3 on, 3 off and a rest day

So far I have been concentrating on losing weight and it's gone pretty well. I've managed a couple of milestones, my low of 67.3kg is an all time best and I've consistently been under 70kg/11 stone which had been a bit of a bit of a blocker in the past.

Now I've scheduled a change, mainly for a bit of variety. I'll continue with the  endurance sessions that have helped shed the pounds but will mix them up with some higher intensity workouts as well 

Each week I would hope to do:

• 3 x Endurance Sessions: These will be main calorie burners. Currently they are just over 3 hours at around 200W.  I'll eat normally beforehand but during them only take on water, then eat normally afterwards. I have no problem completing these at the moment. I'll extend them to 4 hours at the same power then slowly increase watts. My hope is to get to around 240W which is pretty close to power needed for a 4 hour 100. At some point I'm guessing I will need to eat during these sessions which should give me some indication of how my glycogen levels are. 
• 1 x Tempo Session: This is a slow ramp up to tempo level then hold for a longish interval, take a 5 minute break then a second interval. I'll use HR to pace this one, starting with 20 minute intervals and adjusting power until my HR hits 151 which is the bottom of my tempo zone. Once I have established the power I'll extend the interval times, hoping eventually to hit 2x60 minutes.
• 1 x Threshold Session: I'll use Chris Boardman's routine for this. It comprises a set of 15>12>10>8 intervals at threshold with 5 minutes rest between each. It's "easier" than the classic 2x20 but mainly on the mind, you still get a good chunk of time at threshold and if it's good enough for Boardman it's good enough for me. I'll start these at an easy wattage then nudge up each week until I can't complete. While doing these I'll include some of Bradley Wiggins' pedal routines. This involves doing repeats of 1 minute 50 rpm, 4 minutes "normal" rpm. 
• 1 x Short Interval Session: Another Chris Boardman routine, 3 x 3 minutes threshold++ then 3x2 minutes threshold++ with 7-10 minutes between each interval. Again I'll start low in terms of power and nudge the wattage up a little each week.
• 1 x Recovery Session: In the past I haven't felt the need for much in terms of recovery so I'll just have the one session a week to start. The 3 sessions above will help me judge how I am doing and if I feel rough I'll schedule in some more recovery time. I don't plan to take the recovery day fully off, I have an idea for a "CO2 threshold" test that involves doing an easy routine so I'll do that.

VO2, MLSS, MHR, peak power

The other measures from the tests I undertook were all about peak efforts.

My "MLSS" was 300W, 4.48w/kg, 166bpm
VO2 was 62.8

Max HR was 180rpm

Power at VO2 max was 375W 
Power/weight at VO2 max was 5.59 W/kg

The protocol to get these values was 

• Start at 150W
• Increase 25W every 3 minutes until MLSS
• Then increase 25W per minute until crack

The results don't come as a big surprise. I have not been doing any top end work recently so they are all a bit low, apart from max HR which is higher than I expected. 

The VO2 is a bit lower than my last test in 2006 when it measured 63.9 (and I was a bit heavier)

All should get better once I up intensity and lose a few more pounds. 
 
 
  

Lactate Threshold - another surprise

One outcome of the recent test I did was to find out my "lactate threshold".

I thought I knew what this meant but in fact I've been wrong all these years. My believed this was the same as my "threshold power" but in fact its much lower. 

Wiki explains all here

So the lactate threshold occurs quite early on as you ramp up power. For me it occurred at 225W/133bpm. 

This point coincides with the point where you need to start breathing through your mouth so is quite easy to monitor. 
 

Cycling Efficiency

The physiological assessment I undertook recently measured my "Cycling Efficiency".

This is a figure representing how much oxygen is required to generate power. It is measured in ml/min (of oxygen) per watt. 

The lower the figure the better.

Mine was around 11.3 at 200W (my power just before lactate threshold). 

This is rated as typical for club athletes, for pros it will be below 10.

Since this is the first time I have had this test not sure about how this will change with training. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Fuel from Fat

I recently took some physiological tests to measure my fitness. My intention is to redo these next year and hopefully see some changes as a result  of my training.

I'llg/ do some write ups on these to serve as a reference for the future, starting with the one that surprised me the most.

This was the one that showed where I was getting the energy to cycle from. This will always be a mixture of fat and carbohydrate,  with a greater proportion of fat at lower intensities,  carbohydrates taking over as intensity increases to provide pretty much 100% at peak levels.

The table below shows the results at the key transition point when carbs take over from fat.


