take a look at my zones and some advice please

stokepa31

I have a garmin 705 and it kindly puts out my HR zones in training centre. Im not entirely sure what the hell it means and am unsure if my training is benefiting me.

I usually cook out at just over 160bpm so think the zones are pretty accurate. im not pushing myself at the moment and am just concentrating on getting miles in. im a proper fatty at just over 19t and 5'10. 39 years young

i do two sessions in the gym each week on a tue & thu and try to do 40 mins on the gym bike at 70-80 rpm on a varied course between level 9 and level 12 resistance. I then do some weights and take a 15min swim slow and steady.

on the weekend I am currently riding around 36 miles in 2hrs 30ish. looking at my graph in training centre im not sure if im working correctly to improve my fitness. im signed up for London Paris (newhaven dieppe variety) on May day weekend and want to know if I am going abut things the right way.

after the weekend ride im tired but not knackered. i tend to allow myself to recover after hills. should I be pushing it yet or should I carry on doing what im doing or try and up the distance to 50 miles which is about the daily distance on the trip.

here is a link to my HR graph for Saturdays ride, any advice greatly received.

http://s638.photobucket.com/albums/uu102/stokepa31/?action=view&current=heartzones.jpg

Cheers Paul

chrisw12

Your main aim is lose weight and to complete a hard ride, yes?

So given where your at and where you want to be, perhaps try and answer these two questions.

1) What benefit does the weight training give you?
2) Do you think that 2x 40 min sessions and one longish ride is enough?

Looking at heart rate and intensity is a detail thing, I think you need to get the bigger things right first like, what exactly are my goals and how can I use my limited time to efficiently reach these goals.

chrisw12

Since you asked, I did take a look at your hr graph. That seems like a very solid effort with a significant amount of time in l4 and l5. It's great to see someone put some real effort in.

On the flip side though given the amount of time in the higher zones and the average speed, it does suggest that you could do with a bit more cycle training time/quality throughout the week.

stokepa31

chrisw12 wrote:

Your main aim is lose weight and to complete a hard ride, yes?

So given where your at and where you want to be, perhaps try and answer these two questions.

1) What benefit does the weight training give you?
2) Do you think that 2x 40 min sessions and one longish ride is enough?

Looking at heart rate and intensity is a detail thing, I think you need to get the bigger things right first like, what exactly are my goals and how can I use my limited time to efficiently reach these goals.

my goal is definitely weight and fitness driven. last year was the first real year of cycling and i worked up to a 50 mile sportive in oct. During the summer, i was doing 2 x 20 miles during the week and a 40 on the weekend. the winter saw me join the gym to try and keep the pounds off over winter (which worked as im down another stone since the october sportive).

the weights were suggested by the guy at the gym to strengthen my shoulders and lower back so I can carry the increased front end weight that my belly generates.

I honestly would like more time to train but work and family mean my time is limited. I just got some rollers and hope to add in a couple of sessions on those too.

perhaps I should ditch the gym and hit the rollers for longer? the gym bikes are really uncomfortable compared to my own bike and 40 mins leaves me numb (should wear my bibs to the gym but would feel a dick)

I guess my real question is should I go for a higher intensity when i exercise to make it count or keep it steady. I think 14.4 average for a fat git is ok?? my best is 15.6mph over 20 miles

I know i will get the distance in france as you have the whole day to ride it (its an organized tour rather than charity ride)

i guess in reality the paris thing is just my way of giving myself a goal as the 50 mile sportive was last year. in reality I just want to keep dropping weight and get fitter and faster. Its important to me that I drop the weight slowly too so its sustainable.

stokepa31

chrisw12 wrote:

Since you asked, I did take a look at your hr graph. That seems like a very solid effort with a significant amount of time in l4 and l5. It's great to see someone put some real effort in.

On the flip side though given the amount of time in the higher zones and the average speed, it does suggest that you could do with a bit more cycle training time/quality throughout the week.

its the hills that slow me down I try not to drop below 10mph on the hills and manage this ok as long as the gradient is no more than 4-5% anything over that and I go pretty slow. short sharp ones i tend to get out of the saddle and blast it but the more sustained rises kill me.

doyler78

chrisw12 wrote:

Since you asked, I did take a look at your hr graph. That seems like a very solid effort with a significant amount of time in l4 and l5. It's great to see someone put some real effort in.

On the flip side though given the amount of time in the higher zones and the average speed, it does suggest that you could do with a bit more cycle training time/quality throughout the week.

I think you are reading way too much into the graph and the supporting data as there is nothing in it which I can see that sets the context for how the zones were determined and without it everything else is idol speculation. For me those stats would be nothing more than a recovery ride that went on too long.

