Advice on Tempo Rides

Shadescp

Hi,


ive recently started doing time trials and so for the first time have been reading up on heart rate zones, tempo and interval training etc. The guides I have suggest to do a minimum of four sessions per week:

1. long, slow distance ride ( train to burn fat). upto75% maxHR
2. turbo session - short intense 1 minute intervals ( to increase Lactate Tolerance). upto 95% MaxHR
3. turbo session - slightly longer 5 minute interval sessions (to increase Vo2max + Lactate Tolerance). 92% Max HR
4. Tempo / Pace rides - brisk ride to increase V02 max. ..80-90% max HR?

* I'm pretty sure about 1,2 and 3. but what exactly do you do in a Tempo ride? It seems to vary so much. I guess options are: just push at my time trial heart rate for as long as I can, do 2x20 minutes at max sustainable heart rate, hit the hills on my MTB or do my local time trial course which starts outside my front door...

* In Spring, when club rides get faster does this then become your tempo ride? Do you then drop the long, slow riding.

* Would you advise to start on tempo then add intervals later?

* Can you do a tempo ride on a turbo trainer?


Apologies for all the questions and thanks for any pointers.

BeaconRuth

Shadescp wrote:

Hi,
4. Tempo / Pace rides - brisk ride to increase V02 max. ..80-90% max HR?

* I'm pretty sure about 1,2 and 3. but what exactly do you do in a Tempo ride? It seems to vary so much. I guess options are: just push at my time trial heart rate for as long as I can, do 2x20 minutes at max sustainable heart rate, hit the hills on my MTB or do my local time trial course which starts outside my front door...

* In Spring, when club rides get faster does this then become your tempo ride? Do you then drop the long, slow riding.

* Would you advise to start on tempo then add intervals later?

* Can you do a tempo ride on a turbo trainer?

Firstly "tempo" rides are critical to your fitness - you need to get this one sorted out as a priority! Your range of 80%-90% maxHR is a bit too high though - tempo is more usually considered to be 75%-85% maxHR. Tempo rides are usually evenly paced rides up to 2 hours in length. No special course or conditions are required - just ride for 2 hours holding your HR around 80%. It's not a flat-out effort, but it is a sustained brisk effort - and it's excellent training that you should do all year round, though you may do more during a winter base phase.

You can easily do tempo work on a turbo - up to an hour at a steady HR of about 80%. Very boring but very effective!

Ruth Eyles
www.rutheyles.co.uk/

Ric_Stern/RST

The term "tempo" is in the most part a loose description that has multiple meanings depending on the person using the term. I've found that it's meaning varies depending not only on the coutry in which it's being used, but regional locations as well.

I've seen people use the term to describe both moderate intensity work and low intensity work.

For myself, when i rarely use the word, i use it to describe a level of training, which in terms of heart rate are for 80 - 85% HRmax (this is the zone 3 i use, if i use HR training prescription).

Some other pointers with your other terms:

1) while fat is oxidised at a higher relative % at low intensity exercise (e.g. 75% HRmax) total energy expenditure is higher at higher intensity (compared to lower intensity), which is important to note if weight management is your goal, or one of your goals. Additionally, training at higher, rather than lower intensities increases mitochondrial density, and increases lactate threshold and VO2max. At a given exercise intensity, more fat is oxidised the higher your lactate threshold and VO2 max.

2) Lactate increases as (relative) intensity increases. However, contrary to popular thinking, or what has previously been written in the lay press lactate is a fuel source, without which we'd fatigue at a faster rate.

3) To target VO2max (which is an important metric) it's not necessarily possible to give it an exact figure of "92% HRmax". It will be *very* dependent on the person concerned, and will critically also depend on the recent acute training that has been undertaken by that person (as in times of fatigue, HR response can be very depressed)

Ric

Shadescp wrote:

Hi,


ive recently started doing time trials and so for the first time have been reading up on heart rate zones, tempo and interval training etc. The guides I have suggest to do a minimum of four sessions per week:

1. long, slow distance ride ( train to burn fat). upto75% maxHR
2. turbo session - short intense 1 minute intervals ( to increase Lactate Tolerance). upto 95% MaxHR
3. turbo session - slightly longer 5 minute interval sessions (to increase Vo2max + Lactate Tolerance). 92% Max HR
4. Tempo / Pace rides - brisk ride to increase V02 max. ..80-90% max HR?