Watts             CHO g/h        Fat g/h      CHO kcal/h  Fat kcal/h Total kcal/h     Calc kcal/h
150                   46                 45              188             417              667                540
175                   113               15               465            139              665                630
200                   100               17               410            154              621                720
225                   114               25               470             235             776                810

There are a couple of interesting things in these figures

• The transition from fat burning at 150W to carb burning at 175
• 150-200W consumes the same amount of calories, showing how rough the rule of thumb that calories = kJ is (the last column shows the KJ figure)

  

Goodbye Mr Fox

Our daughter Katy has spent the past few years living in London, firstly studying and more recently working. 

So we have made quite a number of trips to see her over this time and I have noticed two very nice happenings.

• The number of cyclists on London's roads has exploded.Whereas you may see the occasional chap on a bike taking his life in his hands now you see hundreds of them (and just as many chapesses as well). Bikes have become really cool and you see all manner or weird and wonderful machines on the road now. 
• Craft beer has hit the UK. I was sort of in on the beginning of this, having been a long term fan of American speciality beer. This has crossed the Atlantic and now there are 10s of breweries in the UK, loads of pubs selling craft beer and what feels like hundreds of different varieties to choose from. Having been in despair about the "youth of today" drinking slop like Stella its great to see so many swap and drink real beer, 

These two trends sort of coincided this week. I went into Cyclefit to get properly sorted out in terms of TT position. The fact that a business like this can exist and apparently prosper is testament to just how cycling has grown. 

This trip gave me the opportunity to meet up with Katy for one last time in London, in just a couple of weeks or so she will be starting a new chapter of her life in the USA. 

I thought it appropriate we should have a drink at her "local",The Fox a great pub with a huge range of beer and not a bad burger to boot. We had a drink here on the day I helped Katy move in a year ago, since then its just got better, with an even wider range of great beer to choose from as the picture below attests....

For food we went somewhere new (for me). Duke's   which has its very own beer and a quite stunning range of  meat including the biggest rib of beef I have ever eaten.  This place was all of about 100yards from the Fox, it's amazing, so much goodness in so small a distance.

So, slight disappointment I won't be making quite as many trips to London in the future. But every cloud and such, Katy will be in New York soon and that opens up a whole new world (well country) of beers to explore. And the ribs there probably make even Dukes seem like a starter....

Skipping breakfast

I used to skip breakfast in the mistaken belief it would help me lose weight and sessions done would increase my "fat burning". In fact it doesn't for the reasons below.

The average person has 450-550g of glycogen stored. If depleted this will be replenished as a priority by any carbs digested from food (and to a lesser extent from fat reserves). Only after it is replenished will extra carbs be stored as fat. Each g of glycogen provides about 4kcal worth of energy.

Glycogen is stored in 2 places
- 80% Locally in muscles, prime use is to provide energy for exercise. Glycogen will only be available for the muscle where it is stored
- 20% Is stored in the liver. The prime purpose is to provide energy for non-muscular body functions that require glucose, the most important of which is brain function. As a secondary function it will provide a top up to muscles whose glycogen is starting to get depleted. (Note: this happens before the glycogen level in the muscle hits zero, at around 25-30% left.)

Assuming your glycogen stores are full on kipping down, following a night's sleep you will wake with
- Practically all of your muscle glycogen still available (assuming you have have not been involved in some serious "interval training" with your partner :) )
- 50% of your liver glycogen available (the rest will have been used to provide the energy the brain needs to create your dreams/nightmares)

So if you went to bed with 500g of glycogen stored you will wake with 450g.

Even taking into account the fact that not all the muscle glycogen is available for training this is still allows a lot of exercise, very roughly there is enough to allow a 70kg rider to climb Alpe D'Huez one and half times flat out without feeding.

If you are not going flat out then you will be able to go for an even longer as fat provides an additional source of energy at intensity levels less than flat out (around 30% at endurance pace).

Skipping breakfast will however make training sessions FEEL harder. This is because on waking your blood sugar level will be low and, since the brain needs sugar to work at its best, this will make you feel rough. Missing breakfast and going straight into training will aggravate this. Worse, if your session is quite long and you don't eat during it after a while your liver glycogen will start to get seriously challenged

Skipping breakfast means that the liver glycogen is level only 50% and this will continue to decline. It will decline even quicker if some of it is needed to help out muscles whose local glycogen levels are getting low. Once the liver level hits around 10% the brain signals that things are getting serious. Pushing past this point without eating will be extremely tough regardless of how fatigued your muscles are or how much  muscle glycogen you have left. Push too hard and you will collapse big time. All this is very stressful but has very little benefit in terms of physical fitness, though it may make you mentally tougher.
 
