MHR and training zones

droadie

Just so happens, i need a new cycling computer. I always said, if i get another cycling computer, get a wireless one. I weighing up whether to get cycling computer with HRM or a cycling computer and seperate HRM. The seperate HRM are for the wrist so i wouldn't need a lead going to my chest.

Would it be a big deal, losing the benefit of not having the HRM linlked into the cycling computer? eg. Polar CS200
http://polar.fitnessmegastore.co.uk/pol ... -11483.htm

nickwill

droadie wrote:

Just so happens, i need a new cycling computer. I always said, if i get a new cycling computer, get a wireless one. I weighing up whether to get cycling computer with HRM or a cycling computer and seperate HRM. The seperate HRM are for the wrist so i wouldn't need a lead going to my chest.

Would it be a big deal, losing the benefit of not having the HRM linlked into the cycling computer? eg. Polar CS200
http://polar.fitnessmegastore.co.uk/pol ... -11483.htm

I haven't yet seen any HRM with a lead going to the chest. Most work wirelessly from a strap which goes round the chest and contains sensors and a transmitter. A very few use the pulse point on the wrist but AFAIK this is less reliable. Any wrist watch type HRM can be fastened to either the bars or the wrist.

droadie

Nickwill wrote:

I've got to disagree with this. At 52 with a max of at least 190 bpm, the formula would be 32 bpm out. It's not even in the right ballpark. For a beginner to start out using the 220- age formula would be totally ridiculous. I do agree that when you have got used to the feel of the zones, you can tell where you are with them, by the way you feel.

Good points and I don't think you should attempt maximum heart rate, until you built up your aerobic fitness good and a healthy weight.

droadie

Maybe this is of use, dates back to 2007.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

It is possible to estimate your exercise intensity as a percentage of VO2 Max from your training heart rate. David Swain (1994) and his US based research team using statistical procedures examined the relationship between %MHR and %VO2 Max. Their results led to the following regression equation:

%MHR = 0.64 × %VO2 Max + 37

A ton of tests to discover your VO2 max.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/vo2max.htm

droadie

So once i got my MHR established. I like to know my VO2 max.

Looking at this link there is a table of %MHR to %VO2 Max.
http://www.cptips.com/maxhrsc.htm

droadie

More info to backup the benefit of riding slower from cptips.com

What they saying is, the amount of FAT calories burned either at 50% or 85% VO2 Max is the same! 50% VO2 Max equates to 70% MHR.

http://www.cptips.com/weight.htm

droadie

This guide covers alot on Maximum Heart Rate(MHR)
http://www.marathonguide.com/training/a ... aining.cfm

Perhaps the best way for most people to find their MHR is to calculate it themselves. The most effective method is to do interval training, preferably on a hill. A hill of at least 200 or 300 meters will suffice. Sprint up the hill and jog back down, using only the jog as a resting period. Repeat this cycle five or six times, and you will likely attain a heart rate that is at least very near your MHR (your MHR being simply the highest number of beats per minute that you were able to provoke). In the absence of a hill, you may wish to extend the length of your intervals to 400 meters.

Keep in mind that your MHR can be a little elusive. If, a week after you determine your MHR to be 186 BPM, you see 192 flash across your display as you do interval training, then your MHR is actually 192. This does not indicate a change in fitness or health, but would instead serve as evidence that when you tested you MHR before you were tired, rundown, or perhaps did not exert yourself hard enough. Your MHR is genetically predetermined, and has basically nothing to do with your level of fitness

droadie

Nickwill wrote:

I do agree that when you have got used to the feel of the zones, you can tell where you are with them, by the way you feel.

As you continually improve your fitness more and more, don't you lose the feel of what zone you are in?

rokkala

Are you JimmyK in disguise?

droadie

A related thread on the subject.
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... highlight=

After reading that thread, i will repeat this.

Keep in mind that your MHR can be a little elusive. If, a week after you determine your MHR to be 186 BPM, you see 192 flash across your display as you do interval training, then your MHR is actually 192. This does not indicate a change in fitness or health, but would instead serve as evidence that when you tested you MHR before you were tired, rundown, or perhaps did not exert yourself hard enough.

droadie

Nickwill wrote:

droadie wrote:

Just so happens, i need a new cycling computer. I always said, if i get a new cycling computer, get a wireless one. I weighing up whether to get cycling computer with HRM or a cycling computer and seperate HRM. The seperate HRM are for the wrist so i wouldn't need a lead going to my chest.