We need to know how the zones were calculated so that we at least have an idea of what effort was actually involved in the ride.

stokepa31

doyler78 wrote:

chrisw12 wrote:

Since you asked, I did take a look at your hr graph. That seems like a very solid effort with a significant amount of time in l4 and l5. It's great to see someone put some real effort in.

On the flip side though given the amount of time in the higher zones and the average speed, it does suggest that you could do with a bit more cycle training time/quality throughout the week.

I think you are reading way too much into the graph and the supporting data as there is nothing in it which I can see that sets the context for how the zones were determined and without it everything else is idol speculation. For me those stats would be nothing more than a recovery ride that went on too long.

We need to know how the zones were calculated so that we at least have an idea of what effort was actually involved in the ride.

I take your point. the zones were calculated by me entering my profile into the garmin so not exactly scientific. my heart never seems to go over 165 no matter how hard im working. is that a good indicator??? 220 minus age would give 180 but is that for a fairly normal sized person. guessing years of pizza, chinese, beer and other crap will have taken their toll. (no longer drink and takeaways are rare)

chrisw12

doyler78 wrote:

chrisw12 wrote:

Since you asked, I did take a look at your hr graph. That seems like a very solid effort with a significant amount of time in l4 and l5. It's great to see someone put some real effort in.

On the flip side though given the amount of time in the higher zones and the average speed, it does suggest that you could do with a bit more cycle training time/quality throughout the week.

I think you are reading way too much into the graph and the supporting data as there is nothing in it which I can see that sets the context for how the zones were determined and without it everything else is idol speculation. For me those stats would be nothing more than a recovery ride that went on too long.

We need to know how the zones were calculated so that we at least have an idea of what effort was actually involved in the ride.

You know sometimes you've got to be nice to people and try to say something positive before you give them the negative.

So I'm not being patronising and I'm not trying to read anything into anything. I'm just giving him his dues before I mention a problem.

stokepa31

well i'm here to learn and get the benefit of everyones thoughts and folks say things differently. no offence will be taken either way.

ut_och_cykla

Here's my take - tho' not everybody will agree. (and I havent read the graph stuff)
you can probably already do the challenge you have set yourself - but you want to enjoy too!
Although the gym isnt so bike related it is a good habit - some self discipline is needed you get on the rollers (and skills!!). I wouldn't skip the gym completely until the light evenings arrive - soon! Any activity is better than nothing if you want to help weight loss.
If you do get rollers /a turbo it would be worth replacing at least one of your gym sessions with a bike session like 2 x 20 minutes intervalls - going as fast as you can maintain for both the 20 minute intervalls - (not eye balls out for 5 mins and then slowing down) . When light and weather permits get out and ride harder for a shorter time during the week.
And personally I would try to up the weekend distance as much as you can between now and your ride - it will harden your backside and your mind to cycling when part of you wouldl rather be doing something else...do it at a steady pace, and increase teh distance gradually over teh weeks and months.
If hills make you struggle/walk - look over your gears and think about something easier so you can keep cycling.. you can always change back later when you're fitter!
Good luck!

Bronzie

Looking at your time in zones, I suspect your set max HR is too low - on a 2h33m ride you did:

9 seconds in zone 1!
6m zone 2
41m zone 3
74m zone 4
36m zone 5

You also went above level 5 on a couple of occassions (ie greater than max HR) so something is definitely wrong with your set max.

How hard did the ride feel - was it as fast as you could manage for the whole duration?

It's not easy finding your max heart rate - you have to be prepared to push yourself way beyond what feels comfortable - that's why many people use "Lactate Threshold Heart Rate" instead.

monkeyjo

I'm making my way through The Cyclist's Training Bible at the moment. It has a pretty good section explaining heart rate and might be of use to you generally with your training.

You can pick it up for £12 from Amazon at the moment.

sampras38

Bronzie wrote:

Looking at your time in zones, I suspect your set max HR is too low - on a 2h33m ride you did:

9 seconds in zone 1!
6m zone 2
41m zone 3
74m zone 4
36m zone 5

You also went above level 5 on a couple of occassions (ie greater than max HR) so something is definitely wrong with your set max.

How hard did the ride feel - was it as fast as you could manage for the whole duration?

It's not easy finding your max heart rate - you have to be prepared to push yourself way beyond what feels comfortable - that's why many people use "Lactate Threshold Heart Rate" instead.

I think you've hit on a good point here and I would bet my mortgage his MHR is a lot higher, and the only reason he's not seen it is he needs to work harder, and obviously that is something that will come in time. Ditch the gym and get on the bike more often and I'm sure you will start to see a difference. Turbo sessions should ideally be around 45 minutes to an hour or so and at a decent intensity, and I would recommend the 2 x 20 session. There are differrent variations but I tend to do 10 min warm up, then 20 minutes as hard as I can manage, then 5 minute rest, then another hard 20 minutes, then 5 minute cool down. Whole thing takes an hour and I am well cooked by the end. I will do this once or twice a week, and throw in other sessions too like the Sufferfest ones.

