs) and as a result we would expect them to ride a 40k time-trial at about 28.65 mph (full aero equipment, flat terrain, zero wind, 100ft elevation).  There's no data point on the above gear chart for an 80 cadence gear combination that gives us this exact speed.  However the 90 cadence gear chart (above left) does put our riders very close to the speed of 28.65 with the gear combination of 53 x 13.

Of course, we know from our earlier discussion that 80 rpm cadence is around 9 watts and 30 seconds faster for our riders than a 90 cadence.  So what can be done?  The best that can be done (for our elite riders) riding with a 53 tooth chain ring is to select a 12 rear cog and pedal at a slightly elevated cadence of 83 rpm.  The 9 watts and 30 seconds advantage will be reduced proportionally (est. 6w, 20s).  This is far easier done in a lab than in the real world!

A Real-Life Example:
A good example of real world riding is illustrated in the SRM data from my 2010 State Time Trial, which was raced on a flat course.   I did not focus on cadence, but instead focused on my effort, shooting for an average of 345 watts.    Because of the changing wind conditions, my speed and cadence would go up and down, but I maintained a fairly consistent power output.   Looking at this graph with my current knowledge, I may have had a bit of a benefit from a slightly higher cadence in the later half.

[It is worth knowing that it is generally best to be the first rider to start on an out-and-back course in the morning, and the last rider to go in a time-trial in the late afternoon, because the wind tends to pick up in the morning and tends to die down in the evening.   Time trials with large numbers of competitors with one minute intervals in between, can lead to hours of differences in start times that will likely have different environmental conditions.    Zero wind is the most ideal for performance for out-and-back time trials.]

Below:  The purple is speed, blue is cadence and green lines are wattage.  The drop down spike in the center is the turn around point.  

click to enlarge view

Efficiency can be rather complicated to determine on the fly.  Happily, heart rate tracks very well with efficiency (see graphic below) for work done.  Therefore, one should try to maximize power and speed output with the lowest heart rate possible so as to achieve the best efficiency and greatest production (fastest time trial)

The above graphic shows the relationship between cadence,  heart-rate and power and comes from the same study of the elite riders as mentioned above. 

I looked at several more studies regarding ideal cadences for cycling and they are worth mentioning and looking at and include:

Effects of Altering Pedal Cadence on Cycling Time-Trial Performance
Found that low cadence 83 was both faster and more economical than preferred cadence of 92 

Cadence and performance in elite cyclists
Found that elite cyclists performed best and was more efficient time trialing at 80 cadence


Preferred pedaling cadence in professional cycling
Found that professional riders spontaneously adopt higher cadences (around 90) during both time trialing and group riding, but tend to adopt a more economical pedaling rate of approximately 70 rpm during hill climbs.

 Effect of cadence, cycling experience, and aerobic power on delta efficiency during cycling
Found that little difference exists between trained and untrained cyclists concerning efficiency (usually around 24%) regardless of cycling experience or fitness level


In Professional Road Cyclist, Low Pedaling Cadence Are Less Efficient
Found that professional road cyclist riding at power outputs greater than 360 and 420 watts are more efficient at 100 rpm than 60 and 80 rpm


Cycling efficiency and pedalling frequency in road cyclists
Efficiency increases in scale with pedaling rate as workload increase.


Cadence and performance in elite cyclist
This study demonstrated that elite cyclists perform best at their most efficient cadence which was 80 rpm,  despite the maximal energy turnover rate being larger at a higher cadence.

In short, you should  choose a cadence that mirrors your power output; unless you’re an elite rider, it’s unlikely you’ll benefit from using cadences exceeding around 80rpm.  However, world-class athletes can push into 100 rpm range for the most efficient cadence that will produce the greatest performance.  

To see where you stack up in the field of competitive cyclists, see my post:  Comparative Measurement of Maximal Outputs for Cyclists.

