Training area to avoid
John C.
Posts: 2,113
Can some one tell me what is the Heart rate area I have to avoid during training ? (for both rollers and outdoor)
I know the bulk has to be below 75% max
some has to be power sprint work in betwean 80-90%
And some will have to be easy under 60%.
But where is the training area that gives no gain that I so often hear about?
I know the bulk has to be below 75% max
some has to be power sprint work in betwean 80-90%
And some will have to be easy under 60%.
But where is the training area that gives no gain that I so often hear about?
0
Comments
-
anything below about 75% in healthy, trained cyclists -- as it would be too low to cause any physiological adaptations. (there's exceptions to this, e.g., after period of detraining).
Anything above 75% will start to cause physiological adaptations. Whether they're the correct ones for you will be dependent upon your training time availability, and your goals, etc.
RicProfessional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
Here we go, Ric's on a mission to provoke an argument again. I've never heard such rubbish. Anything lower than 75% maxHR is too low to cause any physiological adaptions? :shock:
- John, there isn't a HR to avoid - it's all good, as long as you balance the right intensity with the right duration and the right recovery.
- You don't have to do the bulk of your training below 75% maxHR - it really depends on how much time you have and what your objectives are.
- You don't necessarily have to do sprint work (again, it depends on your objectives) but if you did, it would be best to do it without a HRM. The time delay for your HR to catch up with your effort makes it virtually useless for sprint work.
- You don't have to do any less than 60% maxHR - this would be recovery rides only, and unless you've embarked on some very specific and intensive training, there isn't really any need to do 'recovery rides' IMO.
It's a shame it's not possible to retract unwise concepts like the 'dead zone' or whatever whoever coined it called it. I'd be surprised if the originator didn't wish he'd never mentioned it.
Ruth0 -
From a coaching point of view it is by using heart rate zones that you can identify the levels of effort that produce different physological adaptations so that a training schedule can be planned for an individual or for yourself if you do not have a coach.
You need a plan, and that plan should include ridiong some steady state basic miles . How much depends on the number of hours you are prepared to devote to training.
75% MHR or less would apply to steady state basic miles.
If you can only train for 4 hours or less a week then a higher level of effort would be sensible 80-90% MHR for most of that time.
I don't use a HRM on the road but rely on RPE to guage my level of intensity, but when I train indoors I use a HRM for intervals of 1 minute or longer, but when it comes to my 30 second sprints I only look at the HRM at the end of the last effort ( to see if I'm still alive)
0 -
I don't think he's doing that, just stating a fact. I would call this recovery zone.BeaconRuth wrote:Here we go, Ric's on a mission to provoke an argument again. I've never heard such rubbish. Anything lower than 75% maxHR is too low to cause any physiological adaptions? :shock:
To quote Dr Coggan "Easy spinning" or "light pedal pressure", i.e., very low level exercise, too low in and of itself to induce significant physiological adaptations. Minimal sensation of leg effort/fatigue. Requires no concentration to maintain pace, and continuous conversation possible. Typically used for active recovery after strenuous training days (or races), between interval efforts, or for socializing.
If a trained cyclist wants to get substantially fitter, then they'll need to regularly ride at 75%+ MHR.
Agree - the "No Man's Land" phrase has been used to describe that level between endurance riding and TT level riding, when in fact this "in-betweeen" level can be one of the most productive and is the meat and potatos of a trained cyclists regime.BeaconRuth wrote:It's a shame it's not possible to retract unwise concepts like the 'dead zone' or whatever whoever coined it called it. I'd be surprised if the originator didn't wish he'd never mentioned it.0 -
So if I trained for 4 hours at 70% there would be no physiological adaptions?Mañana0
-
Presuming you are a trained cyclist, not a lot of benefit there. You'd be much better off doing 2-2.5 hrs at 75-80% MHR.pb21 wrote:So if I trained for 4 hours at 70% there would be no physiological adaptions?
But if you're not a trained cyclist then almost any riding will help. All it'll do is help you ride 4 hours really easy and maybe get you used to being on a bike saddle that long.0 -
I seam to have opened a can of worms here.
