Training too hard?

Simonb256

Quite often I find I am training in the anaerobic zone and it may nip beyond that two or three times. (talking heat rates by the way).

Which I assume is way too high and will need to drop this down a notch (esp as I could do with loosing some of the belly).

However, my question is what are the risks of consistently training at around 85%-95% of HRMax?

Seeing that I train for over 20hours a week.

I think my paranoia is kicking in slightly but meh.

vorsprung

When I had a busted collar bone I was doing 10 minute 85% intervals twice a week on the turbo
I think in the end I was doing 20 minute intervals then I switched to 5 minutes at 90%+

I think the only risk, provided you don't have an underlying medical condition, is that of feeling a bit tired

Simonb256

Thanks for the reply.

For some reason I was thinking that as im doing around 2x 1.5hr sessions a day mon-fri at around that zone minimum plus the sunday run at that rate (also gym sessions and swimming 3 times a week).

Sounds a lot, especially considering that although Im doing all the above Im putting weight on. Though still only eating good ole 3 balanced meals a day.

Plus as my HRMax is 219 running at around 90% of that is erm... reasonably fast.

Bronzie

Simonb256 wrote:

Quite often I find I am training in the anaerobic zone and it may nip beyond that two or three times. (talking heat rates by the way).

Which I assume is way too high and will need to drop this down a notch (esp as I could do with loosing some of the belly)

Not sure why you think reducing the intensity will help you loose weight faster? The harder you are working, the more calories you will expend.

Simonb256 wrote:

For some reason I was thinking that as im doing around 2x 1.5hr sessions a day mon-fri at around that zone minimum plus the sunday run at that rate (also gym sessions and swimming 3 times a week).

How have you worked out your heart rate zones? Nobody can ride "anaerobically" for as long as 90 minutes..........more like 30 seconds tops. I also doubt that you can train for 20 hours a week solidly at 85-95% of maximum heart rate.

Something sounds amiss here. Could your heart rate monitor be playing up?

ride_whenever

with regards to losing weight faster... you'll actually do it more cycling much more slowly, it's to do with the body's response to exercise.

Butin the end you still lose weight, but not as quickly. Say you're doing high intensity intervals at 95% you cannot maintain that, but you can sit below LT indefinitely assuming you can keep fueling, so over a week you can train more than you can with intervals.

hamstrich

Agree with Bronzie... sounds like there's something not quite right with your zones. Make sure you've actually measured your maximum HR as best you can, rather than just using an estimation method. 220 minus age (or any similar formula) may be fairly accurate for some, but really it's just a rough-and-ready method which may or may not give you a ballpark figure.

Furthermore, what % of a person's max HR corresponds to aerobic and anaerobic zones will differ according to their physiology. I'm not sure what the best methods are to work these out, but no doubt someone here will be able to point you in the right direction.

Bronzie

ride_whenever wrote:

with regards to losing weight faster... you'll actually do it more cycling much more slowly, it's to do with the body's response to exercise

Uh-ooooh!

Bhima

[cue alex]

Simonb256

My understanding is that at a certain point you no longer burn fat but rather carbs.
Yes you'll still use calories etc but its the conversion of fat that surprisingly enough help you to loose weight the best (the 60-75% range).

I train at about 80% + most of the time.

eg. My 24mile cycle in to work this morning had an average bpm of 188 (my max is 219, rest is around 61). Which is fairly high in my CV range.

It is generally accepted that longer lower intensity sessions will be best at reducing body fat. I can cite many resources that state this also.

Bhima

Simonb256 wrote:

My understanding is that at a certain point you no longer burn fat but rather carbs.

You ALWAYS burn fat, but beyond a certain point, that ammount stops increasing with effort.

Simonb256

It is important to note that increasing your heart rate over 75% of your maximum heart rate for an extended period of time, (depening on your fitness) burns relatively less fat, as you have moved out of the optimal fat burning heart rate zone, but due to the higher intensity workout, you actually burn more calories, which will acclerate weight loss. Without getting too scientific, as you move to higher intensity exercise, your body moves from aerobic activity, fueled by fat and oxygen, to anaerobic activity fuelled by carbohydrates. The reason for the change is that the body isn't able to break down fat quick enough, so turns to carbs as a fuel source, which doesn't require oxygen to be converted to an energy source. The main problem with this fuel source is that lactic acid is produced. Lactic acid casues that burning sensation in your muscles. It is difficult to maintain exercise for prolonged periods in this range.

This is my understanding.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Simonb256 wrote:

It is important to note that increasing your heart rate over 75% of your maximum heart rate for an extended period of time, (depening on your fitness) burns relatively less fat, as you have moved out of the optimal fat burning heart rate zone, but due to the higher intensity workout, you actually burn more calories, which will acclerate weight loss. Without getting too scientific, as you move to higher intensity exercise, your body moves from aerobic activity, fueled by fat and oxygen, to anaerobic activity fuelled by carbohydrates. The reason for the change is that the body isn't able to break down fat quick enough, so turns to carbs as a fuel source, which doesn't require oxygen to be converted to an energy source. The main problem with this fuel source is that lactic acid is produced. Lactic acid casues that burning sensation in your muscles. It is difficult to maintain exercise for prolonged periods in this range.

This is my understanding.

Then I suggest you do some research to improve your understanding. There is so much wrong with that paragraph it's not funny.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Simonb256 wrote:

It is generally accepted that longer lower intensity sessions will be best at reducing body fat. I can cite many resources that state this also.

Rubbish.
Cite evidence, not resources.

the fuel substrate mix utilised is irrelevant.
energy in - energy out is all that matters.