Comparative Measurements of Maximal Outputs for Cyclists

Below are two  data charts  that both show a wide spectrum of differing abilities of cyclists as athletes with different possible predicted output measurements. Not only do these charts give a snapshot view of the full range of power output of cyclists, but they can be used to help an individual realistically see where they fit into the big picture and help identify what "type" of rider they are (i.e. sprinter, time trialist, pursuit rider, kilo rider, all arounder) 

 The source of my data comes from "Power Profiling"by Andrew Coggan, Ph.D. (data can not be copyrighted, please feel free to copy and share!),  and the Bike Calculator.  A few important points to understand about the first chart (top):  The four data columns of 5 second, 1 minute, 5 minute and FT (aka: functional threshold or lactate threshold, which is the maximal effort that you can sustain for one hour plus), and all maximal expected values for that particular level (pro through non-racer).  Every individual cyclist will produce a measure  for each timed maximal effort that will chart them at different levels for that result.  For example:  a world class sprinter can not also be a world class time trialist. This is because of the physiological make up of individual athletes, where sprinters tend to have higher ratios of fast twitch muscle fibers comparative to slow twitch fibers, which favors time-trialing. 

In other words you may have a category 1 sprint, but a time trial of a category 4 or vice versa.  And that's fine, but it would be very helpful to know your strengths and weakness so that you can race tactically correct.    

To see where you personally stand in the field of competitive cyclists you must know a few data points.  Namely your maximum sprint effort as described below in terms of speed or wattage,  and your 40 kilometer time trial effort in terms of speed, time or wattage, or your 5 minute maximum wattage output or laboratory measured VO2 max. 

Maximal Power Output (W/kg) via Andrew Coggan, Ph.D
Click image to enlarge.

My adjusted data chart with additional estimated maximal cycling outputs
Click image to enlarge.

This makes the first chart very valuable because it not only allows comparisons between all levels, it also  helps an individual to use their scores to identify their natural strengths and weaknesses, and to thereby train and race accordingly.

Understandably, many cyclists do not use watt meters and may not be familiar with what wattage they can generate, especially on a watts/kg scale.   I created a second chart (bottom) as a  variation of the first to show speed produced from these differing outputs and an estimate of VO2 max across the spectrum of abilities.   These 4 other data fields help illustrate the differences between cycling abilities (or levels).

I used the Bike Calculator   to predict a maximum sprint speed and a 40 kilometer time trial time result in minutes and also average speed in mph for that distance for each wattage per level.  Again, I think speed is an easier measurement to understand than wattage. 

From personal experience, I have found the Bike Calculator to be very reliable (within several seconds) for predicting 40k time trial results when using full aero gear (helmet, wheels, and bike).    

Note: For my chart above, I  used the following values,  bicycle weight: 15.5lbs, tires: tubular,  position: aerobar, grade and headwind:   0, distance:  24.85miles (40k), temperature: 75F, elevation: 100ft, and transfer efficiency:  95%. 


In order to produce a sprint number that matched my personal experience, I used results from the "bar end" position on the calculator, rather than the "drops" position because the later produced a much too high speed number.  I'm sure that this is simply because it takes much much longer than a 5 second maximal burst to reach the maximum cruising speed of that wattage.

Instead I found that the "bar ends" position matched very well (within a few 10ths of a mph) to my personal experience of doing 200 meter sprints, with a starting speed of around 20mph and sprinting as if 200 meters was the finish line.  However, it's  noteworthy to mention that the world record for sprinting, the flying 200 meters, is actually 46.7mph (9.572seconds; much faster than the top of my chart's world class level) set by Kevin Sireau from France, set in Moscow, Russia, 30May2009.  Still with that said, I would guesstimate his speed would be closer to my chart numbers with the conditions I have previously described.

The bottom chart also has an estimated VO2 max calculation value for each cycling level.   I used the American College of Sports Medicine formula:

VO2 (L/min) = 0.0108 x power (W) + 0.007 x body mass (kg)

I used the  wattage produced from the 5 minute maximum for my calculation of VO2 (L/min) and then

divided that result by the riders weight in kilograms to produce the result in ml/kg/min, which is a standard comparative measurement of VO2 max.

There are several ways in which my method for calculating VO2 max can produce error.  For example:  an unfit cyclists may only be able to ride for 3-4 minutes at their VO2 max and not 5 minutes, whereas fit riders can ride anaerobically above their VO2 max during a 5 minute effort
(most athletes can sustain a power that would elicit 105-110% of their VO2max for this duration).  The first would give a falsely low number and the second would give a falsely high number.

