Training area to avoid
Comments
-
Yes
Le Blaireau (1)0 -
OK perhaps my question was a little broad to get the answer I was after, and don't want it to get lost completely.
Perhaps then one better question could be aimed at the second poster Ric if he is still visiting this thread who said
"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.
Ric"
I looked at my training for the last 2 years (over which time I have recorded pretty much every sessions i've done using polar software) and almost 60% of my training is below this 75% value.
Is this to say that is pure junk mileage without any useful physiological effect?
If one were to say this is the case upon what is such a statement based? I.e. experimental data or expert conjecture?
Sorry if this isn't the right forum for such discussions and ill try and figure out how to get onto the wattage thread if that is full of more scientific based discussions, but hey started now,... and im sure if no-ones interested it'll die fairly quickly such is the wonder of the web,0 -
Mike v Alex.
To be honest when I first read it I thought it was pop at the wattage forum boys in that they take life very seriously and have lost perspective, but on 2nd read it could be construed as a put down to Mike in that anyone who advocates a pragmatic approach is some kind of lily livered poofter.
Look forward to next round, I tend to take Alex's side though.0 -
Man, you guys read too much into things sometimes!ColinJ wrote:There is a simple answer to this...
Alex - were you having a dig at Mike or were you saying that the Wattage lot were a bit unrealistic in their approach
?
It wasn't really either. But I don't expect to be believed by all, all the time - this is the web after all!
My quote about pragmatic training, poorly labelled with a :roll: I suppose, was just to reinforce that all training has to be pragmatic and take into account people's lives, even for pros this is true. The only difference is that riding is their job.
But it is entirely possible, indeed completely sensible, to be pragmatic with training and use scientifically and evidenced based training methodologies. They are not mutually exclusive. Indeed quite the opposite. Coaching is kinda like the art of applying the science.
Apart from the usual life stuff (work, family, health, other stuff etc) being pragmatic also includes a factor for how serious someone is, how important it is to attain goals, how much their goals are a stretch vs relatively straightforward to attain, short term and long term.
I have those that must have their weekly ride with the lads, or race the local club events, or whatever 'cause they get a lot of enjoyment from that and it is something they want to maintain while also training for a goal(s).
I have athletes that want to win their local C grade crit but won't risk work/family to get there, to others trying to crack into National / World Cup/Champs squads and who are immensely focussed and utterly dedicated to the task. Another is vying to ride the Comm Games but is on their longish honeymoon at the moment. Each needs a pragmatic approach.
As for the wattage forum, sure they're a serious mob at times and it can get dry but I wasn't kidding when I said there is a wealth of info in the archives there to mine for some good stuff about training and physiology. There's also a lot of very cluey coaches there too and for the most part you'll get good sound info and advice to the sort of questions raised in this thread. But of course there is also very strong peer review over there, so expect more than you bargained for at times.
It is somewhat of a power power-user forum, if I can coin a phrase.
But if you want dry, then there's always Bike Tech Review
0 -
Can we forget Mike's and Alex's little tiff and get some answers to Andrewbye's question? (from Friday - very clearly formulated)
I also would invite Ric to come back on his statement that anything under 75% is junk. 75% of what? I can't believe you really mean 75% of maximum heart rate, which is how I and it seems everyone else on this thread interpreted that post. Surely you mean 75% of HR at LT?
Alex Simmons chips in later and makes the same mistake in support of Ric, calling <75%MHR "recovery".
Guys, if you look at the Coggan tables you so often quote you'll see that the heart rate percentages there are based on the HR at LT, not on max.HR. So active recovery is anything below 68% HR at LT. This would be about 60% MHR, assuming HR at LT is about 90%MHR.
75%MHR would put you at 83% of HR at LT and on the border between levels 2 and 3, which gets lots of ticks in boxes in Coggan's table 2 (expected physiological adaptations..)0 -
Exactly. Live by the figures and die by the figures.
Andrew Bye is doing extremely well and is confused by the fact that he rides mostly at less than 75% and has become an elite rider in about two years.