So bottom line is that skipping breakfast really has little impact in any sense that will affect your fitness unless the subsequent training session is very brutal and/or long.  You will only by training in a really "fasted" state if you eat and train in a way that stops your body replenishing glycogen (i.e. running a serious calorie deficit and/or following a very low carb diet). Even if you do this best advice is to have eat a small amount of high GI carbs before exercising first thing in the morning and, if planning to ride more than a couple of hours, eat a few more during it just to keep brain ticking over.

Weight target

Following my Bodpod experience I now have a target fat %, which in turn gives me a target weight.

When I did the test I weighed 67.5kg and want to lose 3.5kg of fat. 

So target weight will be 64.0kg. 

I plugged this weight into the two key metrics I am tracking and came up with a couple of happy coincidences.

• It's slap bang middle of the "healthy" BMI range
• Simply repeating the last test I in terms of power would yield a w/kg of 5.05

Both of these would be nice :) 

Entering the Bodpod

Recently I took some tests to establish a baseline for comparison next year when I turn 55.

Included amongst them was the "Bodpod". This is a device that provides an accurate measurement of your body fat %. 

Using it is quite funny, its a bit like an egg/womb. You strip off down to your undies and sit inside it, then a soothing woman's voice asks you to relax and stay quite still while in the background you can hear the whirring  of machines and feel subtle wafts of air on your skin as the Bodpod does its stuff.

Bodpod in action (not me in it though)

Anyway once all that was over I got my results. The result was 12.4%. My weight at the time was 67.5kg which means that I am lugging about 8.3kg of fat. 

8.3kg is quite a lot. Many cyclists (including me I have to admit) will spend large amounts of cash on carbon fibre widgets that will shave a few g off bike weight, yet I am carrying around the equivalent of an entire bike (and full water bottles) in fat all the time, including up every mountain.

Shifting all of this is not going to happen. However knowing exactly how much fat I have does let me set a target. 

I'm going to aim for 5kg of fat which will mean a target fat% of around 8%.

This in turn gives me an objective/means of tracking. I need to lose roughly 3.5kg of fat which is the equivalent of 11500kcal. so I need a total calorie deficit of around that number.

So, in theory, I can just keep a running total of my calorie deficit with a view to hitting this magic number. This is nice as I find tracking a running total that I have complete control over the most satisfying way of working towards a long term goal. 

Will be interesting...

Worms don't listen to bassoons

Mrs M and I went to see Robin Ince. It was great fun, with many highlights, one of my favourites (and Mrs Ms to judge by the chortles coming from next to me) concerned Charles Darwin's last book 

This showed that even at his latest stages of life Darwin was still the consummate scientist. His investigations into one of nature's more mundane species Included testing to see if they could hear sounds.

He did this by submitting them to various sounds, including a whistle, a piano and, remarkably, a bassoon (completely sensible of course, it's quite possible that worms would react to low notes from a bassoon while being insensible to others)

While no means in the same league as Charles Darwin, I do share a lifetime's passion for science with him. That's what I find most absorbing and motivating about the training I do. I love all the facts/figures and experimenting with what works and what doesn't.  

Just listening

Much of my training atm consists of long "fatburn" or "sweetspot" sessions. 

This is proving to be a great opportunity to actually listen to music again. 

Building up to target power then just zoning in and actually concentrating on an album rather than just have it in the background is a great experience. 

I'm combining catching up on old favourites with listening to some of the new tracks I have inherited from my children.

Great fun.

Test four

After a bit of a break carried out test four today. 

Went remarkably well, especially as I have been concentrating on keeping weight down.

Good, if slow, news on that score. Tested weight is 68.8kg, lowest to date, still on the upper side of the BMI range but heading towards the middle.

As for the test itself

Results of the test were:
Bike used: Wattbike
Position:    Upright
Weight> >>>>>>68.8kg
20 min power>> 340W
FTP power >>> 323W
w/kg >>>>>>>> 4.70 
Avg HR 158bpm
Max HR 164bpm
Last 17 min drift 1.73% 

Pretty damn good. What was especially impressive was the quality of the test. I set an initial target pace of around 330W+  then just held steady for the whole effort, just upping the effort slightly in the second half. 

HR remarkable.  Average was 6 bpm less than previous test, despite extra power. Ditto max at 164 was 5 less and well off my red zone of 172bpm+
Drift once warmed up was only 1.7%, compared to 5% last time.