OK more details I'm nearly 50, 5'5" and 9 stone 7 lbs.
I've been cycling for about 10 years and enjoy long hilly rides , I did the Etap du Dales route last year and I would like to do the Fred Witton and the Rydale Rumble next year (Both 110 milers and 3500m+ of climb).
During the winter I'll probably do two hour sessions indoors and a 2-3 hour ride around the North York Moors most weeks. I have a local 21 mile route that I ride with hills and my best time is 1hour 4 minutes.
At the moment my indoor on rollers sessions are a mix of the training in the cycling + mag
warm up 5 min,5 mins at 75%with 10second sprints on the min, then 15 minutes of 60 candice in a high gear which has a HR of 75% I then go up to 80% rising to max over the next 3 mins then easy 2 mins rising to 75% for 2 mins then back up again , repeated 3 times then cool down.
Hope that makes some sense.
My real question is, is what I'm doing going to keep my fitness over winter and put me in a reasonable state to attempt these challenging rides. I realise that come spring I will need to do longer rides.
Many thanks for all your help.0 -
As an experienced and presumably fit rider I think you could afford to to increase the levels of effort on the indoor stuff aiming at longer steady state intervals rather than short sharp peaks. The much touted 20min interval at a level as hard as you can hold for 20 minutes would be good. You could try doing them at different cadences on different evenings - anything that is different from your normal rate. For teh rest of teh hour you could do the low cadence stuff one evening and the short peaks the other evening - at least this would give you some variation
but perhaps others have better ideas 0 -
Alex, why are you quoting Coggan's description of 'Active Recovery' despite the fact that riding at a level of 70-75%maxHR is a lot higher than active recovery? Why are you spreading such mis-information and invoking the gospel according to Coggan against completely the wrong training intensity?Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:To quote Dr Coggan "Easy spinning" or "light pedal pressure", i.e., very low level exercise, too low in and of itself to induce significant physiological adaptations. Minimal sensation of leg effort/fatigue. Requires no concentration to maintain pace, and continuous conversation possible. Typically used for active recovery after strenuous training days (or races), between interval efforts, or for socializing.
Of course that's true, who said that wasn't the case?If a trained cyclist wants to get substantially fitter, then they'll need to regularly ride at 75%+ MHR.
Ruth0 -
Ruth, didn't you know? It's all about Power.
Facts (according to the RST lot)
My old granny has got enough strength to get out of the saddle or sit down to push the pedals around while climbing Alp D'Huez. (RST Fact : strength is unimportant)
Going fast on a bike is entirely about CV fitness. (funny how runners can't immediately translate their CV fitness to cycling, and rowers adapt to cycling very easily)
Pedal technique doesn't matter. (runners have CV fitness so should just be able to get on a bike and push down on the pedals and go fast)
Rate of cadence is a red herring (Funny how 4K pursuiters pick a gear to maintain a level of cadence that translates to their target time).
Power, Power, Power !!!! Nothing else matters !!!
They are right becuase they say they are right and what do we know about anything? We might have won the odd race or 200 but we haven't a clue about how to train. :?0 -
I don't think that Alex is arguing, but just stating a fact.BeaconRuth wrote:
Of course that's true, who said that wasn't the case?If a trained cyclist wants to get substantially fitter, then they'll need to regularly ride at 75%+ MHR.
In doing so, he's answering the question that John C started the thread with. That's assuming he asked the question because he wants to get substantially fitter? :roll:0 -
John C, I agree with Ut_och_cykla. If you only have a couple of hours to train each week then try to aim for longer durations of higher intensity. Up to an hour at 80%maxHR should be perfectly possible if you build up to it gradually, and 20 min intervals for anything between 85%-90%maxHR would do you a lot of good.
