Heart Rate Help!

wingnut1

Sorry if this is long winded but i would like to get to the bottom of this one!

I started cycling just over a year ago and at that time I was 19+ stone and unfit. I have always throughout life had a good muscle base with my work and various training but let myself go when the children came along however my historical training was with weights, cruches etc and very little cycling or running since I was a teenager.

A year on I have now lost with a strict and addictive training plan about 5 stone through road biking and turbo trainer which with being 6'3'' is not far off my ideal weight.
When I first started last year my average heart rate when on the trainer or out on the road was about 145-150 and when climbing peaked at about 180 and my resting HR was about 70. Now I am finding even though with a massive improvement on speed and distance my HR average is about 135-140 and when climbing peaks at about 165.

Now I know my heart is alot stronger as my resting HR is now about 45-50 but the problem I have is if I try and work harder and get my HR higher I loose it in my legs before i'm completely out of breath.

I may be wrong but I thought that as I was maintaining an average of 145-150 back when I started then the fitter I get the higher the average I should be able to maintain and peak at a lot higher rate!

Have I got this all wrong!

SteveR_100Milers

wingnut1 wrote:

Sorry if this is long winded but i would like to get to the bottom of this one!

I started cycling just over a year ago and at that time I was 19+ stone and unfit. I have always throughout life had a good muscle base with my work and various training but let myself go when the children came along however my historical training was with weights, cruches etc and very little cycling or running since I was a teenager.

A year on I have now lost with a strict and addictive training plan about 5 stone through road biking and turbo trainer which with being 6'3'' is not far off my ideal weight.
When I first started last year my average heart rate when on the trainer or out on the road was about 145-150 and when climbing peaked at about 180 and my resting HR was about 70. Now I am finding even though with a massive improvement on speed and distance my HR average is about 135-140 and when climbing peaks at about 165.

Now I know my heart is alot stronger as my resting HR is now about 45-50 but the problem I have is if I try and work harder and get my HR higher I loose it in my legs before i'm completely out of breath.

I may be wrong but I thought that as I was maintaining an average of 145-150 back when I started then the fitter I get the higher the average I should be able to maintain and peak at a lot higher rate!

Have I got this all wrong!

Does your HR matter? If whatever you are doing improves the former then its a good thing right?

JN

What you are seeing is the fact that you are fitter, you are moving faster at a lower cost to your system. If you want to be hitting higher HR's then you need to look at interval sessions at or above your lactic threshold.

What type of rides / turbo sessions do you do?

wingnut1

JN wrote:

What you are seeing is the fact that you are fitter, you are moving faster at a lower cost to your system. If you want to be hitting higher HR's then you need to look at interval sessions at or above your lactic threshold.

What type of rides / turbo sessions do you do?

Thanks for the response, i didn't know how much information you needed but here goes!

All turbo trainer work is done on a tacx flow

3-4 times a week the following:

6mins @100rpm 52/16 in -4 slope warm up
2mins @100rpm 52/15 in -4 slope warm up
2mins @100rpm 52/14 in -4 slope warm up
2mins @100rpm 52/14 in -2 slope
2mins @100rpm 52/14 in 0 slope
2mins @75rpm 52/12 in +2 slope standing on pedals
3mins @100rpm 52/16 in -4 Slope
1min @100rpm 52/15 in -4 slope
1min @100rpm 52/14 in -4 slope
3mins @100rpm 52/14 in -1 slope
3mins @95rpm 52/14 in +2 slope
2mins @70rpm 52/12 in +3 slope standing on pedals
3mins @100rpm 52/16 in -4 Slope
1min @100rpm 52/15 in -4 slope
1min @100rpm 52/14 in -4 slope
2mins @75rpm 52/12 in +2 slope standing on pedals
3mins @100rpm 52/16 in -4 Slope
1min @100rpm 52/15 in -4 slope
1min @100rpm 52/14 in -4 slope
3mins @100rpm 52/14 in -1 slope
3mins @95rpm 52/14 in +2 slope
2mins @70rpm 52/12 in +3 slope standing on pedals
10mins @100rpm 52/16 in -2 slope
2mins @100rpm 52/15 in -2 slope
continued every 2mins up to 52/12 and then 10 mins cool down still at 100rpm

Usually one or two 1.5-4 hour rides on the road either 35 mile loop which is flat or 40-60 mile hilly rides which can have 3000ft+ climbing
Very rarely a 3mile early morning run.

Now i was wondering maybe I should be consentrating on building muscle with my training to give a better balance because as I said my legs give out before my heart rate!