What does that tell you?
It tells you that this 75% minimum for physiological adaptation is total nonsense yet because it is presented as fact then he gets confused about what he should do. My advice mate is to carry on and ignore what they have to say. It's mostly bollox!
Other gems portrayed as "facts".
Strength is unimportant
Pedalling technique doesn't matter.
Cadence is a red herring.
Cross training only if you can't ride your bike.
Low cadence used on climbs/drags does not increase strength.
The ONLY thing that matters is power.
Come on people out there. Wake up! Start enjoying your riding again. Build a base then do your intervals in the spring. Let the human robots who have been brainwashed, self-destruct on their indoor power measuring turbos as they sweat it out day after day and lose all motivation come the summer if they want to.
But for heavens sake don't join them, please.0 -
Or, from elite coach and sports scientist Peter Keen: http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bcfguide.html#one
"...The real value of Level 1 training is as a controlled, active recovery exercise..."
"...Level 1 is the basis of most club runs, and a very pleasant activity, but should not be confused with serious race training..."
RicProfessional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
Yes Ric, but MY point was that <75% is not level 1 but all of levels 1+2, so quoting Peter Keen is not an answer. I'm not questioning your training expertise, just your arithmetic.
If I've misunderstood something, please correct me!0 -
last i checked, using an example of a HRmax of 200 b/min, Level 1, as defined by Keen is 150 - 155 b/min. Level 1, has no real training effect. 150 as a % of 200 is 75%. Thus less 75% is no real training effect.
ricProfessional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
So what Peter Keen considers to be the upper limit of active recovery (zone 1 of 4) is a significantly higher intensity than that defined by Andrew Coggan (zone 1 of 7)?
If MHR=200bpm
According to Peter Keen, Level 1 is <150bpm
According to Andrew Coggan, Level 1 is <122bpm (assuming HR at LT=180bpm)0 -
Thanks for your replies.
So according to one of the best sources available 150 Hr (as my maximum hr is 195 ish) would be the minimum heart rate ( and so exercise intensity) required for any real physiological benefits in my case, and anything below this is active recovery.
This figure would probably mean my training is probably more like 70% active recovery 30 % beneficial training.
I have some grasp of exercise physiology and the effects that exercise has on the body, but I cannot remember having read any articles that laid the "rules" of training based upon anything other than expert opinion.
I fully appreciate that expert opinion is a valid form of evidence, as these are based upon the coaches / athletes that have dedicated themselves to improving training methods.
However, I am somewhat inclined to believe that there is no such clear cut answer to what training will bring what benefits. despite this i'm extremely keen to be disproved, (as you can imagine with the time I could save from my bike by upping the intensity a bit and ditching some of the bulk)
Again any specific books / articles that anyone could lead me towards would be awesome, as trawling through journal articles can be a somewhat laborious task especially for a bit of a novice such as myself.
Cheers again,
Andrew0 -
Andrew welcome aboard. Some thoughtsAndrewBye wrote:
Ric"
I looked at my training for the last 2 years (over which time I have recorded pretty much every sessions i've done using polar software) and almost 60% of my training is below this 75% value.
Is this to say that is pure junk mileage without any useful physiological effect?
,
1. How have you collated all the average heart rate data? IOW's is it ave heart rate from races alone, training rides etc. I know that in a crystal palace crit for example my average heart rate will fall between 84 and 92% depending on my fitness, intensity of the race, how fatigued I am, whether the race comes at the end of a training block etc.
2. Often after a training ride (2-3hrs) my average heart rate will be less than 70% despite the fact that I may have spent a significant period at race pace intensity. There will be lots of zone 1 bits they will serious bring down the average. As I'm sure you know the powermeter folk address these by taking 'normalised power' rather than 'average power' to address the stochastic nature of cycling. 0 -
Love this thread, one of the best.