* I'm pretty sure about 1,2 and 3. but what exactly do you do in a Tempo ride? It seems to vary so much. I guess options are: just push at my time trial heart rate for as long as I can, do 2x20 minutes at max sustainable heart rate, hit the hills on my MTB or do my local time trial course which starts outside my front door...

* In Spring, when club rides get faster does this then become your tempo ride? Do you then drop the long, slow riding.

* Would you advise to start on tempo then add intervals later?

* Can you do a tempo ride on a turbo trainer?


Apologies for all the questions and thanks for any pointers.

SteveR_100Milers

I'm a believer in RPE, so my idea of "tempo" is sustainable pace for a 100 TT. I'll let you know on Monday if I was right.......

chrisw12

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm a believer in RPE, so my idea of "tempo" is sustainable pace for a 100 TT. I'll let you know on Monday if I was right.......

I think that Steve has found out that during a RACE even over 100 miles, you can go more than tempo. Right Steve?


Tempo is probably more like a 12hr sustainable pace perhaps.

SteveR_100Milers

here's the stats:

Against my estimated MHR of 171 BPM (though I have never seen more than 161):

Av HR = 134 = 81%
max = 148 = 89%

so numerically above tempo, but only just. My RPE was miles away from that of a 25 or even a 50, where that extra bit of effort pushes me into the dark areas of LT threshold. I did just plan to ride tempo, but somehow I just got carried away with the excitement of it all....

Time in zones:

Z1 14 secs (50-60%)
Z2 1 m 28 (60-70%)
Z3 1 hr 8 m 26 secs (70-80%)
Z4 3hr 27m 42s (80-90%)
Z5 0 (!) (painful)

BeaconRuth

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

here's the stats:

Against my estimated MHR of 171 BPM (though I have never seen more than 161):

Av HR = 134 = 81%
max = 148 = 89%

so numerically above tempo, but only just. My RPE was miles away from that of a 25 or even a 50, where that extra bit of effort pushes me into the dark areas of LT threshold. I did just plan to ride tempo, but somehow I just got carried away with the excitement of it all....

Time in zones:

Z1 14 secs (50-60%)
Z2 1 m 28 (60-70%)
Z3 1 hr 8 m 26 secs (70-80%)
Z4 3hr 27m 42s (80-90%)
Z5 0 (!) (painful)

S*d all that - what time did you do?!!

TechnoBuddhist

:shock: I need more Z4 work! Unless my MHR is not as high as I think it is :roll:

3:27:42 +
1:08:26 +
0:01:28 +
0:00:14

---

4:37:50 if my maths is still ok
======

chrisw12

Sorry for the late reply to this perhaps dead thread (I've been on hols.) but as this thread seems to have the attention of Ruth and Ric, I'm starting to wonder about my numbers.

My max hr is 184 measured at the track and I've been close to this on numerous occasions so I'm pretty sure it's correct (or in the ballpark.) My figures for the 100 were:-

Zones 1,2 and 3 a total of approx 45 seconds.
Zone 4 1hr 55min (80-90%)
Zone 5 2hr 23min (90-100%)

Is it normal to be able to ride this long at level 5? Could my relative ability to ride for so long at level 5 explain why I am unable to sprint/change pace and explain why my ten times are relatively poor?

Ric_Stern/RST

Hi Chris,

It looks like your zones are set incorrectly... i'm presuming you stayed in zone 5 for some sort of continuous periods of time, and 2hrs plus would be beyond the limits of human physiology. For e.g., well-trained cyclists can manage ~ 90% HRmax for ~1-hr (this will equate to about ~90% VO2max).

My guess is that your zones are set too low. Or it was an extremely hot day, and you were very well rested.

Ric

chrisw12 wrote:

Sorry for the late reply to this perhaps dead thread (I've been on hols.) but as this thread seems to have the attention of Ruth and Ric, I'm starting to wonder about my numbers.

My max hr is 184 measured at the track and I've been close to this on numerous occasions so I'm pretty sure it's correct (or in the ballpark.) My figures for the 100 were:-

Zones 1,2 and 3 a total of approx 45 seconds.
Zone 4 1hr 55min (80-90%)
Zone 5 2hr 23min (90-100%)

Is it normal to be able to ride this long at level 5? Could my relative ability to ride for so long at level 5 explain why I am unable to sprint/change pace and explain why my ten times are relatively poor?

chrisw12

I'm now confused/worried that I'm a genetic freak. The data was from a 100 mile tt and so I was in 'zone 5' for some considerable amount of continuous time. The event took place in sunny South Wales so draw your own conclusions about the 'extremely hot day'. I was well rested as I'd tapered for the event.

