Forum home Road cycling forum Training, fitness and health

Which training plan

ram038ram038 Posts: 187
I'm thinking of starting a training regime to improve my speed and hil climbing. I have read the Chris Carmichael book and the Friel cyclist bible and noticed that one author uses Maximum HR and the other uses Lactate threshold for training purposes.Which one would you recommend or is there no significant difference. My thinking is that LT would be better one to use as, I think, this is the point when performance starts to decrease significantly However Carmichael did coach 7 times TDF winner so......
BTW I cannot afford a powermeter so cannot use Power as my yardstick

Posts

  • Ric_Stern/RSTRic_Stern/RST Posts: 267
    edited June 2008
    I'd suggest proper coaching, as opposed to these books. There's a variety of coaches from local to professional who would be able to assist you.

    In regards to your question: The Friel book does NOT *really* use lactate threshold -- for that you'd have to have blood sampled and lactate measured. In fact, even if you were having blood sampled, the methodology employed in that book is incorrect to ascertain LT (which is actually quite a low intensity).

    On the other hand, there are many systems of training that use the average HR sustained during a time trial to set training zones, and of course, there are training systems that use maximal heart rate (i favour this method if i have to use HR zones).

    There is probably no significant difference between the two systems -- it's how the training is applied to your unique situation that is important (i.e., does it stress the areas needed for you to improve your cycling performance in the areas that you're interested?)

    Ric
    Professional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
    www.cyclecoach.com
  • ut_och_cyklaut_och_cykla Posts: 1,594
    As a start I'd use carmichael as a braod guide. If its gets fun, goes well, lealrn more, get a coach.
  • bahzobbahzob Posts: 2,195
    I would recommend using threshold based training rather than Max HR. As Ric says Joe Friel does not really use lactate threshold but it is a reasonable approximation.

    The key difference between threshold based training and Max HR is that as you train/improve you retest your threshold and over time it should increase, which increase will be reflected in your training zones.

    Max HR is both difficult to test and (in theory/by definition) does not change (it may even go down if you get fitter)

    You dont need power to use threshold training. Friel gives some methods to estimate, typically based on a turbo ramp or time trialling (or you can use hills). After a bit of practice you will feel when you hit threshold and can base training around this.

    HR can be useful as a secondary measure of your fitness, as you get fitter for the same HR you will go faster/up hills more quickly/easily. It will also come down more quickly during recovery

    HR is also useful measure of endurance. A good test is to do a longish steady state (1-2 hour) workout and compare average HR between first and second halves. They should be similar (within 5%).
    Martin S. Newbury RC
  • bahzob wrote:
    I would recommend using threshold based training rather than Max HR. As Ric says Joe Friel does not really use lactate threshold but it is a reasonable approximation.

    it isn't really. LT is the effort that you can sustain for up to around 3+ hours
    The key difference between threshold based training and Max HR is that as you train/improve you retest your threshold and over time it should increase, which increase will be reflected in your training zones.

    Actually, your HR could stay the same, increase, OR actually decrease.
    Max HR is both difficult to test and (in theory/by definition) does not change (it may even go down if you get fitter)

    It goes down with increased fitness.
    HR can be useful as a secondary measure of your fitness, as you get fitter for the same HR you will go faster/up hills more quickly/easily. It will also come down more quickly during recovery

    HR at a given effort can go up, down or stay the same, with increased fitness, depending on many variables. A reasonable measure of fitness is the decreased time on say a steep hill, where environmental conditions play less of an issue
    HR is also useful measure of endurance. A good test is to do a longish steady state (1-2 hour) workout and compare average HR between first and second halves. They should be similar (within 5%).

    I don't believe this to be true.

    ric
    Professional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
    www.cyclecoach.com
Sign In or Register to comment.