I've been thinking about this and I have to say I think there is something Alex says. 3 or 4 years ago I was a half decent runner for my age. Didn't win but would normally place in top 15% of races. My training then was self taught, trained 4/5 days a week and very little Zone 1 work, used to do intervals, hills, tempo stuff and easy days would always be Zone 2. Then I started reading about making easy runs the mainstay of your training, building your aerobic base etc etc. So I changed my training and did a lot more Z1 stuff (still did the intervals and tempo stuff) but the proportion of easy work markedly increased. And guess what; I started slowing up. Might have been age creeping up (I'm 49 now), but I think it was the change in training. Now I would assume the same principles would apply to cycling.0 -
Mike Willcox wrote:Exactly. Live by the figures and die by the figures.
Andrew Bye is doing extremely well and is confused by the fact that he rides mostly at less than 75% and has become an elite rider in about two years.
What does that tell you?
It tells you that this 75% minimum for physiological adaptation is total nonsense yet because it is presented as fact then he gets confused about what he should do. My advice mate is to carry on and ignore what they have to say. It's mostly bollox!
Other gems portrayed as "facts".
Strength is unimportant
Pedalling technique doesn't matter.
Cadence is a red herring.
Cross training only if you can't ride your bike.
Low cadence used on climbs/drags does not increase strength.
The ONLY thing that matters is power.
Come on people out there. Wake up! Start enjoying your riding again. Build a base then do your intervals in the spring. Let the human robots who have been brainwashed, self-destruct on their indoor power measuring turbos as they sweat it out day after day and lose all motivation come the summer if they want to.
But for heavens sake don't join them, please.
Mike your age is affecting your memory
You also forgot that " You dont use your arms for climbing" 0 -
I'm confused!
Ric Stern / Peter Keen believe Zone 1 is <75% MHR
Alex Simmons and Ruth Eyles seem to have reached agreement that <70% MHR is Zone 1
Andrew Coggan say Zone 1 is <68% LTHR (roughly <60% MHR)
Having done a quick and random search, there seem to be almost as many of these tables correlating training zones with %HR values as there are coaches. They all agree more or less what Zone 1 is (an aid to recovery, without any physiological training effect per se) but differ significantly in where Zone 1 lies in relation to heart rate. Stern/Keen and Coggan seem to be the upper and lower extremes respectively.
Of course the percentages are only approximate, intended as guidelines, and they merge into one another without any hard borderlines. Nevertheless, the difference between 60% and 75% is just too big to put down to approximations, and too significant in terms of "where to/not to train" to ignore. As I pointed out in an earlier post, what Ric Stern calls "junk" includes Andrew Coggan's "Endurance" Zone 2. They can't both be right!
Can someone please explain to me why there are such large differences of opinion between professionals who, presumably, all are subject to the same qualification standards and peer review, have access to the same scientific research and all enjoy well deserved good reputations within the sport?0 -
I think Toksobservations maybe have the key to this. The original poster's records show that about 60% of his time is about 75%, but this says little about how much and more importantly what he does with the other 40%. If he's not terribly time poor he might be able to ride enough of that 40 % hard enough to force improvements even tho' he's spending the majority of his time around 75%.
If he's been doing well on his own regime he should stick to it until it starts to fail!0 -
Klassiker wrote:I'm confused!
Ric Stern / Peter Keen believe Zone 1 is <75% MHR
Alex Simmons and Ruth Eyles seem to have reached agreement that <70% MHR is Zone 1
Andrew Coggan say Zone 1 is <68% LTHR (roughly <60% MHR)
Having done a quick and random search, there seem to be almost as many of these tables correlating training zones with %HR values as there are coaches. They all agree more or less what Zone 1 is (an aid to recovery, without any physiological training effect per se) but differ significantly in where Zone 1 lies in relation to heart rate. Stern/Keen and Coggan seem to be the upper and lower extremes respectively.
Of course the percentages are only approximate, intended as guidelines, and they merge into one another without any hard borderlines. Nevertheless, the difference between 60% and 75% is just too big to put down to approximations, and too significant in terms of "where to/not to train" to ignore. As I pointed out in an earlier post, what Ric Stern calls "junk" includes Andrew Coggan's "Endurance" Zone 2. They can't both be right!