I'm the same age as you and my MHR is around 190 or so. Not that this is relevant but while doing this session I can sometimes be riding at 95% of MHR.

lochindaal

From looking at your graph I would say your MHR is definately too low.

Your HR comes back down again as soon as you move from a climb to a downhill on your elevation profile. You are either very fit or not working to a maximum?

if you want to lose weight you have to get rid of more calories (exercise) than you take in (food). If you are doing a short ride you are going to have to work hard to burn a lot. On a longer ride you can go a bit easier to make sure you can keep going long enough to burn an effective amount (you also then start getting into needing enrtgy drinks, etc which is more carbs in)

I would say at the moment you can comfortably do the ride you are doing, your average speed suggests that as well. Keep doing the same ride but start putting more effort in. It will hurt a bit to start with but you'll soon adapt. Once you can do that ride at a higher ave speed (say 17mph) maybe think about extending the distance.

Your weight loss will happen as a natural part of the increased effort and your bike riding will also get better as a result of the weight loss. It becomes an addictive cycle (no pun intended).

Good luck with London Paris

PS I wear my cycle shorts in the gym. Don't really care what othe people might think they're normally on the bike for only 10mins.

stokepa31

Bronzie wrote:

Looking at your time in zones, I suspect your set max HR is too low - on a 2h33m ride you did:

9 seconds in zone 1!
6m zone 2
41m zone 3
74m zone 4
36m zone 5

You also went above level 5 on a couple of occassions (ie greater than max HR) so something is definitely wrong with your set max.

How hard did the ride feel - was it as fast as you could manage for the whole duration?

It's not easy finding your max heart rate - you have to be prepared to push yourself way beyond what feels comfortable - that's why many people use "Lactate Threshold Heart Rate" instead.

The ride was not flat out. As its early in the year my riding buddy and I are just concentrating on time in the saddle and a steady pace. I take your point about my max HR so think im going to need to try some full on efforts to see how high I can get it.

I am going to try and fit in another ride of 20 miles during the week before or after work (or during if I get lucky) and will concentrate on making it high intensity.

The gym is a difficult one as im paying £35 a month and cant cancel till September. Im thinking about booking myself a fitness test through Mike Vaughn cycles as this would give me a better handle on my data and where to go with it.

Looking out of the window, its bloody lovely out there. Might try and skip off early and do that 20.

thanks for the other suggestions, I will check out the book and will definitely give the rollers a go too.

Cheers
Paul

Bronzie

stokepa31 wrote:

The ride was not flat out. As its early in the year my riding buddy and I are just concentrating on time in the saddle and a steady pace.

Given that, I'd expect to see most of the time in Zone 2 / 3 rather than Zone 4

sampras38

Bronzie wrote:

stokepa31 wrote:

The ride was not flat out. As its early in the year my riding buddy and I are just concentrating on time in the saddle and a steady pace.

Given that, I'd expect to see most of the time in Zone 2 / 3 rather than Zone 4

But isn't that most likely because he's set his MHR too low?

Bronzie

Yes - that's what I'm saying.

If HR max is more like 175 (for example) then Z2 at 70-80% => 120-140 which fits in better with a 2.5 hour "steady ride".

sampras38

Bronzie wrote:

Yes - that's what I'm saying.

If HR max is more like 175 (for example) then Z2 at 70-80% => 120-140 which fits in better with a 2.5 hour "steady ride".

Yep

stokepa31

To all those who staked their mortgage, dont panic, the roof over your head is safe

Just tried an interesting experiment. stuck some paper over the screen on the garmin so i couldnt see it and just rode as hard as I could on my (almost) 20 mile training loop. not done this route since just before last Octobers 50 mile sportive. guess what. NEW PB 8)

Whats clear is my zones are definitely set too low. I found a new level today. just goes to show how easy it is to look at the screen and convince yourself you are working to your potential. Thank you everyone as I now realise i was not doing myself justice.