With that said, I still think that this chart has value for guesstimating one's own VO2 max. The only way to get an accurate measurement is in a laboratory setting and measure oxygen consumption during different work loads.

It is ideal to know your physical abilities and where you stack up against your competitors.  And of course it is desirable to have the physical advantage in a competition, but proper strategy and tactics typically (almost always in fact) trump the physical advantage alone.  To learn more about bicycle racing tactics and strategies, click here.
 
To learn more about aerodynamics in cycling click here.

Bicycle Racing Tactics and Strategies

There's not a lot of good material out there on tactics for bike racing, so I thought this would be  a good a place as any to provide some, plus this format is ideal in that readers (and myself) can comment and add or correct points made here.

My first introduction to bike racing tactics came from Greg Lemond's Complete Book of Cycling (no longer in print), then later by teammates, reading countless race articles in the cycling magazines, books, watching many hours of race footage on television and over two decades of personal race experience with hundreds of races completed..  Needless to say, I've learned a thing or two and I'm more than happy to share.

The importance of race tactics can not be understated.  Typically race tactics determine race outcomes far more than just physical ability alone.  The fantasy of beating your opponent by pure brute strength alone is just that.... a fantasy.  One reason for this  is that bike racing is organized by ability (categories), and the other is that proper race tactics will  typically trump a physically stronger rider with poor tactics, because of  nature of bike racing (particularly aerodynamics).

It is critical to understand the role that aerodynamics play in bike racing in order understand race tactics.  For this article I am going to assume that you understand the specifics of aerodynamics and bicycling.  (If you don't, please click this  text-link to read my comprehensive article on the subject).

Here's a few definitions that the beginner/novice must know to understand cycling tactics:
*Attack:  A swift acceleration designed to separate a rider from the pack
*Breakaway:  An individual rider or a group of riders who have created a significant gap between themselves and the main peloton or smaller group of riders
*Bridge:  The act of closing the distance to a rider or group of riders when they have created a gap.
*Chase:  When the peloton or small group of riders is working to close the distance to a rider or group of riders who are out ahead of the group.
*Counterattack:  The act of attacking from within the chase group immediately after the group has caught the rider or riders whom they were chasing down.
 *Drafting:  a position behind or to the side of a rider that enables another rider to stay out of the wind.

*Wheel Sucker: Competitor who stays behind other racers in their draft and will not move into a lead position and share the work load in order to gain a competitive advantage.
* Operation Drizzopple:  Procedure for getting rid of a wheel sucker by collective gaping off the paceline and sprinting back on until the wheel sucker fatigues and falls off the pace, or begins pulling.  The word drizzopple playfully comes for  a Snoop-Dogg-like blend of the words "dropping" and the beverage "Snapple".  It is always nice to serve a wheel sucker a nice cold bottle of drizzopple.
*Pacelining:  A practice where a group of cyclists are organized to efficiently take turns riding in the wind and sitting in protected from the wind (drafting)
* Echelon:  technique to make maximum use of another rider's slipstream in a crosswind, typically diagonally stacked in a line (variation of pacelining)
*pulling through:  to move into a vacated lead position from second in a paceline or pack.
*Lead out:  The act of riding hard and fast at the front to provide shelter for a teammate and set him up for a sprint to the finish.
*Blocking:  Disrupting the competitors from chasing riders (teammates) up the road.  This can be a subtle art.  Typically it is done by being physically between the breakaway riders and the chasers and simply going a little slower than the lead riders which allows greater separation between the two.   It's subtle because if blocking is done too aggressively (as in riding too slowly), the riders being blocked will simply come around and chase.  (It is illegal to purposely impede the forward progress of  a competitor, especially by swerving).  Another form of blocking is by setting on the lead chasers wheel and not pulling through (wheel sucking).  This form of blocking disrupts the pace and helps the breakaway gain distance.

There are multiple and interactive types of tactics in bike racing, namely psychological and physical, which can be divided into categories of individual and team tactics.  Bicycle racing is typically a team sport (some exceptions may include track, mountain, bmx), but can be done as an individual without teammates.

Bicycle racing, like most sports, is like warfare without the killing.  All racing tactics can be discussed in the context of Sun Tzu's  masterpiece work, "Art of War".  His principles and philosophies can be applied beyond warfare to many areas of life, but here I will apply it to bike racing specifically.