Ruth0 -
On our Saturday club rides I sometimes go with the A group and that would probably be 3 to 3.5 hours at 80% (and normally getting dropped after 2.5 hours). Mostly I go with the B group and that is typically 4 hours at 75% not getting dropped, spending a fair amount of time on the front. That's the only long ride I get in a week, which is best for me ?0
-
What are you training for and what other training do you do? Do you normally rest on Sundays?xover_runner wrote:On our Saturday club rides I sometimes go with the A group and that would probably be 3 to 3.5 hours at 80% (and normally getting dropped after 2.5 hours). Mostly I go with the B group and that is typically 4 hours at 75% not getting dropped, spending a fair amount of time on the front. That's the only long ride I get in a week, which is best for me ?
Ruth0 -
I never said 70-75% MHR was Active Recovery.BeaconRuth wrote:Alex, why are you quoting Coggan's description of 'Active Recovery' despite the fact that riding at a level of 70-75%maxHR is a lot higher than active recovery? Why are you spreading such mis-information and invoking the gospel according to Coggan against completely the wrong training intensity?
I was asked if I thought 4hrs at 70% MHR would have any physiological impact. It's too low to do much good other than learn to ride long s l o w miles and he would be much better off riding less time at a higher intensity (given winter, restricted time available and riding indoors). I think we have all agreed on that?
Since we are hung up on 70-75% MHR I would call that borderline recovery/real easy riding/low level endurance with minimal physiological impacts, compared to zones above 75% MHR. Of course it's a continuum and no impact is discrete at a certain HR %.
Nobody (see above I think we all agree on this) but it was starting to sound like all this pussying around at low HR (<70%) is gunna be productive training, when for the most part it's a waste of time. Junk miles.BeaconRuth wrote:Of course that's true, who said that wasn't the case?0 -
You posted this:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
I never said 70-75% MHR was Active Recovery.BeaconRuth wrote:Alex, why are you quoting Coggan's description of 'Active Recovery' despite the fact that riding at a level of 70-75%maxHR is a lot higher than active recovery? Why are you spreading such mis-information and invoking the gospel according to Coggan against completely the wrong training intensity?
before pb21 or anyone else mentioned <70%maxHR. Your words imply very clearly that you consider all riding at intensities lower that 75%maxHR to be in the recovery zone and you quoted Coggan's description of 'Active Recovery' to back it up. This is utter nonsense. I agree that <70%maxHR is getting a bit too low, but 70-75%maxHR is classic endurance riding and even Coggan lists the physiological adaptions that can be expected from it i.e. increased mitchrondrial levels and greater capillarization.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
I don't think he's doing that, just stating a fact. I would call this recovery zone.BeaconRuth wrote:Here we go, Ric's on a mission to provoke an argument again. I've never heard such rubbish. Anything lower than 75% maxHR is too low to cause any physiological adaptions? Shocked
To quote Dr Coggan "Easy spinning" or "light pedal pressure", i.e., very low level
exercise, too low in and of itself to induce significant physiological adaptations. Minimal sensation of leg effort/fatigue. Requires no concentration to maintain pace, and continuous conversation possible. Typically used for active recovery after strenuous training days (or races), between interval efforts, or for socializing".
It really depends what other training he's doing, what time he has available and most importantly what are his aims. Do we know he is in the UK, he has restricted time and is only riding indoors? Maybe pb21 has a major endurance challenge ahead of him, for which many hours in the saddle will be required?I was asked if I thought 4hrs at 70% MHR would have any physiological impact. It's too low to do much good other than learn to ride long s l o w miles and he would be much better off riding less time at a higher intensity (given winter, restricted time available and riding indoors). I think we have all agreed on that?
I'm not disagreeing that <70%MHR isn't a lot of use (though I wouldn't show the disdain for it that you do), but there is a very significant window between 70% and 75% that you and Ric have both dismissed and likened to recovery riding in this thread, which is misleading and very unhelpful IMO. I'm not saying that long rides at <75%MHR are important for everybody, or that they should form the majority of training for everybody, but long rides below 75%MHR do have a very useful and important place in many many people's training. I really don't understand why you two are on such a concerted mission to try to persuade everyone otherwise.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Nobody (see above I think we all agree on this) but it was starting to sound like all this pussying around at low HR (<70%) is gunna be productive training, when for the most part it's a waste of time. Junk miles.