If anyone passes a lung on the Coventry road just at the top of the hill by Brinklow quarry its mine and id like it back :shock:

think im going to reset the profile at 180 MHR. just weighed myself too and have broken the magic 19st barrier. Drank 1.5 litres on the way round too. time for some new gear as a treat

here is the data. looks like I did 6 miles above zone 5!

http://s638.photobucket.com/albums/uu102/stokepa31/?action=view&current=heartzoneswitheffort.jpg

ded

Just a quick note that basically echoes what's been said above, that it's a lot easier to find your "threshold heart rate" than your max and you can still work out useful zones from that. Various different ways to do it, but basically go as hard as you can for anything between 8 (Time crunched cyclist) and 20 minutes (Joe Friel) and record your average heart rate for that time and work out zones from there, e.g.:

http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2009/11/quick-guide-to-setting-zones.html

Sounds like you may have done that more or less with your last ride!

sampras38

stokepa31 wrote:

To all those who staked their mortgage, dont panic, the roof over your head is safe

Just tried an interesting experiment. stuck some paper over the screen on the garmin so i couldnt see it and just rode as hard as I could on my (almost) 20 mile training loop. not done this route since just before last Octobers 50 mile sportive. guess what. NEW PB 8)

Whats clear is my zones are definitely set too low. I found a new level today. just goes to show how easy it is to look at the screen and convince yourself you are working to your potential. Thank you everyone as I now realise i was not doing myself justice.

If anyone passes a lung on the Coventry road just at the top of the hill by Brinklow quarry its mine and id like it back :shock:

think im going to reset the profile at 180 MHR. just weighed myself too and have broken the magic 19st barrier. Drank 1.5 litres on the way round too. time for some new gear as a treat

here is the data. looks like I did 6 miles above zone 5!

http://s638.photobucket.com/albums/uu102/stokepa31/?action=view&current=heartzoneswitheffort.jpg

You might even find it's a little higher than 180. I did a 2x20 session on the turbo last night and really pushed it. Got a 182 reading in the last minute of the 2nd 20 minutes and i was riding pretty much on the limit. The highest reading I've ever seen on the road is a 192 or 193 and that was yonks ago. Seen it twice, once at the top of the Joux Plane in the Alps after racing a mate and the 2nd time in a similar situation in Box Hill, Surrey. Over the last year I've not seen anything over 184 and I have a feeling my MHR has dropped a few beats, which can sometimes happen when you are fairly new to endurance events.

doyler78

ded wrote:

Just a quick note that basically echoes what's been said above, that it's a lot easier to find your "threshold heart rate" than your max and you can still work out useful zones from that. Various different ways to do it, but basically go as hard as you can for anything between 8 (Time crunched cyclist) and 20 minutes (Joe Friel) and record your average heart rate for that time and work out zones from there, e.g.:

http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2009/11/quick-guide-to-setting-zones.html

Sounds like you may have done that more or less with your last ride!

I keep seeing this. Have you actually conducted a maxHR test? This is a genuine question as I do wonder if this is just another of those cycling myths that gets forever recycled.

I have done 2 maxHR tests over the years and plenty of LTHR work. Both are maximal efforts and both awful and if I were to choose one to do I would take the maxHR test any day. Why because it is a lot shorter and the part that is really uncomfortable is really only at back end of the test whereas the uncomfortable part of a threshold effort is right throughout the whole effort (because these tests require a steady state threshold effort which attempt to get you to the point where you just get to the end with nothing left to give).

Both are considerably longer tests (Ramp Test ~10 mins). Time crunched actually involves 2x8 min maximal efforts with a 10 min recovery in between efforts so that is actually 26 mins without even taking into account warmup and cool down.

Again Friel's test is actually 30 mins for the work part with only the final 20 mins counting however again no warmup or cooldown time included in this.

Having said that every online resource specifically warns against people older than 35 undertaking ramp tests (maxHR) without it being conducted by a qualified person. Not sure that I get this myself as people who race regularly get close to max in road races with a cardiologist at their side but there you go.

stokepa31

Ive not conducted a proper test and dont really see the need now to be honest. I think 180 will put me in the right ballpark to improve my fitness so will stick with that for now. my biggest problem was thinking that my weight somehow meant id have a much lower maximum than your average rider. my ride on Tuesday proved to me that I can get much higher sustained heart rates without my performance suffering unduly.

when ive lost some more weight and feel fitter, I may go down the science route and get a proper measurement done.

im going to try and get more sessions in too. Im thinking about my first century at the end of the sumer this year so will see how I come along. Great story in Cycling Active this month about a guy who went from 20st to 12 st. I will be that man

stokepa31

Sorry to resurrect this thread but i just had a really good ride and couldnt help it.

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/27606814

I actually did just under 60 but my Garmin battery was on fumes so had to turn it off as i didn't want to lose the data. cracking 15mph for this sort of distance is a dream come true for me.

I had a really good mid week ride to so was hoping for a good performance. looking forward to the wiggle sportive on the 18th and feel ready

compression now applied and looking forward to a nice roast. yum yum.

Splottboy

If you wore your bib tights to the gym, you would actually be able to feel your dick, not look like one LOL!
Who gives a toss what "they" think...You're training for your helath/fitness not for them !

Do you really think that those leather weights belts they strut around in are any good?
Maybe for some, but the vast majority wear em to pose...Tossers !

Wear what you like, DUDE !

Oh, and keep training...