The principles from Sun Tzu's "Art of War" applied to bicycle racing:

The first principle is "Winning Whole".  The idea is to win with your resources and objective intact.   This is accomplished by, one, removing your competitor's hope for victory, two, using all of your advantages, three, exploiting your competitor's weaknesses, and four attacking along an unexpected line.

Applied to bike racing, your resources includes items such as your physical and mental being, finances, and even relationships, while your objective is winning.  I like to equate the idea of "winning" in this discussion with the idea of "respect" because it's one of the fundamental measures of what true or complete "winning" is really about.   Winning by using any means possible, may be prohibited by the first principle of Sun Tzu.  Specifically cheating, which may lead to a victory, but an incomplete or false victory; one that's absent of respect (both from self and others). There is a similar moral code to both warfare, bicycle racing and life in general. 

Below I will go chapter by chapter and point by point how the philosophies and tactics from "The Art of War" may be applied to bicycle racing.

1.  Removing your competitor's hope for victory.
Examples in bike racing:  a.) Gaining a great enough lead that your competitor gives up, such as lapping the field in bike racing.  b.) A lesser example is for a break-a-way group to have enough advantage that they are not visible to the chasing group.  c.) another example is sitting on a competitors wheel when you have a teammate in a break (you (almost) never chase your own teammate).  By sitting on a chasing competitors wheel, you remove some of his/her hope for victory because they know that not only will you not aid them, but you are in a drafting advantage using less energy than them, and you will counterattack them when the opportunity arises (this can have a crushing effect if done repetitively).   Hennie Kuiper put it this way, "Racing is licking your opponent's plate clean before starting on your own." 

2.  Using all of you advantages.
Examples in bike racing:  (Too many possibilities to list all here) a).  Great hill climbers attacking up long climbs, b.) great sprinters sitting in for the finish, c.) superior bike handler attacking a technical course, d.)large dominate teams sending riders away on breaks and then blocking for them, and then counterattacking the chase group if they catch their teammates e.) ability to learn the course by preriding, especially when your competitor can't. f.) getting a great starting position on a technical course because of hometown connections.

3.  Exploiting your competitor's weaknesses.
Examples in bike racing:  a.)  if your competitor has no teammates, and you do, use your teammates to block (position themselves between) him/her in and send your riders away, cover your competitor as he/she chases and then counter attack if he/she catches the group. b.) attack if you see that your competitor has fallen off or is struggling to maintain contact with the group.  c.) if your competitor is an inferior sprinter, try to make sure the outcome is decided in a sprint finish. Tim Krabbe' (author of "The Rider") put it succinctly, "When you see an enemy lying on the ground, what's your first reaction?  To help him to his feet?  In road racing, you kick him to death."

"Know your enemy and know yourself", Sun Tzu warns.  If you do so, then you will win a hundred out of a hundred  battles, Sun Tzu promises. 

4.  Attacking along an unexpected line.
Example in bike racing:  Making a run from behind, not off the front in plain sight. Using tactical variations.  If you typically win by sprinting, try a breakaway win or the opposite (this can work very well if you are  good at both disciplines of sprinting and time trialing)

Another principle of Sun Tzu is "Way of Life".  Engaging in battles you cannot win is a waste of time and resources and not in accord with the Way of Life.  Applied to bike racing, one should generally seek out races that one is capable of winning or at least at being competitive in.  Going to a race above one's ability (happily races are ability/experience based) and getting spit out the back is a waste of one's time and resources.  Getting beat up is not really character building.  Do not let pride overrun good judgement. 

To win whole, you must find the means to keep you and your teammates morale high while you destroy your competitors morale or make it easy for them to quit.   In bike racing this is done by competing in races you can do well in and doing well; winning.  As for making it easier for your competitor to give up, sugar goes much further than vinegar.  Meaning that being courteous and respectful to your competitor takes some of the steam out of their sails; reduces their will to fight.  Remember, in bike racing we tend to race the same people repetitively over time.  Nothing motivates a person more than the chance to defeat an arrogant jerk.  In  bike racing it is far easier to ruin another racer's chance for winning than it is to help someone win.  It's far easier to sacrifice one's chances for winning or placing well by pulling the peloton up to an unliked rider who's in a break-a-way and ruin their chances for a victory than it is to slip away from the peloton for your own or teammates victory.  Again do not let pride overrun good judgement, and don't be a jerk.  