Can someone please explain to me why there are such large differences of opinion between professionals who, presumably, all are subject to the same qualification standards and peer review, have access to the same scientific research and all enjoy well deserved good reputations within the sport?
You are looking in training terms for the lowest common denominator and I don't think there is one.
Firstly there are so many different branches of the sport and riders with different abilities, ages and degrees of fitness at different times of the season.
Secondly the conclusions reached from scientific data from peer reviewed research is subjective. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that such data will show that the rider who puts out the most power with regard to their weight and external conditions will be the fastest rider. The mistake IMO is to then to simplistically focus all training on getting those power output figures.
Sustaining a level of power output is not just about CV fitness.
If you are a rider riding 3 hour + road races then you need to have a bum and the strength to sit in the saddle for 3 hours +. Irrespecftive of any effort pushing on the pedals that can be tiring on it's own. Will that show up on any data from a peer reviwed research project?
IMO some form of physiological adaptation occurs every time you sit on the bike even it's only free wheeling going down hill.
Should physiological adaptation be the only focus in training anyway? There are other things to consider such as bike handling and group riding skills. I could go on.
The only thing that measuring your effort will tell you is deep down what you know to be true , and that's derived from RPE and how you feel at the time. I haven't a clue when I'm riding if my HR is 60% or 75% of my MHR and it is of no concern to me.0 -
oldwelshman wrote:Mike your age is affecting your memory
You also forgot that " You dont use your arms for climbing"
I knew there was something I missed out.
And there was I thinking I was the only voice in the wilderness. Have you looked at any of the other training forums? The posters have their heads so far up their own backsides with their percentages of MHR. LT, VO2max, 2 x 20, wattage, fast twitch, slow twitch mitochondria that it's not true.
While they are worrying about their stats the likes of you and me will be benefiting from crack of riding the bike for enjoyment and still probably fly past them on the road.0 -
HR is like that, i.e. not a great measure of intensity (since HR is a dependent variable), to the extent that RPE is probably better but is still subjective. Having a solid understanding of your own PE along with an objective measure, like power or time to climb a known hill, is pretty handy.Klassiker wrote:I'm confused!
Ric Stern / Peter Keen believe Zone 1 is <75% MHR
Alex Simmons and Ruth Eyles seem to have reached agreement that <70% MHR is Zone 1
Andrew Coggan say Zone 1 is <68% LTHR (roughly <60% MHR)
Having done a quick and random search, there seem to be almost as many of these tables correlating training zones with %HR values as there are coaches. They all agree more or less what Zone 1 is (an aid to recovery, without any physiological training effect per se) but differ significantly in where Zone 1 lies in relation to heart rate. Stern/Keen and Coggan seem to be the upper and lower extremes respectively.
Of course the percentages are only approximate, intended as guidelines, and they merge into one another without any hard borderlines. Nevertheless, the difference between 60% and 75% is just too big to put down to approximations, and too significant in terms of "where to/not to train" to ignore. As I pointed out in an earlier post, what Ric Stern calls "junk" includes Andrew Coggan's "Endurance" Zone 2. They can't both be right!
Can someone please explain to me why there are such large differences of opinion between professionals who, presumably, all are subject to the same qualification standards and peer review, have access to the same scientific research and all enjoy well deserved good reputations within the sport?
Stern's & Coggan's training levels are actually quite close since they are primarily training levels defined by power output relative to a given anchor point. The HR percentages provided are just a guideline - even Dr Coggan has said there's a lot of slop in his figures. The power anchor points are 1-hour TT power in the case of Coggan's levels and MAP (1-min mean maximal power at end of a defined ramp test protocol) for Stern's & British Cycling's zones.