Sorry if it's too much info!

wingnut1

[/quote]Does your HR matter? If whatever you are doing improves the former then its a good thing right?[/quote]

Yes you are correct it is a good thing but if there is potential for improvement then thats what i'm trying to achieve, aren't we all?

Alex_Simmons/RST

wingnut1 wrote:

Have I got this all wrong!

Yes.

HR does not tell you about your level of fitness. Higher HR <> more fitness.

How much power you can sustainably generate is what tells you how fit you are (IOW - being able to ride faster under similar conditions).

HR can be a helpful guide for determining ride intensity though.

wingnut1

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

wingnut1 wrote:

Have I got this all wrong!

Yes.

HR does not tell you about your level of fitness. Higher HR <> more fitness.

How much power you can sustainably generate is what tells you how fit you are (IOW - being able to ride faster under similar conditions).

HR can be a helpful guide for determining ride intensity though.

Ok yes I understand that but what I think I'm trying to get at is if a year ago I was able to sustain 145-150 and now I'm sustaining 135-140 surely if I could work at 150 now then my performance would be greatly improved but as I said my legs just give out!

So should I be consentrating on power training to increase muscle build?

SteveR_100Milers

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

wingnut1 wrote:

Have I got this all wrong!

Yes.

HR does not tell you about your level of fitness. Higher HR <> more fitness.

How much power you can sustainably generate is what tells you how fit you are (IOW - being able to ride faster under similar conditions).

HR can be a helpful guide for determining ride intensity though.

Surely power will only tell you how fast you can go, not how fit or trained you are. Fitness is a physiological condition (which HR might be an indicaors) watts are simply energy usage. 350W sustainable might be a good club rider level (=fit) but is pretty mundane for an elite rider (=not fit). Surely for example a low resting heart rate indiactes your fitness level irresepctive of conditioning.

In the wider context, I think that both power and HR are vital for training - one is an internal sensor of the engine's condition, the other a highly consistent measure of output (which is exactly what you are striving to change). Surely to train in the most productive or effective way to achieve a high level of output, both measurements are required?

wingnut1

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

In the wider context, I think that both power and HR are vital for training - one is an internal sensor of the engine's condition, the other a highly consistent measure of output (which is exactly what you are striving to change). Surely to train in the most productive or effective way to achieve a high level of output, both measurements are required?

Exactly! And this is why I ask the question "do I need to consentrate on power training to build more muscle in order to be able to keep at my higher HR of 145-150" which in effect would enable me to have a higher output of power?

Alex_Simmons/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Surely to train in the most productive or effective way to achieve a high level of output, both measurements are required?

Nope.

Physiologically, the power (relative to mass) that you can sustainably produce is all that matters. If you can ride faster, further, then you are fitter.

And 350W at 1hr TT pace for a 60kg rider is Pro Tour/world class fitness.

Indeed Marco Pinotti won the Italian National Individual Time Trial Championship the other day with an average power of 348 watts in a time a bit less than 40 minutes. His Giro TT win a couple of weeks back was at ~ 370W.

If the OP want to know if he is fitter and doesn't have a power meter or access to an indoor ergo with power measurement, then all he needs do is compare times up the same hillclimb (>5%) under the same conditions.

NOTE: - I am NOT saying HR can't be used as a training tool to guide the (sub-maximal) intensity at which you ride. But that's about it. Trying to read any more into HR is like trying to read tea leaves.

Alex_Simmons/RST

wingnut1 wrote:

Exactly! And this is why I ask the question "do I need to consentrate on power training to build more muscle in order to be able to keep at my higher HR of 145-150" which in effect would enable me to have a higher output of power?

What do you mean by power training?

If you mean train effectively by riding sufficient volumes at the right intensities, then yes, that's what you should do.

If you mean hit the weights room at the gym to build up your legs, then no, that's not going to help much (unless you are very untrained).

richa

Say I do two tests a month apart how do we know that they are equivalent (maximal) efforts?

Is output/watts for, say, 1hr at 150bpm not also a good way of benchmarking fitness?

wingnut1

Ok I may have got this wrong but I assumed that because I was able to train and sustain 145-150 then by doing the same now I'm fitter would mean alot more power.

Please don't qoute my sums there just an example!

1 year ago training at 145-150 producing say 280 watts average
Now training at 135-140 producing say 300 watts average
If I was able to train at 145-150 now then surely it would increase to say 310-320 watts

Do you see where I'm coming from or am I being completely thick!

I do have the watts function on the tacx flow.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Well perhaps if you'd mentioned the ability to measure power in the first place!

If you can sustain a higher power for the same duration, then you are fitter (providing they were maximal efforts for the duration).