Sun Tzu says to defeat your opponent quickly so that won't become fatigued and lose your strength.
In bike racing the best application of this tactic is in the development of breakaways.  The early efforts of a breakaway should be very near 100% effort so as to either lap the field or at least get out of sight.

Chapter 3, "Attack by Stratagem".
This is the art of winning without giving the appearance of trying or winning with the least effort required to do so.  This is done by drafting when possible and racing technically correct, such as not pulling competitors up hills or into headwinds, remaining hydrated and fueled, and timing effort correctly, etc.  In bike racing, timing is everything!  Starting a sprint too soon will turn into a lead-out and victory for a competitor.  On the other hand, starting a sprint too late will give a good view of the winner. 

Deception can be a major part of strategy, such as appearing strong when, in fact, you're weak, or appearing weak when you are strong.  In fact deception forms the basis for all warfare.  This premise from Sun Tzu applied to bike racing would be as such:  Absolutely never tell your competitor that  that your legs are starting to cramp up, or that you are dying (when this is the case).  Instead present a good poker face and stretch and hydrate  at the end of group out of site.  Conversely when you feel strong do not show it by taking long hard pulls.  Do the opposite, take short pulls, and feign fatigue (hang-dog facial expression, shaking out your quads, head low, verbally reporting fatigue, etc).

Keep in mind if you lie to your competitor that you are unable to take your turn to pull and then later attack, they will of course never believe you again (unless you later convince them that you recovered) and they will have a good reason  to spoil your future races if possible.  Deceit should be used sparely and convincingly.  A bluff should generally never be revealed if possible.

Chapter 5, Energy (or "Directing")
Sun Tzu's book focuses on the use of creativity and timing in building an army's momentum.  This is equally true for bicycle racing.  Pacing oneself and using the proper timing of one's energy leads to success.  For example it is critical to close gaps quickly in order to stay in the energy saving draft of the group, bridge up to critical breakaways, and time one's efforts in the closing kilometers and final sprint finish.  (this generally requires experience).  A poorly calculated effort can result in "blowing up" and having to dramatically reduce your work load just to complete the distance.   Timing one's effort is extremely valuable in advancing one's position within the field of other riders.   It is best to advance in bursts, typically when the pack is starting to bunch up, as opposed to being stretched out single file. 

Creativity often comes into play with bike racing, as being able to look for new ways to solve a problem that kills momentum.  For example if hills are an Achilles heel for you, try altering your training, riding position in the pack, reviewing and preparing for a specific course.  Short punchy hills may only require maintaining one's speed to carry over the top, whereas long hills may require the strategy of starting near the front (drafting going into hills should not be ignored), and pacing oneself even if drifting backwards in pack position occurs.   Try visualization.   It is a very valuable and creative  tool for improving performance.

Chapter 6, Weak Points and the Strong (or "Illusion and Reality").
"Strike the weak and avoid the strong" , wisely advices Sun Tzu.  In bike racing being the first to attack may put you in the stronger position because you lead the way according to how you have chosen.  Sometimes in bike racing it is better to dish out the punishment rather than to be on the receiving end.  Specifically being in the front of a race that has a technical course with lots of turns.  The lead riders are able to choose their lines and generally can go through them cleanly without breaking (slowing), whereas riders in the back tend to bunch up and break into the corners and then have to sprint maximally out of the corners in order to keep up (this is progressively fatiguing) , like a giant accordion.  This effect can lead to gaps and riders getting dropped from the group. Other times it is best to not be the first to attack.  Especially if your competitor is equally your match or your superior.  The advantage goes to the drafting rider.  So if the course is not technical, and the finish line is not near, then it is best to feign weakness or just simply try to exhibit more patience than your competitor.   Try to out wait  them to make the first move, latch onto their wheel and once they show weakness from their effort (letting off) counter attack their move with full effort.  If they are able to ride into your draft, then your counter move will typically be a failure unless their first effort was too long. It's best to place your move with a cross wind or a section that plays to your advantages, such as being a better technical bike handler in a technical section. 