In part this will be down to the nature of my training atm, which tends to lower HR. However the HR results are matched by how it felt. Subjectively this was easiest test so far and I was genuinely surprised when I saw I had touched 340W. 

Cals in vs Cals Out

For the past 3 and a bit weeks I have been keeping a food diary, as accurately as possible, counting calories in vs  calories out. 

The results to date make interesting reading. 

I started at 71.1kg and my latest weight is 69.8 (measured last thing at night). So 1.3kg lost to date. Over this time I averaged a daily deficit of 764 calories. 

I am also measuring body fat% using some Tamita electronic scales. Now, while at least as if not more important compared to weight, this measure can be a bit hit and miss. It varies quite a lot during the day and day to day can shift quite a lot.

Still it's not entirely random and I think safest thing to check is a moving average over a week or so. This shows a reduction from 15.9% to 14.3%.

Taking the two sets of figures together 

• At start I weighed 71.1kg of which 15.9% = 11.3kg was fat
• Now I weight 69.8kg of which 14.3% = 10.0kg is fat

Difference = 1.3kg fat lost which matches weight lost. 

This is good news as it seems to indicate the weight gone is fat. One issue with diets is that you can easily lose a lot of weight (2-4kg) just by burning off glycogen. But this only takes a very small calorie deficit (2000kcal or so in total so can be done in a day) and comes back just as fast.

It's a bit of bad news though. In total my deficit is 18000kcal and this should mean more than 2kg of fat should have gone (assuming a pound of fat = somewhere between 2800 and 3700kcal (see here for source of these numbers))

It's possible I may be overestimating deficit but don't think so. I have been pretty assiduous in keeping the food diary for cals in and my cals out is based on power data which is pretty accurate.

This leaves one other variable which is base metabolic rate (BMR). I have set this quite low at 2300kcal, which is 200kcal less than the 2500 average for males that appears on all the nutrition advice panels on food.

But it looks as if this is still too high, by a factor of around 300kcal. 

This makes a sort of sense. It would account for my lifetime's fight vs the scales. It may also be linked (or even caused by?) my capacity to perform well in endurance events. 

Whatever, I will reduce my BMR to 2000kcal and see how that changes things.

Weght>Power

Right now my first focus is on losing weight. I plan on keep doing this until I get to the point where

• I can't lose any more
• My power is affected (i.e. I can't replicate previous test power)
• I get sick of it

I'll also be keeping an eye on my BMI and note that along with any tests. 

On BMI I am 5' 8 1/4" tall which is 173.4cm. My weight atm is 69.2kg which according to the NHS site here  gives me a BMI of 23.2 which is on the higher side of the healthy range.

While OK from a general health pov this goes to show I can still aim to lose a bit. Top cyclists will be much closer to the other end of the range while still maintaining power

Third test

Carried out my third test yesterday after a day of rest following the Strava challenge.

Weight had dropped significantly, a loss of 1.7kg since the last, under 70kg for the first time in a long time.

Legs felt OK if slightly tired, mentally I was a bit underprepared though and expected test to be hard. In fact it went well,first 10 was 331W. Flagged a bit towards the end but think it was mainly due to head not legs. 


Results of the test were:
Bike used: Wattbike
Position:    Upright
Weight> >>>>>>69.5kg
20 min power>> 327W
FTP power >>> 311W
w/kg >>>>>>>> 4.47 
Avg HR 164bpm
Max HR 169bpm
Last 17 min drift 5.05%


So a pretty significant improvement since the last test, much less weight and power up. Interestingly HR was lowest yet, under 170.May be due to fatigue, may be a sign of being fitter. Time will tell

Strava challenge

Strava is something that didn't exist when I was last riding. I've signed up for it and can see how it can become quite addictive, with the possibility to record every ride comparing your PBs with those of others. 

There are also challenges and I just completed my first one. It was to do 574 miles in a couple of weeks, but I decided to up the effort a bit and try it in 5 days.

It proved a useful opportunity to work on my TT bike, burn off some fat and get used to some LSD (long steady distance). It worked well on all fronts. I was especially pleased to see how easy it was to keep up a steady 20mph. I'll probably have another go at a 12 next year. 

I was the first to finish and I have to admit a frisson of pride seeing my name number 1 out of 13000+ riders. 

Second test

Second test yesterday. Much better than first. Lost a couple of kg, the bloat of a week off, so just focussed on good form during the 20.