Crikey, many people even look forward to their long endurance ride outdoors once a week, having sweated away with the intensive stuff all week on the turbo.............., it does them a world of good, increases their stamina for their long races/sportives, lifts their spirits............. but you'd really try to persuade them to blast round for another 2hrs of higher intensity with their nose on their HRM?
Personally I shudder at the prospect of riding a 100mile TT without ever having done a 4hr ride at 70-75%MHR.
Ruth0 -
John C. wrote:I seam to have opened a can of worms here.
OK more details I'm nearly 50, 5'5" and 9 stone 7 lbs.
I've been cycling for about 10 years and enjoy long hilly rides , I did the Etap du Dales route last year and I would like to do the Fred Witton and the Rydale Rumble next year (Both 110 milers and 3500m+ of climb).
During the winter I'll probably do two hour sessions indoors and a 2-3 hour ride around the North York Moors most weeks. I have a local 21 mile route that I ride with hills and my best time is 1hour 4 minutes.
At the moment my indoor on rollers sessions are a mix of the training in the cycling + mag
warm up 5 min,5 mins at 75%with 10second sprints on the min, then 15 minutes of 60 candice in a high gear which has a HR of 75% I then go up to 80% rising to max over the next 3 mins then easy 2 mins rising to 75% for 2 mins then back up again , repeated 3 times then cool down.
Hope that makes some sense.
My real question is, is what I'm doing going to keep my fitness over winter and put me in a reasonable state to attempt these challenging rides. I realise that come spring I will need to do longer rides.
Many thanks for all your help.
John
Why don't you settle down to some good reading this winter. It seems like you've already got a massive endurance base which you'd like to maintain.
Two good books to read would be the Long Distance Cyclists Handbook and The Complete Book of Long Distance Cycling.
I suggest reading both because you'll notice a common thread that runs through both books and then you'll be better equipped to determine your currant fitness and what you need to do to maintain that during the winter months and then start building at a time that's right for you.
It's as mysterious and complex as you want it to be.
The answer to your original question is... 100%
Have fun.0 -
Man - too many quotes to edit properly
I see what you mean Ruth - OK - I thought it was 70%, not the 75% mentioned in Ric's first post. :oops:
Certainly I never said 75%.
<70% is pfaffing around in my book, umm - I mean Active Recovery (which of course is quite useful in context)
70-75% low level endurance at best. Still very borderline fitness improvements for a trained cyclist.
>75% now you're into something useful for building fitness.
Mitochondral levels are much more effectively trained at solid to hard tempo levels and especially effectively at TT pace. Muscle capilliarisation is mostly enhanced while riding at even more intense Vo2Max inducing levels and definitely minimally at low level endurance pace.
as for pb21 - yeah - you're right there I don't know much about what he/she's trying to achieve, background etc. Their location tag suggests Equatorial Eastern Africa, which I doubt is cold!
But riding 4 hrs slowly is still simply going to train you to ride 4 hours slowly. Ride harder for shorter durations where the rate of fitness improvement is far higher and you then will be able to start riding for 4 hours much faster.0 -
BeaconRuth wrote:Crikey, many people even look forward to their long endurance ride outdoors once a week, having sweated away with the intensive stuff all week on the turbo.............., it does them a world of good, increases their stamina for their long races/sportives, lifts their spirits............. but you'd really try to persuade them to blast round for another 2hrs of higher intensity with their nose on their HRM?
Personally I shudder at the prospect of riding a 100mile TT without ever having done a 4hr ride at 70-75%MHR.
Ruth
Yes, the one longer ride a week at/under 75% MHR is the only ride I do that is actually enjoyable in a way that normal people would understand.
