I need to slow down!!

Secteur

I have analyzed the last months worth of data from my Garmin 800, and found that for over 90% of my riding time, my heart rate is at greater than 90% Max Effort.

I am in this to lose weight, primarily.

My CV fitness is pretty good at present.

My knee (ITB) is getting worse due to the effort I am doing.

BUT - I find it almost impossible to go any slower - I seem to have a mental block to go as fast as my mind/body will allow at all times - I just cannot - really cannot - go at HZ-2 to try and burn the fat.

Obviously, weight is coming off as I have a (fairly) strict diet, but if I somehow forced myself to go slow (and get overtaken!!) at HZ-2, would I really see a significant improvement in rate of fat loss?

StillGoing

There are various schools of thought on this subject. Training at medium HR on long rides is touted as good for fat burning, but I think it really means it gets your metabolism working harder for longer. Short rides are best done at a high HR or as intervals. This is the tale I was given anyway. Of course strict eating regimes and rest periods are just as important as is exercise variation. Your body gets used to a particular way of life and adjusts itself accordingly. SO as you get used to the cycling and the body can cope with the exersion more easily, unless you up the level, the metabolism will slow down. This is all based on my time training in the Army so is most probably way out of date.

jibberjim

Your max HR is likely wrong - knee injuries are unlikely to fixed much by slowing anyway so look for other remedies there about what might be causing it.

SBezza

What are the length's of your rides, from the data you have stated they must be short rides, if this is the case do them hard, no point in doing an endurance ride if you are not going to be out for more than 3 hours at a time, and even then that is a fairly short ride and should be ridden fairly hard.

Also how have you determined your HRMax, if you are relying on a calculation take that with a pinch of salt, the only way to know HRMax is a full out maximum effort and see where the HR gets to.

Losing weight is basically calories in less than calories out, the amount of fat burnt on the different rides is hardly measurable. Obviously a long duration ride will have to be done at a lower effort than a short duration ride, but you will likely burn more calories on the longer duration ride, if it is long enough.

Secteur

Yes, sorry - to clarify, these rides are all 15 miles or less and take me 30-60 minutes depending on the mileage & route/ascent.

I have calculated my max HR by looking at every ride I've done, and finding the highest HR (usually at the top of a short out-of-the-saddle 20% gradient, of which there are several locally). I have peaked at 194 once, 191 about 6 times and 189 about 20 times, so I take my max HR to be 194.

When I do longer rides (for me 1.5-3.5 hours) then obviously I tend to not max-out my HR, but even then, I am rarely below 80% of HR-Max. Anything less than that feels like I am going too slow!

suzyb

I'm the same, average HR above 80% of max but assume it's because I'm so unfit

keef66

Couple of things:

the fat burning zone is at best a misinterpretation, at worst a widely repeated myth

If your rides are all 30-60 minutes, going flat-out is the best way to burn most fat, so stick at it if weight loss is your primary goal. Going slower will only mean you expend less energy, and hence contribute less to your weight loss.

I.T. band problems are likely to be more to do with bike fit / position than exertion, but rest may be a major part of recovery

Sounds like you still haven't established your max HR properly. Google for guidance. You should be on the point of vomiting / falling off the bike

ShutUpLegs

keef66 wrote:

Sounds like you still haven't established your max HR properly. Google for guidance. You should be on the point of vomiting / falling off the bike

Perceived Effort is always a good measure

Robbie1958

I find when i ride alone that i am the same, it's full on and can't seem to slow down. this may seem like a silly idea, but try riding with someone else. you can still ride at a reasonable pace, and have a chat. it certainly works for me.

I started with the intention of losing weight and its work in progress. But i opted for longer endurance riding opposed to short fast riding. I now regularly ride 100 and 150k Audax's and find the benefits to my fitness levels and weight loss outweigh what i used to get from the short quick routes. however i never did have the intention of racing/time trialling, so i guess it depends on what you want from cycling apart from the initial weight loss.

amaferanga

Robbie1958 - you win the prize for the most irritating avatar on Bikeradar.

procyclist

Subject to how sore your knee is - try using a bigger gear for fat burning rather than going flat out. Twiddling for 30 -60 minutes on a low/medium gear won't cut it - try 53/15 (or similar) and just try to keep on top of the gear rather than revving out

springtide9

Secteur wrote:

I have analyzed the last months worth of data from my Garmin 800, and found that for over 90% of my riding time, my heart rate is at greater than 90% Max Effort.

I am in this to lose weight, primarily.

My CV fitness is pretty good at present.

My knee (ITB) is getting worse due to the effort I am doing.

BUT - I find it almost impossible to go any slower - I seem to have a mental block to go as fast as my mind/body will allow at all times - I just cannot - really cannot - go at HZ-2 to try and burn the fat.

Obviously, weight is coming off as I have a (fairly) strict diet, but if I somehow forced myself to go slow (and get overtaken!!) at HZ-2, would I really see a significant improvement in rate of fat loss?

This is a really good article...
http://concept2.co.uk/weightloss/chewing_the_fat

Concept2 are also pretty well regarded, so have faith in the info provided.

gaddster

And if you can get yourself on a Concept2 rower and do the 16 minute fitness test, that should get you heaving

Secteur

Thanks for all the advice.

When I went out with a club 2 weeks ago, my HR was much lower overall. I think the problem is cycling alone!