Went well, solid steady session with very flat HR. 

Now the hard work starts. 

Results of the test were:
Bike used: Wattbike
Position:    Upright
Weight> >>>>>>71.2kg
20 min power>> 321W
FTP power >>> 305W
w/kg >>>>>>>> 4.28  
Avg HR 168bpm
Max HR 172bpm
Last 17 min drift 2.12%

5@55 First test

I carried out the first test as the first session after a week off the bike helping out at LEL and exploring Silloth.

As a methodology I used the routine described by Hunter Allen here . Plan is to repeat this and track progress. (Weight will simply be measured before the test)

The test gives a 20 minute figure which is reduced by 5% to give an FTP estimate. As time progresses I'll supplement this with some "real" 60 minute efforts to check and also carry out tests under different conditions on different equipment, as one thing of interest is to see how these affect power. Of particular interest is TT vs road bike, since my TT power is consistently lower by a substantial figure and I'd like to close/eliminate this gap.

Results of the test were:
Bike used: Wattbike
Position:    Upright
Weight> >>>>>>73.5kg
20 min power>> 320W
FTP power >>> 304W
w/kg >>>>>>>> 4.14  

So a way to go yet.  

(One thing of interest was that my HR was up compared to before I had a break. It peaked at 174 during the 5 minute warm up. Goes to show that depressed HR is an indicator of being tired even if you can still put out the power)

5@55

One thing that has been missing since I started training again is a goal of some sort.

Given what I have done in the past I'm not really that up to setting some sort of specific event related goal. That isn't to say that I won't do similar in future but reality is repeating something isn't really the same as doing it for the first time. And I'm not really that fussed about improving a few places in an event and for sure don't want that to be the be all and end all of a season.

So I have decided to try something a bit different. One thing that does keep me motivated is trying to set "power PBs". The gold standard of power is w/kg, this is the single best predictor of how someone will ride. For example, measured for FTP, 6 w/kg is a good tour rider, 6.5 w/kg is a tour winner. See here for more examples Power Profiles

I don't aspire to these heights but would like to set some sort of w/kg goal. This will require training well and shedding a bit more weight. It will also mean taking part in some events, both for training purposes and with the hope that it will help push me harder and improving PBs. 

As to the target. Well I will be 55 next year and it just so happens that 5w/kg is a pretty stretching FTP target.  

So my goal will be "5@55"> do a FTP effort at 5 w/kg some time during my 55th year.

This is around the top level for an amateur so will be a big ask. Still I will have plenty of time to try to achieve it and regardless it will keep me motivated and focussed.

Should be fun..

 

Etape 2013 Post Ride Guide

I have just rounded up a 3 week French tour by riding the course of the Etape. 

It was great and prompted me to make some observations about the route that may be of interest to those taking part in a couple of weeks time. Hopefully these will be useful.

(For future events I'd be interested in seeing the statistics for other rides. If, having done and hopefully enjoyed the event, you have anything you can share please post a comment.) 

General Comments

First and foremost the scenery on the stage is stunning. From the start with its lake views to  to the summit finish, where the vista across the Alps took my breath away. I have ridden many stages of the tour and this definitely ranks amongst the best in terms of sheer beauty. Even if riding hard for a gold standard I'd advise taking some time to look up from the wheel ahead and take this all in.

Second the course, though short in comparison to many, is quite intense. Further it's design may mean that overall times/positions may be down to luck of the draw as much as anything else. This is largely due to the opening section. Given the number of riders and the variation in their abilities there's a big risk of traffic jams on the approach to and through the first climb. I suspect riders starting first will have an advantage over those starting later, to an even greater extent than normal.

Overall Phases

The course has a number of phases (each made up of one or more sections, covered in more detail later):