Neil
--
"Because the cycling is pain. The cycling is soul crushing pain."0 -
Ruth, thanks for coming in. This time of year I'm running about 3 times a week, on the bike twice. Sunday would be either 1 or 2 hour easy bike or 6/7 mile run. I've been running nearly 8 years but only 2.5 years on the bike, so I'm a much better runner than cyclist. However I much prefer cycling now. My cycling ambitions are to continue to improve in TTs and hopefully to get involved in road racing next year.0
-
One training area I avoid is Mixenden on the fringes of Halifax. I only rode through there once and the place was littered with broken glass and burned out cars and was really depressing. I ended up being chased by dogs and chavs. It's good interval training mind you, but I dread to think what would have happened if I'd punctured on the glass... :shock: :shock: :shock:0
-
Yes I think some people make faulty assumptions about peoples questions. This was a clearly quite fit guy (cf Joe Bloggs) who had done long rides and was looking to improve but he didn't make it clear initially. A beginner would have a fair amount of benefit from the programme he described, and from rides AVERAGINg 75% (which would allow some hard efforts up hills etc) but not this chap. RST et all are right in that harder efforts bring greater benefits but there are also greater risks involved especially for beginners in teh form of loss of interest /motivation etc. A gentle start to your active life is fun and manageable, but teh better you get the more you need to fine tune your training withharder efforts and quality recovery.BeaconRuth wrote:John C, I agree with Ut_och_cykla. If you only have a couple of hours to train each week then try to aim for longer durations of higher intensity. Up to an hour at 80%maxHR should be perfectly possible if you build up to it gradually, and 20 min intervals for anything between 85%-90%maxHR would do you a lot of good.
Ruth
My h'penny's worth anyway. I'm not a certified coach BTW0 -
So the options are 2.5hrs until you're dropped, or 4hrs at a steady but still reasonable pace on a Saturday? The only other ride in the week is 1 or 2 hours easy on Sunday? That's an interesting call to make. What I'd worry about most is why are you taking it so easy on Sunday? Is it because you're so tired from Saturday? If so, then I'd take the least tiring option on Saturday and try to turn Sunday's 1-2hr ride into something more taxing and beneficial........... presuming you can put your feet up and recover on Monday?!xover_runner wrote:Ruth, thanks for coming in. This time of year I'm running about 3 times a week, on the bike twice. Sunday would be either 1 or 2 hour easy bike or 6/7 mile run. I've been running nearly 8 years but only 2.5 years on the bike, so I'm a much better runner than cyclist. However I much prefer cycling now. My cycling ambitions are to continue to improve in TTs and hopefully to get involved in road racing next year.
Ruth0 -
Then you need to do more riding. 2 days a week ain't gunna cut it. Substantial improvements to be gained from 4 rides/week, even if only an hour long - but with very focussed training. If better TTs are what you are after, then drop a run and find some more time for the bike.xover_runner wrote:Ruth, thanks for coming in. This time of year I'm running about 3 times a week, on the bike twice. Sunday would be either 1 or 2 hour easy bike or 6/7 mile run. I've been running nearly 8 years but only 2.5 years on the bike, so I'm a much better runner than cyclist. However I much prefer cycling now. My cycling ambitions are to continue to improve in TTs and hopefully to get involved in road racing next year.0 -
Well I was always talking about trained cyclists, not beginners.ut_och_cykla wrote:
Yes I think some people make faulty assumptions about peoples questions. This was a clearly quite fit guy (cf Joe Bloggs) who had done long rides and was looking to improve but he didn't make it clear initially. A beginner would have a fair amount of benefit from the programme he described, and from rides AVERAGINg 75% (which would allow some hard efforts up hills etc) but not this chap. RST et all are right in that harder efforts bring greater benefits but there are also greater risks involved especially for beginners in teh form of loss of interest /motivation etc. A gentle start to your active life is fun and manageable, but teh better you get the more you need to fine tune your training withharder efforts and quality recovery.BeaconRuth wrote:John C, I agree with Ut_och_cykla. If you only have a couple of hours to train each week then try to aim for longer durations of higher intensity. Up to an hour at 80%maxHR should be perfectly possible if you build up to it gradually, and 20 min intervals for anything between 85%-90%maxHR would do you a lot of good.
Ruth
My h'penny's worth anyway. I'm not a certified coach BTW
I would never hammer a beginner they way I'd put the work onto a trained cyclist.
If a trained cyclist expects to get fitter, then they should expect to do some hard work. If they want a cruisy coffee ride to smell the roses, have chats with buddies or whatever, then that's for recovery days, or before or after they've done their workout.0 -
Interesting debate to follow...sort of. One comment is that all advice re training only makes sense in context of what goals it is intended to support.