If you are consistently riding at a higher power for the same HR, then you are most probably fitter.

this is of course all providing that the ergo produces consistent and reliable power numbers.

wingnut1

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

What do you mean by power training?

I mean muscle building with anaerobic training rather than aerobic which I would guess make my legs more powerfull and therefore be able to push higher gears for longer periods!

wingnut1

Sorry but I very rarely use the watts function on the tacx and I didn't think at the time it was relevant to the point I was trying to get across!

Alex_Simmons/RST

RichA wrote:

Say I do two tests a month apart how do we know that they are equivalent (maximal) efforts?

Because you couldn't go any harder.

Hard is hard, right? If you could have gone harder than it wasn't a maximal effort.

RichA wrote:

Is output/watts for, say, 1hr at 150bpm not also a good way of benchmarking fitness?

Sort of. Problem is, HR on any given day can be +/- 15 beats at the same power. And then if you maintain HR at a given level, power falls over time.

Testing fitness really requires you to push the limits.

Alex_Simmons/RST

wingnut1 wrote:

Sorry but I very rarely use the watts function on the tacx and I didn't think at the time it was relevant to the point I was trying to get across!

No need to apologise! But if you have a power read out, then that is the best guide to training intensity, bar none. And it means you have a reliable and objective means of measuring changes in fitness - sustainable maximal power for a given duration (say 20 minutes) or if you like - perform a maximal aerobic power test.

Then take your HR strap off, it's more comfortable anyway.

wingnut1

Thanks for that I have read about these tests before!

I feel however my question hasn't been answered as yet or is it a case that my HR average will decrease further or stay static at 135-140 even though i'm pushing more watts!

Vroomfondel

Hello Chaps, im new to this whole cycling game, just got a heart rate monitor a couple of weeks ago and in that time ive been doing intensive cardio training. My resting heart rate clocked 39 and over the last couple of weeks, especially with cycling, and running in the top HR zone, its getting harder to maintain a set high heart rate, ie i can max out on the bike and not get up to the kind of heart rates i was a couple of weeks ago. I have the same problem that my legs fail before i get my heart rate up near what i could.

So in answer to the OP its a tough one keep the HR up in a set high zone if your legs wont turn enough, the key is just to go max out for as long as possible if you're wanting to boost your HR but if you want to maintain a pace just do enough to keep it within 70% - 80% of max.

Also, if its cold and you're cold its harder to get the HR up, but i do think getting the HR up is important for improving fitness, but power output measurements are also a good way to measure fitness improvements.

BeaconRuth

wingnut1 wrote:

I feel however my question hasn't been answered as yet or is it a case that my HR average will decrease further or stay static at 135-140 even though i'm pushing more watts!

I agree your question hasn't been answered and I think you're absolutely right: If you are fitter then, generally speaking, you could expect to put out a greater power at the same HR. However, that comes with the strong warning that HR can vary for all sorts of reasons and seeing any change in HR on a one-off basis is not enough to draw any conclusions.

I wouldn't expect your average HR to decrease further. I would guess that it will stay much as it is, but if you had a long break from training, you might come back to the bike and find you can push your HR higher again. And then again you might not........... I wouldn't get too hung up on it in any case.

wingnut1 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

What do you mean by power training?

I mean muscle building with anaerobic training rather than aerobic which I would guess make my legs more powerfull and therefore be able to push higher gears for longer periods!

Does the branch of sport you're training for involve mainly anaerobic riding or aerobic riding? If you want to push high gears for long periods I'd suggest it requires aerobic fitness and so I should stick with aerobic training. In time, with good training and good rest and recovery your legs will adapt to the demands you are putting on them. Whatever, I'm afraid you're not going to avoid hurty legs if you're serious about the sport!

Ruth

SteveR_100Milers

I cant see that HR is totally irrelevant Alex - of course power is the ultmate measure, as its a measure of how fast a particular rider will go which is THE point after all, but given that power is a a function of metabolism which involves O2 input, rate at which fuel is delivered to the cylinders, and how many cylinders there are, and you can measure the combined effect of all three by the output (power). I would have thought that an elte athlete might also be interested in knowing how the constituent elements of the metabolic process were performing, ergo HR IS important, though not the most, after all its only a part of the system. As far as I know, you cant measure VO2 whilst riding outdoors, but ou can easily can cheaply measure HR. Surely measuring as many paramaters, in addtion to the main output target (in this case watts) must be a *good thing* to do.