• Start to the top of the second (Leschaux) climb: I think of this as one continuous phase with the aim of getting safely to the top of the Leschaux unscathed and being able to find a big group thereabouts that will get you through the next phase. If getting a good time is a priority goal I think doing this will be important to the extent that, contrary to usual advise, I would go quite hard from the off and plan to recover in the next phase. In practice I suspect the extent to which you can do this will depend on what's going on around. One reason for suggesting going hard is that you may well be forced to stop/go slow due to traffic anyway, in which case you will get plenty of recovery.
• From Leschaux to 4th (Col de Pres) climb. This is a long phase over varying countryside. It will be way easier in a group, the bigger the better. This is especially true of the 3^rd climb to Aillon Vieux whose main factor is it's length. If you are with lots of others motoring along its effect will be much less. Indeed the hardest sections in this phase may not be this climb but rather the few short sharp efforts that would appear as full on climbs in a UK sportive but here don't rate a mention in the official course profile.
• Col de Pres/Descent 1: The Col de Pres climb is shorter but steeper than the 3rd and is the precursor to the first big descent. Groups will naturally break on one or the other during this phase
• Transition/Mont Revard: Following the descent there is a short transition followed by the first really major ascent of the day. The main feature of this climb is its length and that it may get quite hot if the weather is fine. Best survival strategy for both is to find a group moving at your pace and work with them. There are few, if any, steep sections that will cause such a group to splinter. To the contrary there are some flatter sections that should allow some respite/regrouping.
• Descent2: A second descent that, while not technical, will break most groups up.
• Transition to final climb: There is a fairly long section before the final climb. It is also quite lumpy so best advice would be to not push hard after the descent but wait to pick up a passing group.
• Annecy Semonz: Harder and longer than the official profile, the road starts rising before the official start and there is only a short pause before the road goes up steeply. The worst sections are at the bottom. The climb soon enters forest which provides a fair degree of cover and is a pretty constant gradient. When the forest ends then the top is not too far away. The road is wide and the surface OK so most should hopefully be able to find their own pace up without too much hindrance from others.

Pacing

I use power for training and pacing. My ride came at the end of a long, hard three week bike tour so I was pretty tired and especially not used to producing top end power. Before starting the tour my FTP was around 325W*, so I used that to set power targets for the climb but set these conservatively as I would get no recovery from group riding and wanted to leave some contingency in case of issues on the ride (which turned out to be a good idea as I had to do another 15km and an extra climb due to a detour caused by work on one of the bridges..).

• Shorter climbs (i.e. the first 4) around 85-95% of FTP
• Longer climbs (i.e. the last 2) around 75%-85% of FTP

This went pretty well, the first five climbs felt easy and were comfortably on target. The last would have been fine as well but on the run into it my right foot started to give me major pain** and the Annecy Samnoz  was pretty torrid as a consequence, largely done with the left leg, causing a dip in power to just below target range.

If I was doing the Etape for real I would probably go with this pace plan aiming for higher end of target zone, especially pushing harder on the first phase on the assumption that the adrenaline of the event will probably make this happen anyway and there will be chance for recovery in a group on the next phase than wasn't there when solo.(Being on a faster/lighter race bike rather than a tourer would also help with this, since each big effort should take a less real time and be less tiring as a consequence.)

I was also monitoring HR. This turned out to be low, peak for the whole ride was only 160bpm which is 24 bpm under max and 6-8 or so bpm under what I would usually expect for the watts I was putting out. I would guess this is an effect of having so many miles in my legs.

* Weight wise I was around 71kg, bike was my tourer 11 kg unloaded/15kg loaded, has bullet proof but slow tyres and the aerodynamics of a brick.


**Post ride I found out the reason for for my foot issue. I always dismount with my right foot first and over the course of my tour the right cleat had pretty much worn out. The bits of the ride where I had to walk past roadworks had been the final straw resulting wearing it very thin indeed resulting pressure points that caused the foot ache. Lesson learned for the future.

Feeding/Drinking

Conditions for my ride were great, nice and sunny, though quite hot as a result, in the high 20s centigrade. So I drank a lot getting through about 8 75cl bottles of water (luckily there were plenty of fountains along the way) and 1l of coke.

The ride used up around 4250kJ which is a reasonable guesstimate in terms of calories burned riding. For food I ate 300g of Haribo, 1 Snickers, 3 large bananas and a ham/cheese sandwich. Along with the coke this added up to around 2500kcal , including 500g or so of carbs. This was ample, the limiter on my final climb power was the pain from my right foot, not lack of food. 

Gearing

I did the ride on my touring bike which has a triple 52-39-30 with a 12-27 rear cassette. 

The lowest gears are for climbing fully loaded so were not needed much during the ride. For the climbs (except Aillon Vieux) I simply engaged the 30 chain-ring  then focussed on keeping a nice steady cadence around 70rpm, which these gears allowed without any problem, even on the very tough last section on Annecy Semnoz.  (Aillon Vieux I used the middle ring as knew it would be fast)

For first timers not used to long climbs.  The single most important thing is being able to keep a comfortable cadence up, where comfortable >60rpm.