As a rule,  it is typically best not to attack early in a race because everyone is generally still strong.  It's best to get into breakaways and attack near the end of the race when your competitors are at their weakest.  Remember to not start your plate until you have first licked your competitors clean!
 

Riders who will not "pull through" in a breakaway paceline are called wheel suckers.  These racers often are sprinters and they are conserving their energy  at the expense of their breakaway mates and greatly increasing their chances for victory by using their advantage of sprinting abilities.

The most ideal method for dealing with a rider who refuses to take a turn pulling is for everyone in the break to take turns drifting off the paceline with the "wheel sucker" on their wheel and then sprinting hard back onto the group  If everyone does this repetitively, this will eventually cause the "wheel sucker" to fatigue and not be able to claw their way back onto the group (also called Operation Drizzopple)

Chapters 10 and 11, The Nine Situations and Terrain (also known as  "Situational Positioning")

Use the best position and tactics in relation to the environment and to your opponent.  One of the best tactics in bike racing is to "attack" with a team into a crosswind as pictured above.
Riders 1 through 4 represent a team that have created an echelon,  and riders A and B would be competitors for this illustration.  Riders 1, A and B are essentially all exposed to wind and are riding maximally.  Riders 2, 3 and 4 are in the draft and are using considerably less energy (30-40% less).  Rider 4 is the gate keeper.  His job is stay as far right as possible so that rider A can't get any draft behind him while communicating to rider 3 to adjust left or right accordingly for his draft (helpful because the cross-drafting rider may not be possible to see).  3 tells 2 the adjust as well, who in turn, communicates the same to rider 1.  All riders "hold their line", meaning ride relatively fixed lines with the road (no swerving).    After a short period of time (30-60 seconds),  riders 1, 2, and 3 take turns in the lead position by rotating in a counter-clockwise position.   Rider 4, the gate keeper,  holds his position to prevent non-teammates from entering the draft.  

Gate keeper's are not always necessary for echelons to work, but it makes it easier for rider 1 to assume rider 3's position, otherwise there can be some difficultly with rider A, who will be fighting for a drafting position.

Tactically, rider 4 is also in a good position to block for his teammates by slowly drifting off.    Or he could drift off and sprint back on to see if they can create a separation.

Another good tactic is to attack before a technical turn.  It's even better when you have a teammate subtly block in response.  The confusion of the peloton in the turn will give you much needed time to establish a break off the front.  

Additionally,  breakaway groups have a slightly better chance of success in wet conditions (the peloton tends to not draft as effectively because of water spray and navigates corners slower).   And breakaways and solo riders have slightly better chances of success with cross-winds and tailwind conditions (both reduce the effects for drafting with larger numbers, as opposed to sections with headwinds and downhills because a large group maintain a higher speed by rotation of fresh riders. 

Breakaway groups with all the major teams represented have a much better chance of success (compared to riders from just one team or a weaker team), and especially so if the team leaders are present in these breakaways.  These are breakaways that you should try to be in.  Not only will their teammates not chase, but in many cases they will actively block for them. 

To learn more about Sun Tzu and The Art of War applied to sport click here.  Or better yet, buy the book and read it for yourself.  There are  more principles that can be applied to both bike racing and your life in general.

To learn other helpful cycling and racing tips see my page above for topics  such as what and when to eat for competitive cycling, psychology for competitive cycling, how to be faster with no additional effort, how to effectively high speed corner on a racing bike, and more. 

Bicycle Trainers are good for you.

A reader recently suggested that I write an article about bike trainers. I had never thought about this topic for a blogpost before, but I think it's a great one for several reasons.



The trainer I use.



First, I feel that new riders need to know the value of having a trainer. Many of the "old timers" in my cycling community really hate trainers and speak negatively against them (for reasons that I will address). Some of them wrongly suggest that riding a trainer isn't helpful for conditioning.   As they are set in their ways, I'm afraid it's too late for them, but perhaps I can put some new riders on the right track with some good information.

Actually bike trainers are a great training tool for a serious cyclist. It allows a cyclist to pedal their bike any time of day or night, for as little or as long as they would like and avoid any kind of negative weather condition such as extreme heat, cold, wind, snow, etc. Plus the pedal time is 100% car free, there are no worries of traffic, stop lights, road hazards, dogs, etc, that can alter or halt a workout.  It simply eliminates all geological and  environmental conditions that can interfere with a planed workout.