If my hr zones are wrong, is this because my max hr number is wrong? I'd very much doudt that it is though, as I've seen this sort of number on numerous occasions under different conditions where I'd expect to see a max.

BeaconRuth

chrisw12 wrote:

If my hr zones are wrong, is this because my max hr number is wrong? I'd very much doudt that it is though, as I've seen this sort of number on numerous occasions under different conditions where I'd expect to see a max.

Have you ever done a max HR test? If not then it's quite possible that 184 isn't your max. I spent quite some years of doing pretty specific and thorough training in the belief that my max HR was 184 (uncannily the same HR as you). This included many many intensive interval sessions and hard rides. But when I actually did a proper, controlled maxHR test I managed to push my HR up to 189.

I'm not trying to say you should rush out and do a proper maxHR test - knowing precisely your max isn't really all that critical. To within a few beats will do for most training purposes. I wouldn't get too hung up about all these zones and stuff either. Whether you were in Zone 4 or in Zone 5, does it matter? You rode a great 100. Unless you feel you made any big mistakes in pacing it I don't think you'll benefit much from analysing what your HR was up to.

Ruth
www.rutheyles.co.uk/

chrisw12

You've hit the nail on the head (again) I was going to put a sentence in at the end that this was all hypothetical tbh. I'm quite happy with where everything is regarding zones intensitypacing now,for me, I was just interested in Steve's figures and then what Ric said about only being in zone 5 for say upto 1 hour. It would be interesting to see people's data for long tt's and see what percentage of time people spend at say >90%

ut_och_cykla

Like Ric and others suggest your assumed max is probabaly not right.

I'm 47 - my MAx should be 173 but I often see it at 182 and have seen it as high as 189. However until now I've never fully trusted this result as I've never deliberately pushed myself for a max test.

On my ride up Alpe Dhuez I had an average over 2 hours of 164 and spent nearly all of that time between 157 and 170.

Big diffs according to % if I assume a 173 max 164 would be almost 95% but assuming it is 189 gives a more plausibel (and doable!) 87%.

Make of this what you will. There are probably quiet a few people who are 'under performing' by keeping their HR too low (and a similar number who are over doing things by training at levels that are too high?)

For non-competitors I think a 20 min all out averagerecommended elsewhere is a better HR guide but I can't remember the details of the zones just now :oops:

Ric_Stern/RST

chrisw12 wrote:

I'm now confused/worried that I'm a genetic freak. The data was from a 100 mile tt and so I was in 'zone 5' for some considerable amount of continuous time. The event took place in sunny South Wales so draw your own conclusions about the 'extremely hot day'. I was well rested as I'd tapered for the event.

If my hr zones are wrong, is this because my max hr number is wrong? I'd very much doudt that it is though, as I've seen this sort of number on numerous occasions under different conditions where I'd expect to see a max.

To clarify, i've only ever seen my HRmax occur once in a race (when we finished up a ~1.6 km steep climb and i rode away from everyone) and only a couple of times in training. It only really ever occurs when doing maximal testing.

Ric

Jeff Jones

BeaconRuth wrote:

chrisw12 wrote:

If my hr zones are wrong, is this because my max hr number is wrong? I'd very much doudt that it is though, as I've seen this sort of number on numerous occasions under different conditions where I'd expect to see a max.

Have you ever done a max HR test? If not then it's quite possible that 184 isn't your max. I spent quite some years of doing pretty specific and thorough training in the belief that my max HR was 184 (uncannily the same HR as you). This included many many intensive interval sessions and hard rides. But when I actually did a proper, controlled maxHR test I managed to push my HR up to 189.

Ditto. For years, I thought mine was 189, and anything above 170 was very difficult to attain. But with hindsight, I think all that time I was just a little overtrained.

After a few years' break from racing then a couple more getting back into it again, I attacked with 1km to go in a hard crit and stayed away. I hit 197 when I looked just after the line, and finally realised what I could do when fresh. I also hit 194 in a VO2 test last year (had more left, but was asked to stop).