My advice for gearing is find the longest hill you can that is not too steep (ideally over 5% but less than 10%).  Rule of thumb is make sure you have a gear on your bike that you can turn over comfortably at 70rpm+ from bottom to top.  Then

• Make sure you have at least one gear below this for emergency use
• If the hill less than 5% then you should have 2 or 3 extra gears.

  

Detailed Sectors

Below is some more detail on each of the sectors. Also included are some statistics in terms of distance, time, power and HR. Times are rough guidance, at several stages I had to go slow due to road works/gravel and once had to get off and walk. Choice of bike will also have had an effect.

The “official” distances from the route schedule are also shown. These differ, mainly because its sometimes a matter of judgement exactly where a climb finishes. (or starts for that matter) and because the exact start point of the event was not clear when I rode it.

Note: there are a few short climbs not shown on the profile. Most come just after a the road descends to a river bridge.. So as a general rule if you see a bridge while descending, expect to have to short but steep effort just after.

1. Start to First Climb: There is only one straight flat part on the whole course and this is it. Its very easy to go very fast along this section, I wouldn't be surprised to see 50+kph. However the road has multiple lane dividers and the occasional roundabout so its key not to get carried away and keep a safe line. Once into St Jorioz the turn to the first climb is not far away and comes very abruptly at (I think I recall the second) roundabout. There are 2 pharmacies on the right beforehand. The second is next to a Gendarmarie. This is the time to get ready for upcoming roundabout and sharp right turn.
   After the roundabout, the road quickly narrows. I would expect this to be a big pinch point. So if I were riding the event  I would plan to stay on extreme left on approach and go the “wrong” way round the roundabout on the expectation most will follow the inside line.
   Distance: 5.2kmTime: 0:09:50 AVS: 31.7kph
    
2. Cote De Puget:  The climb has a couple of false starts, rising then levelling. It kicks off for real just after the end of the long brownish speed hump, which is also the point were it funnels into a slightly narrow lane. The climb varies in pitch, the steepest section comes just after the 3km road marker when the road bears left into a wood. It hits 10% here so will likely result in some bouchons, maybe dismounts. After this section it stays pretty constant until just before the end. The climb actually finishes in Puget but levels out in a small village, Paterier, just before. If the chance to eat hasn't already come this would be a good time to do so, then attack the final couple of bends, not pausing at the official top, which many will no doubt do. 
   Distance: 6.1km Time: 21:03 AVS: 17.5kph Power: 283W(87%FTP) Peak HR 160bpm Cum Dist: 11.3km Official Distance 15.5km Cum Time: 00:30:53
3. Puget Descent: Very short, it goes down quite steeply to some hairpins. Look out for a give way sign, quickly after you take a left straight uphill, so need to have preselected your climbing gear. There will be little if opportunity to pedal during this descent so simplest may be just stay in gear from previous climb. 
   Distance: 1.4km Time: 0:02:17 AVS: 36.9kph 
   Cum Dist: 12.8km Cum Time: 0:33:10
4. Col de Leschaux: Short section from the junction is probably worth attacking hard since there is a short respite after a couple of bends as you enter a village and pass its Marie. Past this the climb is quite constant up hairpins on good road. This may be the ideal time to find a group for the next phase. The end of the climb comes when you can see/go past the bar in the smalll hamlet on top of the hill even though the “real” end may be signed a bit later. 
   Distance: 3.7km Time: 0:13:48 AVS: 16.1kph Power: 284W (87%FTP) Peak HR 157bpm 
   Cum Dist: 16.5km Official Distance 22.5km Cum Time: 0:46:58
    
5. Transition to Aillon Vieux: Quite a long section with some lumps in it. There are a few hard efforts, most noticeably 1.5km@5% at around km 28 or so. During the tour stage proper the sprint will take place at Le Chatelard, so appropriately there are a couple of big ring climbs just after turning left onto the road approaching it and in the centre of the village itself. 
   Distance: 20.3km Time: 0:52:39 AVS: 23.2kph 
   Cum Dist: 36.8km Cum Time: 01:39:37 
    