The attached might more clearly demonstrate this crossover:
0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:The attached might more clearly demonstrate this crossover:
As usual, great illustration Alex!0 -
Mike Willcox wrote:Have you looked at any of the other training forums? The posters have their heads so far up their own backsides with their percentages of MHR. LT, VO2max, 2 x 20, wattage, fast twitch, slow twitch mitochondria that it's not true.
Yes, so far up my own backside that your tax dollars (sorry, pounds!) paid for me to fly over and speak to the folks at UK Sport last spring...so I guess all I have to say to you is "thanks!" 0 -
acoggan wrote:Mike Willcox wrote:Have you looked at any of the other training forums? The posters have their heads so far up their own backsides with their percentages of MHR. LT, VO2max, 2 x 20, wattage, fast twitch, slow twitch mitochondria that it's not true.
Yes, so far up my own backside that your tax dollars (sorry, pounds!) paid for me to fly over and speak to the folks at UK Sport last spring...so I guess all I have to say to you is "thanks!"
I think I might have touched a nerve, or you might be concerned that there are non scienticfic methods of training which rely on RPE and feel. Why else reply?
Let's face it if I was a man in your postion why would I have to justify myself to someone on an internet forum?
So you're partly responsible for the human robots who are brainwashed into training by numbers. Pity that performances of riders have not improved relatively speaking over the last 25 years. Your science didn't exist then did it?
So where do you stand on cadence, pedalling technique, strength/weight training, cross training to get all round fitness? All unimportant or red herrings or detriimental huh?
Here's one who won't be worshiping at the altar of the chosen one.0 -
Not sure what you meant by that, Mike. What I AM looking for is coherent advice on what sort of training brings which benefits. If I have that much clear in my head, I can tailor my training to my goals. That applies to any advice, be it based on HR, power or RPE. For instance, the notes on RPE at Level 1 of Keen's scale read as follows:You are looking in training terms for the lowest common denominator and I don't think there is one.
Sensation: At this work intensity the sensation of effort would be very low and concentration is not required to maintain the riding pace. You should be unaware of your rate and depth of breathing and continuous conversation with training companions is possible. For an elite cyclist Level 1 will not be stressful, and could be maintained continuously for several hours.
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bcfguide.html#one
Now this is definitely not the sensation I get riding at 75%MHR (which for me isn't the same as MHR minus 45 or 50bpm - Ric Stern). I get the sensation associated with Keen's Level 1 when I ride at <<70%MHR. 75%MHR in terms of sensation fits Keen's Level 2. 70 to 75%MHR would put me in Coggan's Level 2 according to HR and RPE. So this is why I'm being so pedantic about the <75%MHR=recovery=junk blanket statement, because, for me at least, it just isn't true and never has been regardless of my age, time of year or fitness level. To present it as a universal rule is just misleading.
Obviously, you'll be laughing now and making something up about pulse meters being linked to stress and heart failure.
I agree with more or less everything else you say, especially:
Nevertheless, it takes a while to develop a feel for RPE and it helps to have some reference points, especially if you are a beginner. Even after 25 years of riding, I like to wear a pulse-meter to reassure me that I'm not drifting around, especially if it's hilly or windy.The only thing that measuring your effort will tell you is deep down what you know to be true , and that's derived from RPE and how you feel at the time.0 -
Mike Willcox wrote:I think I might have touched a nerve, or you might be concerned that there are non scienticfic methods of training which rely on RPE and feel. Why else reply?
'cause I like the thrust-and-parry of debating on the Internet...no other reason than that.Mike Willcox wrote:Let's face it if I was a man in your postion why would I have to justify myself to someone on an internet forum?
First, I don't know what you mean by "...a man in your position...". Second, I don't see how my post could be viewed as justifying myself to you...all I really meant to do was point out that, for better or for worse, the powers-that-be in your country (which, according to the lunchtime conversation I had with the head of UK Sport, command a budget from now through the 2012 Olympics of something like 2 billion pounds) don't think the way that you do.Mike Willcox wrote:So you're partly responsible for the human robots who are brainwashed into training by numbers.