Now I find that I can TT at 178-182 for up to an hour, maybe a little longer. I remember racing (not a TT) on a really hot day a couple of years ago and averaging 180 for 2 hours. That was difficult. I hate it how the heat pushes your HR up but you don't go any quicker!

hambones

A difference of just a few bpm between perceived maxHR and actual tested maxHR isn't going to make much difference to your training zones. Where there may be a huge discrepancy this would be a different matter of course.

bahzob

As above discussions show using HR is a bit hit and miss. My advice, invest in a power meter and a copy of Cycle Peaks software.

Then you will be able to measure and train for what you really want to achieve which at the end of the day is being able to maximise+pace your power output for your chosen target event.

BeaconRuth

bahzob wrote:

As above discussions show using HR is a bit hit and miss. My advice, invest in a power meter and a copy of Cycle Peaks software.

Then you will be able to measure and train for what you really want to achieve which at the end of the day is being able to maximise+pace your power output for your chosen target event.

My point was that knowing your max HR to within a few beats is accurate enough for most people to get an awfully long way with their fitness and performance. A more accurate method such as using a powermeter is therefore far from being a necessity, even though some people prefer it.

Many very good cyclists have measured and trained for what they really want to achieve - and achieved it - without a power meter.

Ruth
www.rutheyles.co.uk/

chrisw12

bahzob wrote:

As above discussions show using HR is a bit hit and miss. My advice, invest in a power meter and a copy of Cycle Peaks software.

Then you will be able to measure and train for what you really want to achieve which at the end of the day is being able to maximise+pace your power output for your chosen target event.

Advice to who?

Out of interest have you tried pacing a long event using power alone?

ut_och_cykla

Surely whatever you use (power/HR) is dependent on needs and budget?
HRMs - using 'correct' info- are a useful, relativley cheap tool but lots of people ride fast/far even without them !
Power measurement may be more accurate but as I understand its more expensive adn needs to be fitted in a wheel or BB - perhasp not everyone wants to go this far.

To use HRM as a tool you need a good estimate of your max or at least threshold. The 220 -age calculation doesn't work for me - its about 15 beats out- but its good enough for someone just starting off on a fitness plan.

Also remember that some posters on training are not just 'happy amateurs' - they are people in the 'fitness business' who are probably agents for various products they want to sell. This isn't a problem but will naturally colour the advice the give.

bahzob

Just on above points:
> Have I ever paced long events on power alone:
>> Yes. In fact that thats one of the benefits (IMO) of using power. I use my power meter for pacing all my events from 10TT to 200K sportive. e.g on sportives. With a bit of experience you can look at the profile of an unfamiliar ride and plan how you will tackle in advance (e.g. climb this hill at 280W, aim for 210W average power overall). As a specx it meant that on the last climb of the Black Mountains tour I aimed for a steady 265W and was passing rather than being passed. This is even more the case on long climbs abroad. e.g. on recent trip acrosss the Dolomites the opportunity to tackle Zoncalon at the end of a long day presented itself. From my power figures at the early stages of the climb I was confident I could pace myself and get to the top without stopping.

Not only this but having a power meter helps you pace yourself better for the future. e.g. now I have the power record of my ride up the Zoncalon I will be able to "recreate" it on my turbo in the depths of winter. Not only will this help with motivation but hopefully it will mean a the next opportunity to go up it I will do so faster. Having the HR record wouldn't allow this. As pointed out above its subject to a number of variables so cant necessarily be translated from a warm day in Italy to a cold garage in the UK.

> I am a happy amateur who has newly returned to cycling in late forties. My Powertap (including a Swiss DT rear wheel) cost me £850. CyclePeaks cost £70. I regard this as good value compared to other ways to spend cycling cash. In fact for me it saves money. I do time trials but on my normal road bike. I do these for fun and my times are secondary, my main goals being to set power PBs. As a result I dont feel the need to buy TT speed (disc wheels, special bike etc etc).

chrisw12

Bahzob: I had a powertap for one year (unfortunately bought from lbs, I should have gone to Ric) and found the thing unreliable, when it worked it was great but...That year, unfortunately looking back coincided with me having a few bad illnesses so perhaps I'm being a bit unfair on my evaluation of power meters. Your response reminds me a lot of my initial enthusiasm but I'd like to discus some of the points you bring up.