For non elte athleteswho ave demanding jobs/families and are time constrained, the benefits of HR or power training are ultimately limited, and te relative costs mean that an HRM is value for money, whereas a power system simply isn't. A lot of us therefore have to resort to looking at the tealeaves for inspiration...

wingnut1

BeaconRuth wrote:

I agree your question hasn't been answered and I think you're absolutely right: If you are fitter then, generally speaking, you could expect to put out a greater power at the same HR. However, that comes with the strong warning that HR can vary for all sorts of reasons and seeing any change in HR on a one-off basis is not enough to draw any conclusions.

Ruth thankyou! Finally somebody who understands where I'm coming from, I'm not going mad afterall!
I agree and can understand the logic behind this, I myself whilst training notice a difference of up to 10% in HR on the turbo when training my normal set. Early morning is a prime example, 5.00am, just got out of bed, HR will be lower than training after work at say 7.00pm. I train in the garage so heat can be a major factor, there are so many annomalies but on an average and training regularly I have noticed this drop in HR!
All I'm saying is there is room for improvement and how best to get there!

BeaconRuth wrote:

I wouldn't expect your average HR to decrease further. I would guess that it will stay much as it is, but if you had a long break from training, you might come back to the bike and find you can push your HR higher again. And then again you might not........... I wouldn't get too hung up on it in any case.

Yes I have experienced this as well as the "over training" effect of not being able to get my HR up at all!

BeaconRuth wrote:

Does the branch of sport you're training for involve mainly anaerobic riding or aerobic riding? If you want to push high gears for long periods I'd suggest it requires aerobic fitness and so I should stick with aerobic training. In time, with good training and good rest and recovery your legs will adapt to the demands you are putting on them. Whatever, I'm afraid you're not going to avoid hurty legs if you're serious about the sport!

Believe you me I love hurty legs, thats part of the addiction :twisted:

Ruth thanks again for that!

wingnut1

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I cant see that HR is totally irrelevant Alex - of course power is the ultmate measure, as its a measure of how fast a particular rider will go which is THE point after all, but given that power is a a function of metabolism which involves O2 input, rate at which fuel is delivered to the cylinders, and how many cylinders there are, and you can measure the combined effect of all three by the output (power). I would have thought that an elte athlete might also be interested in knowing how the constituent elements of the metabolic process were performing, ergo HR IS important, though not the most, after all its only a part of the system. As far as I know, you cant measure VO2 whilst riding outdoors, but ou can easily can cheaply measure HR. Surely measuring as many paramaters, in addtion to the main output target (in this case watts) must be a *good thing* to do.

For non elte athleteswho ave demanding jobs/families and are time constrained, the benefits of HR or power training are ultimately limited, and te relative costs mean that an HRM is value for money, whereas a power system simply isn't. A lot of us therefore have to resort to looking at the tealeaves for inspiration...

Yes exactly, I can't believe pro tour athletes are running there HR at 135-140 probably more like 200 or more but how do they get there?

It looks like training in watts is the way forward over HR and as I have this function how would I go about this best?

Bronzie

wingnut1 wrote:

Yes exactly, I can't believe pro tour athletes are running there HR at 135-140 probably more like 200 or more but how do they get there?

Rule #1 if training using HR as a guide is to not compare yourselves to others. Just because Lance Armstrong had a resting pulse in the low 30's and a max in the high 190's doesn't mean the same will apply to you. Your maximum heart rate is entirely individual to you.

Your maximum heart rate is unlikely to have changed as you've got fitter, but in order to reach it, you will have to work harder. I find that I am only able to get near (what I believe to be*) my max HR when I'm racing or training with riders faster than me - I'm just not able to push myself hard enough when training alone as I tend to back off when it starts to really hurt. Could it be that the same applies for you?

* - there was a bit of debate over this a while back in this thread:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12567850

wingnut1

Ok I think i'm begining to understand this now! So what you are saying is as my HR average has droped due to increased fitness it now means to reach my perceived HR max now means alot more effort as apposed to being unfit and reaching it quiker and more regularly.

I can now see the HR to be pretty irrelevent with my kind of training and I should be consentrating on the watts being more accurate.

I posted some of my training earlier on and I think what I will do is note the watts produced based on that program and increase output at regular intervals!

I have never used the watts function for training on the tacx but last night after my set had a liitle play with this. I set the watts to 300 and ran at 90rpm and then increased to 100rpm, the trainer kept the watts at 300 at all times but it was easier at higher cadence.
What would be the best way to train using this function?
Does anybody else use this function on there tacx?