That's for others to judge.Mike Willcox wrote:Pity that performances of riders have not improved relatively speaking over the last 25 years.
Actually, the performance of cyclists has improved over the last 25 y, just as performances have improved in other sports.Mike Willcox wrote:Your science didn't exist then did it?
In fact, the roots of exercise physiology extend back to before the turn of the prior century, i.e., to before 1900.Mike Willcox wrote:So where do you stand on cadence, pedalling technique, strength/weight training, cross training to get all round fitness? All unimportant or red herrings or detriimental huh?
Depending on the situation, all of the above (oh, wait...is that answer too pragmatic for a "...a man in my position..."? )Mike Willcox wrote:Here's one who won't be worshiping at the altar of the chosen one.
Who is the "chosen one"? :?:0 -
Klassiker wrote:What I AM looking for is coherent advice on what sort of training brings which benefits. If I have that much clear in my head, I can tailor my training to my goals. That applies to any advice, be it based on HR, power or RPE. For instance, the notes on RPE at Level 1 of Keen's scale read as follows:
Sensation: At this work intensity the sensation of effort would be very low and concentration is not required to maintain the riding pace. You should be unaware of your rate and depth of breathing and continuous conversation with training companions is possible. For an elite cyclist Level 1 will not be stressful, and could be maintained continuously for several hours.
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bcfguide.html#one
Now this is definitely not the sensation I get riding at 75%MHR (which for me isn't the same as MHR minus 45 or 50bpm - Ric Stern). I get the sensation associated with Keen's Level 1 when I ride at <<70%MHR. 75%MHR in terms of sensation fits Keen's Level 2. 70 to 75%MHR would put me in Coggan's Level 2 according to HR and RPE. So this is why I'm being so pedantic about the <75%MHR=recovery=junk blanket statement, because, for me at least, it just isn't true and never has been regardless of my age, time of year or fitness level. To present it as a universal rule is just misleading.
Actually, from the sounds of it I think all that you're experiencing is the extent to which heart rate can be "misleading". Sure, it provides an easy-to-measure indicator of the exercise intensity, but largely, if not entirely, only from the perspective of cardiovascular strain. That's why scientists don't use heart rate to quantify/set the exercise intensity in laboratory-based research studies, but use other measurements (i.e., VO2 and/or power) instead.0 -
I feel for you, Klassiker, and agree with you 100%. That was my concern on page 1 of this thread. For many many cyclists there is useful training to be done <75%MHR and a HRM is perfectly adequate for gauging the intensity of that type of training.Klassiker wrote:So this is why I'm being so pedantic about the <75%MHR=recovery=junk blanket statement, because, for me at least, it just isn't true and never has been regardless of my age, time of year or fitness level. To present it as a universal rule is just misleading.
Ruth0 -
Alex, I have no doubt you are right about the problems of HR, but really that isn't what I'm getting at here.HR is like that, i.e. not a great measure of intensity (since HR is a dependent variable), to the extent that RPE is probably better but is still subjective. Having a solid understanding of your own PE along with an objective measure, like power or time to climb a known hill, is pretty handy
What concerns me is that one eminent coach (Peter Keen) says active recovery takes place at below 150bpm (if your MHR is 200).
(See http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bcfguide.html#one)
Another (Andrew Coggan) says that active recovery takes place <122 (approx)
A third (whoever was responsible for the "revised" BCF zones) says <120
(See http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/b ... c_bcf.html)
and so on and so on....without any indication that the errors are maybe 25%.
Now 150bpm is so far away from 120bpm that it is two training zones above recovery according to the BCF (Zone 2:...Development of economy and efficiency with high volume, moderate stress work. An important intensity for establishing a firm base for all riders.) They don't consider <75%MHR to be junk, or to have no training effect. So what does Peter Keen know that the BCF and Andrew Coggan don't, or vice-versa? The differences are just too large to be explained by the subjectivity or variability of HR (IMO). What's more, HR 50bpm below max. does not, for me at least, equate to "....the sensation of effort would be very low and concentration is not required to maintain the riding pace. You should be unaware of your rate and depth of breathing and continuous conversation with training companions is possible....
