HR training question for the coaches

rock_hopper

For the last 2 years I have been training on RPE (feel) and it has worked pretty well so far. Before that I established my HR zones (using Friel), got to know how the effort felt then stopped using my HR monitor as I felt it was a distraction.

Now, my question is on Zone/Level 2 Endurance. Some coaches/info say 70-75% max, some say 75-80% max. I understand this zone to be one that you could maintain for 4 hours. Friel uses 75-80% max but I cant maintain that pace for 4 hours. Not sure if that's due to lack of fitness or effort too high. I also read an article recently that said anything below 75% max is recovery. For a bit of background I have been training/racing for 3-4 years (8-10hrs a week) and am currently in the expert category of MTB.

Thanks

Bronzie

rock_hopper wrote:

Friel uses 75-80% max but I cant maintain that pace for 4 hours.

Not a coach but............

Friel's Zone 2 is 81-89% of Lactate Threshold Heart Rate (which spookily enough for me is approx 70-77% of max)
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/media/154 ... r-pace.pdf

75-80% of max HR would be more Zone 3 (tempo) I think - I couldn't hold that sort of heart rate for 4 hours either.

Bronzie

Having said that, this old post of Alex's agrees with the 75-80% max HR for "Core Endurance (1-6 hours)":
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12592875

:?

ut_och_cykla

Could be lack of fitness - in a timed event of 3 hours 20 I averaged 82% of my lab determined max pulse. Maybe you should aim at the lower levels first and work up to the distance speed and nearness to threshhold slowly? I'm not sure 80% of max HR would be easy without a whole lot of training. But you race at expert level MTB?
Are you sure of your max HR?
Do you only ever train for short/hour or so rides?
My impression was anything under 70% could be considered as not creating a training load if its not too long.(ie recovery ) But clearly 12 hours at 70% could be pretty hard for your body and not permit recovery.

rock_hopper

Yea pretty sure of max HR, I think most training zones are based on LTHR as per Friels. I do rides from 1-4 hours regularly. I think my main concern is doing a 4 hour group road ride where Im sat at a HR that isn't giving me any training benefit! Say 130-140. My max is 200, threshold 182. Zone 2 is 150-160. It's a pace you have to concentrate to hold as apposed to riding in a group and chatting. Thanks for your thoughts guys

Bronzie

Had another look at this last night and using a more reliable figure for my max HR (think it was too high before, probably a spike), this is how the various HR zone guidelines compare - Alex's suggestions based on max HR fit pretty well now with Friel's based on LTHR (for me at least).

Zn Desc

---

Friel HR----Friel LTHR%----Coggan LTHR%-Of my HRmax--Alex's maxHR%
1 Recovery

---

101-123----<81%

---

<68%

---

59%-72%

---

<70%
2 Endurance

---

124-137----81%-89%

---

69%-83%

---

72%-80%

---

75%-80%
3 Tempo

---

138-143----90%-93%

---

84%-94%

---

80%-83%

---

80%-85%
4 Sub-TT/TT

---

144-153----94%-99%

---

)95%-105%

---

84%-89%----)85%-92.5%
5A SupThrshld----154-157----100%-102%----)95%-105%

---

90%-91%

---

)85%-92.5%
5B Aerobic Cap---158-162----103%-106%--->106%

---

92%-94%

---

>92.5%
5C Anaerobc Cap-163-168---->106%

---

n/a

---

95%-98%

---

n/a

chas.readman

When you all talk about max HR, for my max of 190 and resting HR of 55 would 80% be.

1) 190 x 0.8 = 152

or

2) ((190-55) x 0.8 ) + 55 = 163 i.e 80 % of my HR range

There is loads of difference between the 2 values in terms of effort, I see the zones for training am a little confused as to what it means, I thought it was the latter but have people changed what they mean. Alex your opinion would be welcome.
Thanks

rock_hopper

Chas, 152 would be 80% of your max, forget about your resting HR when working out zones. It's a percentage of your max or LTHR, not range.

Bronzie, if you went out for a solo 3 hour ride could you hold a HR of 124-137 for the whole ride? I think sometimes groups ride too easy. Sat in the cafe saying, yea, we did a 5 hour ride today, but how much of that was aerobically beneficial? Read something that I liked the other day, endurance training should be comfortably hard but hardly comfortable. Joe Friels blog has a couple of good posts on aerobic training.

Bronzie

rock_hopper wrote:

Bronzie, if you went out for a solo 3 hour ride could you hold a HR of 124-137 for the whole ride?

I could average towards the middle of that range without killing myself.

The upper end of the range would be a tougher ask, but have averaged c.140 for 3hr hard group rides and c.143 for 2.5hr road races.

Alex_Simmons/RST

chas.readman wrote:

When you all talk about max HR, for my max of 190 and resting HR of 55 would 80% be.

1) 190 x 0.8 = 152

or

2) ((190-55) x 0.8 ) + 55 = 163 i.e 80 % of my HR range

There is loads of difference between the 2 values in terms of effort, I see the zones for training am a little confused as to what it means, I thought it was the latter but have people changed what they mean. Alex your opinion would be welcome.
Thanks

Opinion on what?

The OP answered his/her own question with these statements:

rock_hopper wrote:

For the last 2 years I have been training on RPE (feel) and it has worked pretty well so far.

and

rock_hopper wrote:

Friel uses 75-80% max but I cant maintain that pace for 4 hours.

Given that RPE is as good as HR for those that are experienced trainers and the principles that:
"if it feels hard, it is hard" and
"alls you can do is alls you can do"

then the answers are already in the OP's question.

rock_hopper

Thanks Alex. I thought that going back to using the HR monitor might make my training a bit more specific i.e. staying in zone. Upon reflection it could make me overtrain. Thanks

Alex_Simmons/RST

rock_hopper wrote:

Thanks Alex. I thought that going back to using the HR monitor might make my training a bit more specific i.e. staying in zone. Upon reflection it could make me overtrain. Thanks

Overtraining is exceptionally difficult state to attain.

HRM can be a useful tool, but what matters is doing the right mix of intensity and volume. All the HRM does is help some get the intensity part of the equation about right. If you already have a good sense of RPE, then that will still serve you well, and provided your training is appropriate you can certainly do well.