And the workout can be extremely controlled concerning effort.  Trainer workouts are ideal for specifically timed interval training at specific efforts.  Plus they can be used for warming up for races or used to maintain fitness while recovering from an injury that would ordinarily prevent road riding, and stretching legs out after traveling.  It's also an ideal way to burn more calories and reduce body fat (especially upon waking before eating).  Most importantly it allows a rider to use a stationary bicycle that is properly fitted specifically to the rider (far superior to a gym-cycle).

Before I lose my readers, let me share 3 extremely important facts/tips about bicycle trainers:

1. You must protect your bike from sweat!  Specifically the stem and headset area.  Human sweat  is extremely corrosive to metal parts and will destroy your bearings and such over time.  This can easily be prevented by covering these parts with a dry cloth (change as necessary).  Blam!  I just saved you a few hundred bucks!  (depending on your equipment).  You're welcome!

2.  Riding a trainer is harder than riding a bike on the road.  Literally.  The primary reason is that you hardly ever coast (not pedal for a period of time) on a trainer, but you often do when road riding (5-20% of the time depending)  This means that your muscles do more work, and as a result have less time to recover.  This can be hard on knees (tendons typically),  if they aren't adapted properly over time and/or allowed to periodically rest and be stretched during a workout.  A secondary reason is inertia.  This topic can become rather long winded.  In short, a trainer punishes a rider with a poor pedal stroke compared to a poor pedal stroke on the road.  (It's related to the dead-spots of a pedal stroke and drive-train drag.  I'll discuss it in more detail later along with other considerations).

3.  You need a fan.  A very good fan.  Riding a trainer releases a lot of energy in the form of heat.  Much of that is from your body captured in sweat.  Do yourself a favor and run a fan or two on you as you ride.  You'll be MUCH more comfortable and ride longer as well. 

"So why do old timers hate riding the trainer", you ask?  Well, the primary reason that they report hating riding the trainer is boredom.  And that's legit.  Riding the open road is much more ideal typically.  Nothing can replace the joy of real biking.   I would never suggest trading it for trainer riding just for the sake of it. 

I've already covered reasons for choosing a trainer ride over outdoor riding.  Now, let me discuss how to make it enjoyable or at least bearable:  First prepare your trainer workout.  Set up the fan, get some towels to capture sweat, set up a side table for storing items in easy reach, such as cell phone, music player, tv/stereo remote, bottled icewater, etc.  Watching cycling related videos or upbeat shows can help pass time (for non-intense riding)   Gadgets  such as powermeters and or heart rate monitors are ideal.  They not only provide something to focus on, they help quantify one's efforts, which when applied correctly to training can help a cyclist improve their physical conditioning.   

Keep it short or break it up.  An hour is pretty long on a trainer, but that is an fairly ideal workout period (10 minutes still beats zero though) . I don't recommend longer unless suffering is one of your goals.  Periodically stop and stretch your muscles and ligaments.  Also ride the trainer standing and or change positions frequently.   This lets blood flow back into your nether regions and makes you more comfortable.  Add intervals to your  workout (there are too many combination/variations for this post).  Mentally rehearse bike races or just meditate about different life issues.  The trainer is a great place to contemplate life issues, especially one's that trigger you autonomic nervous system.

As a general rule, intensity of an exercise is more valuable than duration alone (this is a future topic to be discussed, a balance is required).  For a specific set of intensity exercises on the stationary bike trainer see Selene Yeager's article, "How to Ride Inside:  Indoor Trainer Workouts for Cyclists".

Without a doubt, the greatest tool for making a stationary trainer ride more enjoyable is music. However, one problem with trainers and music is being able to hear it. Many trainers become progressively louder. I've used some that sounded like a jet was taking off (or at least a mower). The solution is to use noise isolating earbuds. I have used many including the top of the line by both Bose and Shure (both are good but pricey) and I can tell you that the absolute best sounding earbud for it's price is the Koss KE29S Steel Isolating Earbuds, who's slogan is, "Hearing is Believing" and they got that right.  They are freakin' awesome!   