Pacing on long events. How do you know you've got it right? You can do all the maths (and believe me I've been there.) to come up with that magic number but at the end of the day, how do you know you couldn't have gone a bit harder. What I'm trying to say is, we under estimate the brain in this respect, I feel that experience along with a slight look at hr has been a far superior pacing stratergy for me.

Pacing on hills, you are quite correct, it is too easy to overcook them, but there again I think experience with an eye on hr can also stop you doing this, I don't think you necassarily need a power meter for this. You almost make it sound like you wouldn't have got up the hills if you didn't have a power meter.


Now the final point. I know that tt'ing is a very personal experience and will mean different tings for different people but I think you are missing the point if your goal is just to set power pb's, the sport is so much more richer than that.

Ric_Stern/RST

chrisw12 wrote:

Bahzob: I had a powertap for one year (unfortunately bought from lbs, I should have gone to Ric) and found the thing unreliable, when it worked it was great but...That year, unfortunately looking back coincided with me having a few bad illnesses so perhaps I'm being a bit unfair on my evaluation of power meters. Your response reminds me a lot of my initial enthusiasm but I'd like to discus some of the points you bring up.

yes you should have! Best UK prices, and if anything goes wrong we'll *try* to get you a spare while yours is being repaired (and i think i've had 3 returns in the last two years)

Pacing on long events. How do you know you've got it right? You can do all the maths (and believe me I've been there.) to come up with that magic number but at the end of the day, how do you know you couldn't have gone a bit harder. What I'm trying to say is, we under estimate the brain in this respect, I feel that experience along with a slight look at hr has been a far superior pacing stratergy for me.

i use power to pace myself, along with percieved exertion. HR is useless. But, to clarify there is no magic *number*, it would always be number*s*... if you've trained hard enough (i.e., you don't sandbag your hard efforts) then you can predict pretty well what you can do in a TT (or RR etc). Unlike HR which can be all over the show (for e.g., if i TT on two consecutive days, my power can be the same; yet my HR can vary wildly - by as much as 10 - 15 b/min)

Pacing on hills, you are quite correct, it is too easy to overcook them, but there again I think experience with an eye on hr can also stop you doing this, I don't think you necassarily need a power meter for this.

i don't believe that there is any evidence you can prevent yourself overcooking it by looking at HR. The lag on it changing is too much for the vast majority of people

Ric

p.s. for the others, yes, i do sell power meters, but i'd make the same recommendation (to purchase one) whether i sold them or not. Although coaching with a power meter is considerably more time consuming (because power data means something) it is considerably more effective (as you can be highly specific in your training) and makes coaching that much more effecyive between athlete and coach (i can essentially see exactly what the rider has done, whereas with HR you can't because so many more issues affect HR than just the intensity/power you are riding at).

bahzob

Chris: Hope my Powertap wont go the same way. Its one of the newer wireless ones and I believe from reports I have read that they are an improvement on the earlier wired up ones.

Re: pacing and how do I know I've got it right? Thats why I like a power meter so much. It gives me an objective measure of what "right" is. I am 48 and not a would be pro nor harbour TT medal hopes. So "right" is not finishing first. And I ride in a very mixed bag of events from 10TTs to long sportives to multi-day tours on the continent. I guess "right" could be just finishing, achieving a gold or a course time PB but these are too easy and/or dependent on variables like the weather, size/experience of field, whim of the organiser, mechanical, fellow group riders etc.

So "right" for me at the moment is setting a power target for an event and beating it. This is my first year using a power meter. In coming years I will have the challenge of beating my power for events I repeat and overall fighting the march of time by improving (and I guess sadly one year or other simply maintaining) my power curve from 5 secs to 7 hours. To do achieve this of course I have to use RPE but I find having a specific independent goal to chase helps me push harder. It certainly did a couple of nights ago when the second 5 miles of a 10TT were uphill into a headwind.

Other benefits of this approach I have found thus far:
> Punctures are a pain but when they happen they have less impact on hitting a target than, say if I had my heart set on a top 20 finish and the damn thing happens 5 miles from home.
> When in a (seems to be common) sportive group where only 20% of the riders seem to want to be at the front I dont get too bothered as leading helps my up my power average.
> If its wet and windy it doesnt matter so much
> Incidentally if you improve your power you usually go faster so I end up setting satisfying times/getting golds as well.