I appreciate that Andrew Coggan's data is based on power, and that the HR and RPE info can only be approximate, but really, if there was so much "slop" in the correlation would he have published them at all? Even guidelines shouldn't be completely misleading. Keen's work only deals with HR (and RPE), so you would expect these values to be quite accurate. There are no comments to suggest any significant level of errors.
Thanks for the comments on the correlation between Stern and Coggan. I liked the diagram so much that I almost bought a power meter So Stern and Coggan correlate pretty well when talking about power, and I have Coggan's (sloppy) correlation to HR and RPE. What's missing now is Ric's neat and tidy correlation to HR and RPE, if that's possible? Surely you have enough data?
In the end, I just can't see the point in quoting HR zones at all if the uncertainty is really so high, and then I really don't understand why Ric defends so vehemently 75% (not a %-point more, not a %-point less).0 -
Klassiker wrote:What concerns me is that one eminent coach (Peter Keen) says active recovery takes place at below 150bpm (if your MHR is 200).
(See http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bcfguide.html#one)
Another (Andrew Coggan)
Just an FYI: I'm an exercise physiologist*, not a coach.Klassiker wrote:says that active recovery takes place <122 (approx)
A third (whoever was responsible for the "revised" BCF zones) says <120
(See http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/b ... c_bcf.html)
and so on and so on....without any indication that the errors are maybe 25%.
Now 150bpm is so far away from 120bpm that it is two training zones above recovery according to the BCF (Zone 2:...Development of economy and efficiency with high volume, moderate stress work. An important intensity for establishing a firm base for all riders.) They don't consider <75%MHR to be junk, or to have no training effect. So what does Peter Keen know that the BCF and Andrew Coggan don't, or vice-versa? The differences are just too large to be explained by the subjectivity or variability of HR (IMO). What's more, HR 50bpm below max. does not, for me at least, equate to "....the sensation of effort would be very low and concentration is not required to maintain the riding pace. You should be unaware of your rate and depth of breathing and continuous conversation with training companions is possible....
Consider this: for a cyclist with a maximal heart rate of only 180 beats/min, the original (apparently) levels proposed by Peter Keen would place the upper end of level 1 at a heart rate of only 130 beats/min. When you look at it that way, I think it's clear that the difference lies in using absolute vs. relative values when establishing the (really completely arbitrary) cut-offs between various levels or zones.
*And as such, allow me to point out - as I'm sure others have already done in this thread - that 75% of maximal heart rate is equivalent to only about 65% of VO2max...which any exercise physiologist would tell you is borderline as a training intensity, i.e., it's high enough to induce physiological adaptations in someone who hasn't been training much/isn't particularly fit, but not in someone who has/is.0 -
acoggan wrote:Mike Willcox wrote:Have you looked at any of the other training forums? The posters have their heads so far up their own backsides with their percentages of MHR. LT, VO2max, 2 x 20, wattage, fast twitch, slow twitch mitochondria that it's not true.
Yes, so far up my own backside that your tax dollars (sorry, pounds!) paid for me to fly over and speak to the folks at UK Sport last spring...so I guess all I have to say to you is "thanks!"
Agree with Mike. Your remarks insult all UK tax payers and show you up to be a an egocentric arrogant tosser. You might be using loads of smileys but you aren't very amusing.0 -
I disagree entirely. I think you have to put Andy's comment in context. What, because you're a highly qualified and knowledgeable Exercise Physiologist means when people start throwing jabs you shouldn't put ya dukes up? And yes a couple of winks and smiles possibly suggests his tongue was planted firmly in his cheek, do you not think? Mate, pay attention to whats important and don't get seduced by flim flamrollerball wrote:[Agree with Mike. Your remarks insult all UK tax payers and show you up to be a an egocentric arrogant tosser. You might be using loads of smileys but you aren't very amusing. 0