BeaconRuth

In general I would avoid that function. It's not a realistic situation that you will find on the road (to pedal faster and generate the same power, all else being equal). I think it can lead to all sorts of strange ideas about what is your optimum cadence - and I don't think it's helpful or necessary............ in general. However, gauging your training by the power you are generating (in an ordinary slope mode) is another matter - this can be very effective indeed. If you want to do a session or interval at a certain power, find the resistance/gear/cadence combination to achieve that power. As you get fitter you'll be able to nudge up the cadence a little (maybe just 1 or 2 rpm) which you will see produces a marked increase in power.

Ruth

BeaconRuth

wingnut1 wrote:

Believe you me I love hurty legs, thats part of the addiction :twisted:

Really? :shock: Well yeah, I suppose I do too, except that every so often I suddenly get very very sick of them. Still, at least nothing's hurting through ill-health or injury - it's all self-inflicted through choice.

Ruth

wingnut1

BeaconRuth wrote:

In general I would avoid that function. It's not a realistic situation that you will find on the road (to pedal faster and generate the same power, all else being equal). I think it can lead to all sorts of strange ideas about what is your optimum cadence - and I don't think it's helpful or necessary............ in general. However, gauging your training by the power you are generating (in an ordinary slope mode) is another matter - this can be very effective indeed. If you want to do a session or interval at a certain power, find the resistance/gear/cadence combination to achieve that power. As you get fitter you'll be able to nudge up the cadence a little (maybe just 1 or 2 rpm) which you will see produces a marked increase in power.

Ruth

I did find that function a little strange!

I'm going to go down the route of my normal workout but based on watts and increase as you suggest.

wingnut1

By the way, thanks everyone for all your advice and help

We got there in the end!

Alex_Simmons/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I cant see that HR is totally irrelevant Alex - of course power is the ultmate measure, as its a measure of how fast a particular rider will go which is THE point after all, but given that power is a a function of metabolism which involves O2 input, rate at which fuel is delivered to the cylinders, and how many cylinders there are, and you can measure the combined effect of all three by the output (power). I would have thought that an elte athlete might also be interested in knowing how the constituent elements of the metabolic process were performing, ergo HR IS important, though not the most, after all its only a part of the system. As far as I know, you cant measure VO2 whilst riding outdoors, but ou can easily can cheaply measure HR. Surely measuring as many paramaters, in addtion to the main output target (in this case watts) must be a *good thing* to do.

For non elte athleteswho ave demanding jobs/families and are time constrained, the benefits of HR or power training are ultimately limited, and te relative costs mean that an HRM is value for money, whereas a power system simply isn't. A lot of us therefore have to resort to looking at the tealeaves for inspiration...

Three comments:

1. I've already said that HR is a handy guide for training intensities at sub-maximal levels (it's OK, not great - just OK).
PE and power are better. HR is not however a measure of fitness.

2. Crap training is crap training no matter what you use to record it with. Power meters won't pedal a bike for you. Nor will a HRM.

3. You are ascribing things to HR that simply don't exist. HR is an indicator of cardiac strain. That's about it. It is not an indicator of all those metabolic indicators you mention. But why repeat what's already been written. Here's an extract from a paper written by Charles Howe back in 2002:

It is indeed unfortunate that HRMs preceded power meters to market, since heart rate seems to have become fixed in the popular mind as the true measure of how hard the body is working, indicative of an undefined, nearmystical “whole body stress.”

In fact, metabolic intensity for a given power output is best assessed, first, by the work load (wattage) itself, then by perceived exertion, which incorporates more physiological variables than HR, and does so more reliably.

HR does track well enough with power at lower intensities, where it provides apparently more “stable” feedback than power, but this what this shows primarily is the cardiovascular system’s slow response to the rapid changes in intensity so characteristic of road cycling (the effect is also accentuated slightly by the smoothing algorithms programmed in to the HRM).

Thus, HR is useful for relatively steady-state Level 1/2 training, but as wattage increases beyond ~75% of P60avg <edit - 1 hour TT power>, it becomes less and less accurate and reliable. Factors that are documented to elevate HR include lowered barometric pressure at high altitude, environmental heat, dehydration, cardiovascular drift, lack of sleep, time of day, medication, recent illness/infection, diet (e.g., caffeine), and possibly even position on the bicycle, such as when time trialing.

On the other hand, it is normal for HR to be depressed by recent heavy training, and by accumulated fatigue/lack of recovery (overreaching). Finally, mere day-to-day HR variability can be up to 4%, whereas power is reproducible to ±1%. HR is therefore too inconsistent to guide intensity, and training by HR, while monitoring power, robs any power-measuring system of its most important benefit, namely, to guide training by precisely quantifying and administering the exercise load.