Would it be a big deal, losing the benefit of not having the HRM linlked into the cycling computer? eg. Polar CS200
http://polar.fitnessmegastore.co.uk/pol ... -11483.htm

I haven't yet seen any HRM with a lead going to the chest. Most work wirelessly from a strap which goes round the chest and contains sensors and a transmitter. A very few use the pulse point on the wrist but AFAIK this is less reliable. Any wrist watch type HRM can be fastened to either the bars or the wrist.

Still, i rather get a wrist one.

The Polar FT7 is new, with some good features.
http://www.heartratemonitor.co.uk/polar ... nitor.html
http://activegearreview.com/gear-review ... ft7-review

coupled with a Cateye Strada wireless.

or would i be better off with the Polar RS300x?
http://www.heartratemonitor.co.uk/polar ... sd_g1.html

or Polar CS300
http://www.heartratemonitor.co.uk/polar ... nitor.html

or will the Polar CS200 do all i need?
http://www.heartratemonitor.co.uk/polar ... _bike.html

:?

Bronzie

droadie wrote:

This guide covers alot on Maximum Heart Rate(MHR)
http://www.marathonguide.com/training/a ... aining.cfm

But don't confuse your running MHR and cycling MHR - you can usually achieve a higher max whilst running due to greater muscle mass in use.

bigpikle

For building BASE fitness, there is no substitute for training at the lower HR's described in many of the articles and threads linked IMHO.

You CAN get faster doing it as well, as you develop your body's efficiency. Your body becomes better adapted to working at those lower ranges, so over time you can work harder for the SAME heart rate. The analogy of building an engine is a good one. The more time spent building base endurance at these lower levels of exertion, the BIGGER engine you build. Once you have a built the big engine, you then tune it with other types of training. What then performs better - a highly tuned 4 cylinder 1.6 or a highly tuned V8 4.0L? I know which I'd rather be building

I just spent 6 months training for a half marathon. I worked exclusively at these endurance HR zones as these longer distances were new to me. Over the months I found I was running faster and faster at the SAME heart rate, so clearly improved not only my endurance but ALSO my speed.

Of course, once you have built your base endurance you'll want to start other forms of training to develop power, climbing, sprinting ability etc but rubbishing training at these endurance building levels is simply wrong.

droadie

phil s wrote:

Cool, so the resting heart rate plays no part?

Resting heart rate - A resting pulse rate is taken on awakening in the morning before getting out of bed. An increase of 10% or 10 beats per minute for several days in a row is accepted by most coaches as a sign to slow down. Remember, it is the trend of your resting heart rate, taken over a period of days, that is important, not a single day's reading.

droadie

Bigpikle wrote:

For building BASE fitness, there is no substitute for training at the lower HR's described in many of the articles and threads linked IMHO.

You CAN get faster doing it as well, as you develop your body's efficiency. Your body becomes better adapted to working at those lower ranges, so over time you can work harder for the SAME heart rate. The analogy of building an engine is a good one. The more time spent building base endurance at these lower levels of exertion, the BIGGER engine you build. Once you have a built the big engine, you then tune it with other types of training. What then performs better - a highly tuned 4 cylinder 1.6 or a highly tuned V8 4.0L? I know which I'd rather be building

I just spent 6 months training for a half marathon. I worked exclusively at these endurance HR zones as these longer distances were new to me. Over the months I found I was running faster and faster at the SAME heart rate, so clearly improved not only my endurance but ALSO my speed.

Of course, once you have built your base endurance you'll want to start other forms of training to develop power, climbing, sprinting ability etc but rubbishing training at these endurance building levels is simply wrong.

Thanks for your insight.

droadie

Bronzie wrote:

droadie wrote:

This guide covers alot on Maximum Heart Rate(MHR)
http://www.marathonguide.com/training/a ... aining.cfm

But don't confuse your running MHR and cycling MHR - you can usually achieve a higher max whilst running due to greater muscle mass in use.

I found some good info here on HR Training.
http://www.training4cyclists.com/articles/

and here
http://www.cptips.com/hrmntr.htm
http://www.cptips.com/ovrtrng.htm

Looks like good nuggets below.

If you always train at low heart rates, you will develop endurance with no top end speed. Conversely if you train hard most of the time, you'll never recover completely and chronic fatigue will poison your performance. The solution is to mix hard training with easy pedaling in the proper proportions.

The best approach is to stay below 80% of maximum heart rate (zones 1 to 3) on your easy days to build an aerobic base while allowing day to day recovery, and then push above 85% when it's time to go hard to improve your high level performance. But avoid training in the no man's land or mediocre middle at 80-85% of MHR where it's too difficult to maintain the pace for the long rides needed to build endurance and allow some recovery time, but not hard enough to significantly improve your aerobic performance and increase your lactate threshold.

A heart monitor can provide you with clues as to whether you are risking an overtraining situation - and thus should take an extra day of rest. Do a warm up that takes you to the foot of a familiar hill. Climb at your usual pace while keeping one eye on your HRM. One of four things will happen:

Heart rate is higher than normal and legs feel tired
Heart rate is normal and legs feel tired
Heart rate is higher than normal and legs feel good
Heart rate is normal and legs feel good

In the first situation, your recovery from previous rides isn't close to what it should be. Head on home and take the day off. Pushing on will only put you in a deeper hole. In the second and third scenarios, your recovery is incomplete, but not to the extent of #1. You can continue riding, but only if you can keep distance and intensity moderate. Scenario number four indicates you are right on schedule with your training.

droadie

I decided to just get a cheap HRM for now. I won't bother with cycling computer as i'm used to cadence and speeds. Concentrate on the cycling, obsessing less over data. It appears other brands like Timex, give you more features for same price. I like the Timex with GPS http://www.heartratemonitor.co.uk/timex ... s_hrm.html

You got to spend alot, to get a good one with advanced features, might as well get the basic features and little price. Sounds like the Polar CS200 doesn't live upto it's name on the HR side of things. I can workout my training zones.

The Polar FT60 looks a good one to go for, to take it serious. Higher price then might as well get a Garmin 305. Aye!

Alex_Simmons/RST

Bigpikle wrote:

For building BASE fitness, there is no substitute for training at the lower HR's described in many of the articles and threads linked IMHO.

Not IMO. There are plenty of much more effective substitutes for developing one's sustainable aerobic power (which is all that matters physiologically speaking for endurance cycling - and IS base fitness).

Bigpikle wrote:

You CAN get faster doing it as well, as you develop your body's efficiency.

Efficiency is by and large an inherit physiological characteristic, which changes little in trained cyclists, and is not impacted all that much by training. If anything it may change very marginally in riders doing massive volumes over perhaps a decade of high level riding.

Bigpikle wrote:

What then performs better - a highly tuned 4 cylinder 1.6 or a highly tuned V8 4.0L? I know which I'd rather be building

Analogies with internal combustion engines are inappropriate. But if you insist, for a marathon guy - maybe a turbo diesel would be better

Bigpikle wrote:

I just spent 6 months training for a half marathon. I worked exclusively at these endurance HR zones as these longer distances were new to me. Over the months I found I was running faster and faster at the SAME heart rate, so clearly improved not only my endurance but ALSO my speed.

It is also possible that your improvements through training was due to other factors, such as being more consistent, and/or your actual workload (a function of duration and intensity) was greater than before, rather than being attributed to the specific "zone" per se.

As a runner - I'd recommend reading up on training methods employed by Arthur Lydiard.

Alex_Simmons/RST

droadie wrote:

But avoid training in the no man's land or mediocre middle at 80-85% of MHR where it's too difficult to maintain the pace for the long rides needed to build endurance and allow some recovery time, but not hard enough to significantly improve your aerobic performance and increase your lactate threshold.

This is complete and utter bunkum.

Bronzie

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

droadie wrote:

But avoid training in the no man's land or mediocre middle at 80-85% of MHR where it's too difficult to maintain the pace for the long rides needed to build endurance and allow some recovery time, but not hard enough to significantly improve your aerobic performance and increase your lactate threshold.

This is complete and utter bunkum.

+1

L3 for the win

nickwill

droadie wrote:

Nickwill wrote:

I do agree that when you have got used to the feel of the zones, you can tell where you are with them, by the way you feel.

As you continually improve your fitness more and more, don't you lose the feel of what zone you are in?

I tthink that sometimes there's a danger of getting carried away and going off too hard if you rely totally on feel. Or maybe that's just me.

droadie

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

droadie wrote:

But avoid training in the no man's land or mediocre middle at 80-85% of MHR where it's too difficult to maintain the pace for the long rides needed to build endurance and allow some recovery time, but not hard enough to significantly improve your aerobic performance and increase your lactate threshold.

This is complete and utter bunkum.

Totally false? you not said why? I think you being mean :P. I understand it and it backs up other authors articles on the subject, They saying you need to ride at a higher MHR than 85% to get the benefits of lactate threshold, which will be around 92%. Commit to lactate threshold or don't bother coming near it and tiring yourself! Because the benefits will be lesser. You have decreased performance. They actually talking about long rides. You ride slower, eg. 60-70%. You might as well ride long and slower and get the recovery.

I have it down as do long slow miles and also short intensity short miles. The long slower miles will recover you better to do high intensity sessions, and will utilize more slow twitch fibres over time. This will build endurance. The high intensity sessions will also build endurance.

sampras38

droadie wrote:

I found other day from hospital, i have a very low resting heart rate, it was 40-42. They were shocked it was so slow, and thought problem, which then surprised me. They suggested i have strong heart for middle age. I done about 300 miles a week constantly and intensely over 8 months without fail, before then no exercise. I looked it up and anything under 50 is athlete. So i am encouraged.

I'm 39 and mine's around 45 or so, although it wasn't that low until I'd been cycling for a while. Used to hovver around the 54/55 mark.

nickwill

droadie wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

droadie wrote:

But avoid training in the no man's land or mediocre middle at 80-85% of MHR where it's too difficult to maintain the pace for the long rides needed to build endurance and allow some recovery time, but not hard enough to significantly improve your aerobic performance and increase your lactate threshold.

This is complete and utter bunkum.

Totally false? I think you being mean and you not said why :P. I understand it and it backs up other authors articles on the subject, They saying you need to ride at a higher MHR than 85% to get the benefits of lactate threshold, which will be around 92%,. Commit to lactate threshold or don't bother tiring yourself! Because the benefits will be lesser. You have decreased performance. They actually talking about long rides. You ride slower, eg 70% for long rides.

I have it down as do long slow miles and also short intensity short miles. The long slower miles will recover you better to do high intensity sessions, and will utilize more slow twitch fibres over time. This will build endurance. The high intensity sessions will also build endurance.

Most training plans seem to regard that area as neither one thing nor the other, and suggest either endurance sessions below that level, or threshold sessions above it. My understanding has always been that you are stressing your body without stressing it enough to make sufficient adaptations, but working hard enough to affect your ability to train hard the next day. I tend to alternate sessions between working below those levels, and above them.

droadie

Nickwill wrote:

droadie wrote:

Nickwill wrote:

I do agree that when you have got used to the feel of the zones, you can tell where you are with them, by the way you feel.

As you continually improve your fitness more and more, don't you lose the feel of what zone you are in?

I tthink that sometimes there's a danger of getting carried away and going off too hard if you rely totally on feel. Or maybe that's just me.

That is why if used correctly, a good HRM won't allow that. If used correctly, make you train slower instead of speeding off when you should'nt be. Training slower is no bad thing, it still being consistent, keeping the legs ticking over and allowing for recovery. You have to rely on feel for recovery

Check out the Suunto T series HRM which has the training effect, Based upon your HR+activity level,time over several weeks. It will tell you when you need to rest or go.

SBezza

droadie wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

droadie wrote:

But avoid training in the no man's land or mediocre middle at 80-85% of MHR where it's too difficult to maintain the pace for the long rides needed to build endurance and allow some recovery time, but not hard enough to significantly improve your aerobic performance and increase your lactate threshold.

This is complete and utter bunkum.

Totally false? you not said why? I think you being mean :P. I understand it and it backs up other authors articles on the subject, They saying you need to ride at a higher MHR than 85% to get the benefits of lactate threshold, which will be around 92%. Commit to lactate threshold or don't bother coming near it and tiring yourself! Because the benefits will be lesser. You have decreased performance. They actually talking about long rides. You ride slower, eg. 60-70%. You might as well ride long and slower and get the recovery.

I have it down as do long slow miles and also short intensity short miles. The long slower miles will recover you better to do high intensity sessions, and will utilize more slow twitch fibres over time. This will build endurance. The high intensity sessions will also build endurance.

What is a long ride though, 2 hours might be a long ride to some people, and hence 2 hours at 60% to 70% is complete waste of time, unless it is a recovery ride.

In fact I would still do a long ride over 70%, and probably nearer the 75% mark, that would be for anything up to 5 hours.

What Alex is saying is that endurance base can be got from higher tempo sessions, albeit not as long, you would generally be able to do consecutive tempo sessions anyhow.

Long rides might be done at a lower HR, but they shouldn't be slow, might be slow compared to when you are racing, but otherwise I haven't found them to be that slow.

SBezza

droadie wrote:

Nickwill wrote:

droadie wrote:

Nickwill wrote:

I do agree that when you have got used to the feel of the zones, you can tell where you are with them, by the way you feel.

As you continually improve your fitness more and more, don't you lose the feel of what zone you are in?

I tthink that sometimes there's a danger of getting carried away and going off too hard if you rely totally on feel. Or maybe that's just me.

That is why if used correctly, a good HRM won't allow that. If used correctly, make you train slower instead of speeding off when you should'nt be. Training slower is no bad thing, it still being consistent, keeping the legs ticking over and allowing for recovery. You have to rely on feel for recovery

Check out the Suunto T series HRM which has the training effect, Based upon your HR+activity level,time over several weeks. It will tell you when you need to rest or go.

Recovery rides are different to endurance rides, you shouldn't be recovering during an endurance ride

Also HR lags behind what is actually happening to the body. You can go off too hard even with a HRM, not normally an issue with an endurance ride, but if you were racing at threshold, it is so easy to ride over that threshold before the HR catches up, and then it is too late.

nickwill

I tend to aim do my endurance rides at 76-82%. At the moment I'm alternating this with Threshold hill sessions aiming at 87-92%. By alternating the sessions, I seem to be getting the best bang for my bucks. On a Sunday I go out with a group and just ride on feel, the HRM is left behind.

I think that the long slow distance (less than 75%) is ok for steady winter riding , recovery, and steady social rides, but I don't think it will do a lot for building strength and stamina. I do find I get better results by missing the aforementioned 'dead zone', though.

Bronzie

SBezza wrote:

What Alex is saying is that endurance base can be got from higher tempo sessions, albeit not as long, you would generally be able to do consecutive tempo sessions anyhow

Exactly - to a large extent, Levels 2-4 give you the same benefits........you are simply trading intensity for duration.

Once you reach a certain level of base fitness, it's quite possible to do repeated days of L3-4 work provided the duration is not excessive (ie 2-3 hrs max L3, 1 hour max L4). ("The more you train, the more you can train").

Alex_Simmons/RST

droadie wrote:

Totally false? you not said why? I think you being mean :P. I understand it and it backs up other authors articles on the subject, They saying you need to ride at a higher MHR than 85% to get the benefits of lactate threshold, which will be around 92%. Commit to lactate threshold or don't bother coming near it and tiring yourself! Because the benefits will be lesser. You have decreased performance. They actually talking about long rides. You ride slower, eg. 60-70%. You might as well ride long and slower and get the recovery.

Just do some research on the nature of physiological adaptations elicited from riding sufficient volumes at various intensity levels and you soon realise that all training above recovery levels is beneficial to some degree (provided it's performed with the fundamental training principles of specificity, consistency, sustainable progressive overload and recovery).

Indeed, those "no-man's land" levels that some speak of are some of the most valuable hours one can spend in their training schedule. They represent some tremendous bang for you ride volume buck (or pound or currency of choice) when it comes to developing your sustainable aerobic/threshold power. But in context, and with other training in the mix, not as a "that's all you do" approach.

It represents classic sweet spot riding.