Taking starting post as e.g. objective seems to be to "attempt" (and I assume finish) the Fred Witton/Rydale Rumble. Nothing is said about wanting to do this sub 7 hours/top 50 finish etc. This being the case and bearing in mind what John C says about his current state of fitness (which seems pretty OK) I think any sort of training over winter would support this goal so long as something is done. I would guess the main blockers to achieving his targets will be the technical ones of making sure bike/rider make in one piece to the end and the mental ones of knowing you can do it.
So my specific advice would be forget zones and try asap to build up to doing 120miles on your weekend ride Also find a climb as tough as those on your event and ride up and down it a few times. (And don't be put off by bad weather. If you have a really terrible time but finish it'll build up mental toughness. For the events you mention that will be the key thing you need to train). This approach got me from a much lower level of fitness to doing events as tough/tougher as the Fred Witton within a year.
If you do this and then start to think that the challenge isn't in finishing but in finishing fast then zones will have to be part of the equation. I am on this learning curve myself and my experience to date is that these should be 80%+ as much as possible. Part of the reason for this is that I think they give the most training benefit if hours are limited. But other reason is again the mental one that I find that training tough helps when riding events.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
Ruth/Alex, very interesting this debate. I've been looking at my stats. Last few rides have been: A group rides 3hrs - 83%, 3.30hrs 79%, 3.30hrs 83%. B Group rides 2 hrs 76%, 3.30hrs 73%, 2 45 hrs 74%, 3.30 hrs 73%, 4.30 hrs 80% (slow but very windy). Easy rec rides have been 2hrs 71%, 2.15hrs 73%, 1.15hrs 74%. As I mentioned I get dropped in the A Group rides (along with others) but I think they are hard rides, the last one included 85 mins in Zones 4 and 5 and I probably did 2.30 hours at 85-90% till getting dropped.
Would you say I am in about the right zones? This time of year I am doing more B group stuff having read a bit about periodization and taking Nov and Dec quite easy and thinking of going A group more from Jan and doing harder mid week turbo work inc 2 * 20 and hard intervals in the new year to get in TT shape.
I know I should drop the running but as I don't have a lot of time due to work I appreciate the time efficiency of running against cycling for general fitness and weight control. I can get up at 5.30am and get a decent 40 min run in before work, can't see its worth getting on the bike for 40 mins. Don't particularly want to either on a dark and wet Dec morning either.0 -
Well club roup rides are notorious for being poor, or simply the wrong kind of training (for sustainable and ongoing fitness gains that is - they have their place for other things) and average HR in those typically highly variable-power rides is not a good indicator of the ride.
But in general you are seeing a harder ride = overall higher HR.
If your recovery rides are really meant to be recovery, then 2hrs is prob a bit too long for anyone other than those doing super long miles. 30 - 90 min is typical.
I'd recommend solo or very small bunch rides (e.g. 4 riders) where it's your nose in the wind most of the time. Either that or stay on the front of the bunch. Upper L2 to L4 work during build phases is worthwhile. No need to wait until later on to build threshold, "off season" is a great time to do that with L3 and L4 work, providing you have enough endurance in the legs to start with.
All up it depends on what you are training for. If the social aspect of regular bunch riding is important to you, then don't expect to have the same fitness gains as focussed solo/small group training.
If it's weight loss, then ride at the highest intensity you can sustain for the hours each week you have available to train.0 -
It depends on your club run.
It's either a bit of a social and chat or some serious training with riders who race. Personally the winter I would stick to no more than 2 hours or so and give it some welly. That way you don't get too cold. Oh and keep the cadence high, it's good training.0 -
Many thanks one and all for advice, What I think I can take away from it is : That I am not a beginner so I am going to have to go up a gear and do a lot more in the higher heart rate area, This is going to hurt. 20 mins- hour at 80% sounds hard. But no pain no gain.
Doing big hills simalar to the ones I'll ride in Fred and RR sounds good, Boltby Bank is my local training hill 0