Unfortunately, I have destroyed every earphone set I've ever owned. Riding on a trainer is one of the ways, particularly due to sweat.  Happily, the Koss earbuds are nearly waterproof. I've even machine washed and dried a pair that was accidentally left in a jersey pocket and they still worked! Do yourself a favor and buy one. I'll help you out...... just click the Amazon ad and they'll send it you to. You're welcome!

One reason that "old timers" list  hating trainers is that they don't provide a real road feel.  This is true and is mainly due the laws of physics.  This is largely because the  trainer is more difficult than the road due to inertia differences.  Specifically, the trainer produces a more constant drag on the wheel/chain  as the cranks rotate.  Whereas a bicycle on the road will continue to move forward when power is removed, whereas on a trainer the wheel will come to a stop rather quickly (the trainer/wheel has less inertia).  This becomes a big deal if a rider has a poor/inefficient pedal stroke.  Specifically poor muscle firing (or contracting) during the revolution of the crank.  The top and the bottom of the pedal stroke is the point of particular concern.  An ideal pedal stroke should have a small amount of push over the top and pull at the bottom.  Just the right amount, not too much, and should feel natural.  Lemond describes the bottom stroke as wiping your feet off on a carpet.  I would describe the top stroke as a floating slide.  Please do not over exaggerate either, as doing so will become inefficient, the pedal stroke should feel natural.    Dr. James Martin has done research showing that pulling up during a pedal stroke is not efficient (oxygen use for watts generated) for cycling.  An exception would be sprinting, in which case you should use every muscle fiber in a properly timed fashion all the way to  your facial expression. 

I should probably mention the subject of cadences (crank rotations per minute) regarding trainers.  It has been shown that lower cadences are more efficient (oxygen used per watt generated) specifically 60rpm is superior to 100rpm (this is going to upset the old timers).  But I am going to throw the old timers a bone.  Higher rpms such as 90 are much easier on the knees.  Sprinting cadences are best in the 120rpm range.  I would suggest mixing up rpms as you ride to keep things from getting boring.  Also periodically stop  and stretch your muscles and ligaments.  (You can read more about proper crank length and cadences here)

I embedded the below video for a couple of reasons.  One it is informative about several good trainers from the industry leader in trainers, and the other is that it is narrated by Robbie "The Rocket" Ventura.  I've actually raced him a few times .  Plus the trainer I purchased came with a dvd video of Robbie racing at Downers Grove.  It was meaningful to me because I recognized several riders in the video (Joe Hill namely).  The video was clearly pre GoPro era because Robbie was wearing a backpack just to film the race.  Pretty funny from today's perspective. 

Anyway, these are great trainers and I highly recommend the CycleOps Fluid 2 trainer.  It's an extremely good trainer and is the quietest one that I am personally aware of. 

Below is another video that Robbie Ventura is in (sorry CycleOps), discussing the Lemond Revolution Trainer:
I find the design of this trainer to be nearly ideal.   The rear wheel is removed in order to connect the bike directly to the trainer.    This is ideal because this method doesn't wear out tires like traditional trainers do and will not produce any slippage from jump starts like some trainers can.  Additionally it eliminates the potential damage that can happen with certain skewers (or just poor clamping) with traditional designs.   My only hesitation on giving it a perfect rating is that it is not quiet when in use.  In fact it becomes pretty loud during higher efforts.  Still it's among the best. 

Of course the "old timers" probably wouldn't forgive me if I didn't mention rollers.  Instead of describing them in great detail you can watch the below embedded video that shows some exceptional riding on rollers. 

Riding rollers is pretty cool if you have never done it before.  The primary advantages of rollers are that they are not so boring.  It is necessary to pay attention so that you don't fall off, and they replicate a more realistic road feel because of the inertia of the wheels. 

The down side is that is very difficult to stand and pedal (which is important in my opinion) and very difficult to do a good sprint effort.  And of course you can fall off and go boom (sweat can make the rollers slick).

I can both ride rollers no handed and one legged (probably not combined).  I've also ridden rollers on a ship that was rolling (best to line the trainer forward/aft against the ship's rolls), and on a flat bed trailer pulled about in a parade with nothing to grab ahold of (I had to have help starting and stopping). 

 

If for some reason (superflurous use of parenthesis) you want to purchase rollers, here you go: