heart rate/lactate threshold

ozzy1000_0

hi all,
I've just bought a heart rate monitor and a copy of chris charmicheals 'time crunched cyclist'. I haven't really touched a bike in a long time (read as; 'afew rides last year and then nothing for 10 years prior) and i've signed up for a century in 8weeks time. I did the time crunched field trial last night on a turbo trainer... it consists of about 10minutes warm up follow by an all out 8minute effort, then 10minutes spinning recovery, then all out 8minutes again... you then take the highest average HR from either of the 8minute efforts to base training zones on....

I'm trying to get my head around all this... my average heart rate for the first 8minutes was 181bpm, I started at about 140bpm then spent the first minute climbing to over 180 and then I pretty much sustained 180+ for 7minutes..... that sounds high to me??!! it was bloody hardwork and I'm 34years old now so its not far from my estimated max HR. can anybody tell me if this sounds like normal numbers? or am I a freak?

also how does this relate to lactate threshold, my intuition tells me that I was hovering at my lactate threshold, I couldn't have pushed harder without fading away, also my avergae heart rate for the second 8minutes was about 179bpm which would suggest i didn't have alot left after the first effort..

any thoughts??

cheers, Owain

danowat

No such thing as "normal" numbers, everyone is different, forget the estimated MHR, its useless.

trickydisco

Yea.. i wouldn't worry

this is my hr data from my first road race



My max is 185 (lab tested)

gllewellyn

Yes, everyone is different, but those numbers look like they are in the right ball-park (based on my experience anyway).

I'm 36 and did the field test on a turbo a few weeks ago - for the first set I had avg heart rate of 175 BPM, max heart rate of 185 BPM, then pushed a bit harder on the second set on got avg heart rate of 181 BPM and max heart rate of 190 BPM.

ozzy1000_0

gllewellyn wrote:

Yes, everyone is different, but those numbers look like they are in the right ball-park (based on my experience anyway).

I'm 36 and did the field test on a turbo a few weeks ago - for the first set I had avg heart rate of 175 BPM, max heart rate of 185 BPM, then pushed a bit harder on the second set on got avg heart rate of 181 BPM and max heart rate of 190 BPM.

so very similar figures to mine then. are you following one the time crunched plans?? if so hows it going?

gllewellyn

Yes, I'm following the New Century plan, and only in my second week at the moment.
So far its going well - the workouts are hard but do-able. The thing that I have really noticed though is that I really need the rest days - I feel very drained, which I guess means that I'm putting sufficient effort into it!

How about you - have you started a plan yet?

ozzy1000_0

gllewellyn wrote:

Yes, I'm following the New Century plan, and only in my second week at the moment.
So far its going well - the workouts are hard but do-able. The thing that I have really noticed though is that I really need the rest days - I feel very drained, which I guess means that I'm putting sufficient effort into it!

How about you - have you started a plan yet?

I've not started any structure plan yet but i've been logging my miles/route on a calander to get an idea of what I already do. A friend of mine (whos a millions times fitter/faster/stronger than me) has also signed up for the same century as me so we've been riding once or twice a week together. we generally do 30-40miles as fast as I can go. I'd like to carry on doing this but I'm not sure how to fit it with a time crunched training plan. I guess I'd just replace one of the weekend rides from the plan? at the moment i do these rides and then also do a couple of 1-1.45 hr rides on my own a week... I'm not sure how to tie it all together...

MattJWL

Yep, sounds like similar numbers to me too. I'm 34 and on a hard training ride my max HR is usually somwhere around 185-188 depending on condition / mental state etc. Not on a specific program, but yes it is very important to allow sufficient recovery time. Make sure you get enough sleep after training too (7-9 hours).
cheers
M

ozzy1000_0

MattJWL wrote:

Yep, sounds like similar numbers to me too. I'm 34 and on a hard training ride my max HR is usually somwhere around 185-188 depending on condition / mental state etc. Not on a specific program, but yes it is very important to allow sufficient recovery time. Make sure you get enough sleep after training too (7-9 hours).
cheers
M

so where would you say you lactate threshold is? I would guess mine is around 178-181bpm .
here's my first ever outing with my garmin;

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/82840758

don't laugh.... i'm a bit of middle aged blob these days...

Down the Road

Rules 74 and rule 5 apply from here

http://www.velominati.com/blog/the-rules/

ozzy1000_0

Down the Road wrote:

Rules 74 and rule 5 apply from here

http://www.velominati.com/blog/the-rules/

I especially like rule 5....

trickydisco

If you're fairly serious about improving i'd recommend getting a fitness test/assessment done.

I had one in december after which i was given: v02max, lactate threshold, FTP and all my Heart rate training zones. They then devised a training plan which involved working with all these HR training zones (imrporving my base, threshold, power)

I had a 2nd test last month and the improvement has been huge. I couldn't have done this without doing specific training. It certainly helped me and I feel confident entering races

best money i ever spent on 'upgrades'

Down the Road

Raced for 13 years never needed to have someone tell me i had got better. I basically followed the Eddy Merckx method

"ride your bike often and HARD"

trickydisco

Obviously works for you but won't work for everyone.

I believe specific training is better than' riding often and HARD'

If i did that.. I'd be ruined!

Down the Road

bollocks

You're not a pro doing 500 miles a week - or are you?

trickydisco

Bollocks that specific training isn't better? bollocks that this form of training won't work for everyone?

So a lot of racing cyclists have got it all wrong?

How would you know? have you tried it?. do you know people that have ridden hard all the time then changed to specific training? Do you know people that have done the opposite?

All i know is my own experience and experiences of several other racers i know

I don't need someone to tell me i'm better.. I need someone to tell me how to train smarter.. there's a difference!

Down the Road

yes and i still leave them for dead.Have no idea of my VO2MAX and have no need to discover i am way below the pro's who are in the high 70's yet some are in the low 60's.

Stats only relate to you and strangely those who ride get better those who don't - don't

amaferanga

Down the Road wrote:

Raced for 13 years never needed to have someone tell me i had got better. I basically followed the Eddy Merckx method

"ride your bike often and HARD"

Maybe if you'd trained smarter you'd have made more of your natural ability. What level did you reach?

trickydisco

yes and i still leave them for dead.Have no idea of my VO2MAX and have no need to discover i am way below the pro's who are in the high 70's yet some are in the low 60's.

yes to what?

Stats only relate to you and strangely those who ride get better those who don't - don't

Well state the bleedin obvious

You're correct in some ways..V02max isn't a good indicator of race performance i believe.

Presumably you're an elite racer after racing for 13 years?

danowat

Down the Road wrote:

yes and i still leave them for dead.Have no idea of my VO2MAX and have no need to discover i am way below the pro's who are in the high 70's yet some are in the low 60's.

Stats only relate to you and strangely those who ride get better those who don't - don't

Which is lucky for you, you need to realise that not everyone has such a natural apptitude for it, some people can just get on a bike and mix it with the elite, others need all the help they can get.

There is nothing wrong with looking for improvements, that is the beauty of progression and advancements in training, it wasn't that long ago there were only 2 people in the country who could go sub-1hr for a 25 mile TT, nowadays the majority of people can get a sub 1hr.

I personally have moved away from HR training, not because I don't think it works, but because I think its far to open to changes from other external forces.

Anonymous

IMO, the less time you have to train, the bigger the benefit of structured quantified training...

Not everyone can reach elite/pro like Down the Road on just going out and riding...

Rule74Please

I think the less time you have the HARDER you need to train

danowat

Rule74Please wrote:

I think the less time you have the SMARTER you need to train

Took the liberty of correcting that for you

Rule74Please

No i meant HARDER.

Amateur races are only a couple of hours long. Therefore you need to train at race intensity at least once a week for a couple of hours.

ozzy1000_0

i had no idea I would open such a can of worms with this post...... I think boths sides are right if that makes any difference.....

I put this post up beacuse I was just looking for peoples opinions about in assisting me in my understanding of somthing... I used to cycle alot as a youth/junior rider in cross country and i did reasonably ok with no training other than cycling quite alot.... at that time I had no time constraints but i also didn't have a clue how to train so i just rode quite abit and if i felt tired i would rest...

obivously training harder is going to make you faster than training softer.... I'm looking into this style of training now because I'm 34 have two kids and work full time. realsitically I'm lucky to get out for 2 or 3 rides a week and they not that long... I want to do my first century so i need to make use of the bits of time I can find.... so far i think specific training is going to help alot. I can do 40-60minutes on a turbo trainer and absolutely beast myself, theres no downhills on a turbo trainer!! so now ontop of my 2-3 rides a week (trying to make one or two of these as long as possible) i'm going to try and fit in some power focussed turbo sessions and i'm sure they these sessions will provide more training stimulus than 40 minutes riding around the lanes.....

trickydisco

I think the training/going hard thing needs to be clarified.

Before i really got into road cycling last december i did loads of mountain biking (7 years) Every time i went out my efforts were always hard. Every climb attacked and every night ride i went out and beasted myself. This was how i thought you got fit

The problem i had is when i entered events i always bonked badly.

Had a fitness test back in December as i wanted to race (both road and xc) this season to find out where i was and how to train more effectively. What came out of the test is i had good power at the top end but my base/efficiency was terrible.. what this meant is i was burning carbs a lot of he time instead of fat. Basically my MPG was terrible( and to be a good road cyclist you need to have an efficient engine)

this is because i did no low level training/rides.. it was always high end intensity

Fast forward 5 months of training and my base* has massively improved (through 1 hour base training rides) and i don't bonk.

* December my base HR zone was 125-144. It's now 140-158

This means i can hold a higher intensity (output more power) whilst still predominantly burning fat.

So for me having a proper plan made for me and training smarter i'm much much fitter then just smashing it hard

trickydisco

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... ics-28838/

Go slower, get faster

It sounds impossible but this is the basic starting point for HR training. I started off by doing long Zone 1 and Zone 2 rides. It was slow, boring and tortuous at times. What happened over a period of months was amazing. In a nutshell I was still riding in Zone 2 but I was zipping along compared with when I started. By going slower I’d made my body more efficient. It was like a light being switched on: if I can go this fast in Zone 2 then just how fast could I go in the higher zones?

Fletcher, who’s an exercise physiologist, is adamant that by going slow you will get faster. The Evesham-based coach even has a mug on his desk emblazoned with the words ‘slow is the new fast’. But he has some sage words for anyone who thinks that HR training is like waving a magic wand. “Training is boring. Anyone who says they can make base training sessions more entertaining and can introduce fun is kidding you. Just accept it that those long, steady rides on the bike will be boring but they will bring results. There are no shortcuts and no quick fixes.”

and this is the outcome i had after my test

For road racing you need to build a very efficient cardiovascular system rather like having a big engine so you don’t have to burn rich (burn too many sugars) during the first part of the race. It doesn’t matter how good you are during the race if you have nothing left at the end when the going gets tough and you need your turbo to kick in. So you need to get your Aerobic base point as high as possible (zone 2 where you can utilize the most fat) and then have a threshold which is as high as possible and as close to your maximum as possible to get the best effect (zone 4).

If your Aerobic base point can climb up to being closer to your threshold you stand the chance ofbeing able to kick back into using fats during the easier sections of the race and therefore leave your turbo with some energy in it for the later stages.

jgsi

And the outcome?
Are you finishing in the first 4?
In the bunch?
A lap behind?

trickydisco

Well.. i've had 1 xc race and 2 road races (well 1 road race and 1 crit)

The xc race i was in the sport category. I was in 9th place when my tyre blew out on the last lap. gutted!

My 1st road race. I did a 55 mile 3/4 hilly race in south Bristol:

http://www.bristolsouthcc.co.uk/event/bsccopencrit.htm

This was a fairly brutal race with a big climb we had to go up 8 times.

There were 68 starters (mainly 3rd cat) and only 37 finished. Myself and my teamate finished with a group of 5 (that were all 3rd cat apart from us two) (the race split into 2 groups.. we managed to stay with the lead group for 5 laps.. the 2nd group were out of the race as they were 5 minutes down from the main bunch)

Did a 4th cat castle combe crit race the other week which had 150 or so riders. This was much much easier. No organisation and very easy to stay in the bunch.. They cut a few laps short and i only realised what was going on 2nd to last corner so i overtook a load of riders and made my way to the front. I reckon i finished about 15th

Got another crit race tomorrow and my aim is to move up to 3rd cat before the end of the season.

I also came 4th in the UK rollapaluza grand finals in London on Saturday

trickydisco

and after those 2 experiences i preferred the road race as the riders could handle their bikes a lot better, there was more organisation and the climb weedled out the weaker riders

jgsi

Have you any data re your HR? I am intrigued by the lower HR threshold training and how it translates into race conditions.

My race last night was toughish as had head cold previous 3 days but apart from a very runny nose and bit of a cough it didnt impede as I felt ok and not running a temp.
Ave hr for 30 mile was 166 and where I got droppt my hr had been at 176 for about 5 mins and with a blitz hill coming on the back of it, couldnt hold onto the bunch which wasnt that large either. Regrouped with a few other stragglers to finish at least.