6. Aillon Vieux climb: Not really a climb in the traditional sense and quite forgettable. If you are in a good group it's quite possible you may get well into this before you even realise you are on it as you will be moving fast and the gradient is not very severe. To make things even easier the climb is in 2 parts, a 3km section and a 2km section with a flat 1km in between. 
   Distance: 5.6km Time: 0:17:15 AVS: 19.5kph Power: 271W (83%FTP) Peak HR 154bpm 
   Cum Dist: 42.4km Official Distance 46km Cum Time: 01:56:52
7. Transition to Col de Pres: short section, slightly rolling. Groups should stick together through this. 
   Distance: 4.8km Time: 0:13:45 AVS: 20.9kph 
   Cum Dist: 47.2km Cum Time: 02:10:37
8. Col de Pres: A real climb, this does a couple of hairpins then continues straight on in a long drag, albeit meandering slightly, to the summit. Groups may break up on this ascent and I would not worry if this happens. This is the last short climb and one to be enjoyed. 
   Distance: 3.6km Time: 0:14:16 AVS: 15.2kph Power: 290W (89%FTP) Peak HR:158bpm 
   Cum Dist: 50.8km Official Distance 53.5km Cum Time:02:24:53
9. Descent from Pres: First of two major descents. Views are breathtaking, road surface at top may be as well. Nonetheless it starts with some long straight runs, so bumps aside is quite safe, then changes to hairpins when the surface gets better too. No section is hugely technical so hopefully it will be something to enjoy. 
   Distance: 9.3km Time:0:15:16 AVS: 37.0 kph 
   Cum Dist: 60.1km Cum Time: 02:39:59
10. Transition to Mont Revard: The descent ends a bit painfully with a 1km climb at 8%. Then its pretty easy for a short until the sharp branch right onto the Mont Revard climb. 
    Distance: 2.8km Time: 0:11:00 AVS: 15.2kph 
    Cum Dist: 62.9km Cum Time:02:50:59
11. Mont Revard: First big climb of the ride. The main things about it are the length, over 16km, and that it may also be quite hot as there is little shade. It most likely will also coincide with you starting to run short of pre-stored fuel so it will test eating/drinking approach (at the start of this climb I burned around 1800kcal and it took a further 950 or so to complete.) The gradient is easy and there are some flat sections at around 4km,10km and 14km. Ideal for this will be to find a group and work with them which will be easier than on steeper climbs as pace will be pretty steady and with chances to regroup on the flat bits. 
    Distance: 16.4kph Time:0:59:46 AVS:% 16.5kph Power: 260W (80%FTP) Peak HR 159bpm 
    Cum Dist: 79.3km Offical Distance 81km Cum Time: 03:50:45
12. Descent from Revard: Another wonderful descent with better road surface than the first and not at all technical. 
    Distance: 13.3km Time: 0:21:15 AVS: 37.6kph 
    Cum Dist: 92.6km Cum Time: 04:12:00
13. Transition to final climb: This section is quite long and rolling. As with other such sections it will be much easier in the company of others. 
    Distance: 24.1km Time: 01:16:06 AVS: 19.1kph 
    Cum Dist: 116.7km Cum Time: 05:28:06
14. Final climb Annecy Semnoz: This caught me out. The ascent towards the climb proper starts from 13km to go and there is not much pause between that and the climb itself. So it's probably best to get into climbing routine as soon as you start going uphill. The climb proper is in 3 parts and, right foot pain aside, I really enjoyed it as its full of challenge/contrast.
    
    
    • Steep section at the bottom Sections at 13% with hairpins best taken wide.
    • Following a short flatter section a contant 8.5% through forest which means much is in shade. The climb also widens at this point so there should be plenty of room.
    • From memory, once the forest clears the end is around 2km or so away,.  
    View once you arrive is stunning and well earned. There were no other riders apart from myself on the climb but I did have plenty of company in the form of flies. Hopefully there will not be too many of these on the day itself. 
    Distance: 11.5km Time: 01:02:18 AVS: 11.1kph Power: 237W (73%FTP) Peak HR 152bpm 
    Cum Dist: 128.2km Offical Distance 128km Cum Time: 06:30:24

Comparison to other events

Several have commented, including myself, that this years etape looks relatively "easy" (or more accurately "not hard") compared to previous ones and similar events.  Having ridden the course I'd be inclined to adjust my views a little.

In terms of out and out "hardness" 130km with 3500m of climbing isn't as tough as the 170km and 5000m climbing of the Marmotte or previous etapes.  However the intensity ramps up at the start and doesn't let off much from there on. There are no flat sections apart from the first few km, the only long rest will be during the two descents which are comparatively short. If sun shines then much of the course will be hot especially Mont Revard. And the final climb is longer and harder than the official profile albeit it should give some relief from the sun if that's a factor. 

For those who's main aim is to finish then I think this probably is a little easier than normal. However if aiming for a fast time then the near non-stop intensity may make things pretty tough. 


Will be interesting to see. As already mentioned if reading this and plan to do the event itself, hope you find it helpful and I'd be very interested in hearing how things go.