I still need to get a bike fit sorted out.

mog1404

im new to this road bike stuff but i would say if you want to burn fat book 2weeks off work get a group of mates to go touring with you, did this a few years ago and when we got home all of us were ripped to bits (abbs of steel) also recomend vary your training do 1 day of interval training and a long sunday ride avoiding cake stops

Robbie1958

amaferanga wrote:

Robbie1958 - you win the prize for the most irritating avatar on Bikeradar.

So glad you hate it

vorsprung

Secteur wrote:

I have calculated my max HR by looking at every ride I've done, and finding the....

This isn't a method for finding max HR

Please read this

http://www.cptips.com/hrmntr.htm#mxhr

vorsprung

amaferanga wrote:

Robbie1958 - you win the prize for the most irritating avatar on Bikeradar.

+1 it's bloody terrible

MountainMonster

The heart rate max you have said is probably much lower than in reality. Did a proper death test in the gym once, pushing myself literally as long as I could as hard as I could. Nearly passed out, I threw up about 20 seconds after I stopped, but I peaked at 213. On my rides out, even while sprinting on an ascent, I rarely get above 190.

tangled_metal

Ditto on the Max HR. Ignore the 220 less age and any other method like that and go out and make yourself throw up due to effort. Usually that is close to your Max HR. I got a new HRM once and went out for a walk (not cycling sorry) and got a HR range from 49 to 203. Even then I wasn't throwing up so I suspect the max is higher.

Another thing it is not the percentage of the max HR you need to use but the percentage of your working range. As above my resting heart rate is about 50 which is lower than most adults. This means I have a larger range to work in. It makes sense therefore (and is recommended by a lot of trainers both online and in books) that you take the resting HR off the max HR then work out the necessary percentage levels from that range before adding your resting HR onto each of them. If you do that you usually get higher HR zones.

Also another good measure of your fitness is the VO2 max. I use the Rockport walking test for this as it is a fairly easy one for you to do for your self as there are good sets of instructions and calculators for it online. Walk 1 mile as fast a you can and take your HR at the end and the time taken. Bung it all into a formula and you see how efficient your CV system is. It all part of the same thing.

tangled_metal

Nearly forgot. There are some high intensity workouts fitness intructors / trainers do to actually pseed up your metabolic rate. The theory is something along the lines that high intensity training such as these classes prolong the period of time afterwards that your metabolic rate is faster. If that makes sense. AFAIK that means your body burns fat up for longer after each session.

Not sure of the details or how to apply it on a bike but I would not worry too much about fast rides over a shorter timescale. Also I can't ride slowly neither when on my own. Suggest getting into a group that do slower rides. I do that with a local free cycle scene. Can't complain about a nice easyride in an afternoon over an hour and a half where I barely raise a sweat, with friendly and interesting characters which ends up in a pub (well in a pub near the end about 1 mile or so from the end that is which makes it interesting riding the last mile at least)

orthodub

When i swapped to a garmin (new) my hr would not be below 160bpm. As i changed bike at the same time i thought it was down to me pushing too hard on the new bike.

The i was doing the data thing and noticed i was hitting 280bpm quite frequently.

Some emails to garmin and help forums of theirs later, its a problem with their HR strap; apparently it does not go well with static gear (like the stuff you ride your bike in).

Brought the latest strap which is supposed to be more static resistant and use gel on the pads, both of which give me a far more realistic HR reading.

tested them at work with a streaming 3 lead ecg and the £20 decathlon hr monitor is almost bang on the money; the garmin had like a 20-30% too high reading before i swapped strap, now its only about 5% ish out.

worth a thought if your HR is constatly high.

secretsqizz

vorsprung wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

Robbie1958 - you win the prize for the most irritating avatar on Bikeradar.

+1 it's bloody terrible

I find it useful for ignoring what the geezer has to say anyway, cheers

Robbie1958

vorsprung wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

Robbie1958 - you win the prize for the most irritating avatar on Bikeradar.

+1 it's bloody terrible

oh thanks guys, fantastic feedback on my avatar, i was thinking about changing it but not anymore

Peddle Up!

orthodub wrote:

The i was doing the data thing and noticed i was hitting 280bpm quite frequently

:shock: :shock:

That's 4 beats per second. Can you hear a buzz coming from your chest?

orthodub

Peddle Up! wrote:

orthodub wrote:

The i was doing the data thing and noticed i was hitting 280bpm quite frequently

:shock: :shock:

That's 4 beats per second. Can you hear a buzz coming from your chest?

Thats what prompted me to go lab (aka turbo and one of the ecg machines in the staff room) test it.

Didnt see how i could reasonably hit 280bpm and not die, or be in the process of dying.

Like garmin say though, its the static, which is produced by cycling gear. They didnt accept my point that it was retarded to have a training tool for cyclists; that was made redundant by wearing cycling gear.

Still, would suggest to the OP that they may wish to check their gear on its accuracy before assuming it may be their activity.

tangled_metal

Most on here don't have access to ECGs unfortunately or a means to double check. I do know the hand held HRM in gyms on their CV machines are next to useless, a waste of money putting them on the machines.

I have checked my resting HR from my £10 Aldi HRM as I got it the same day I went to hospital and got a resting HRM. Fortunately I don't get stressed by hospitals and doctors so my heart rate was 53 which is close to the reading of my HRM from Aldi which gave between 49 and 53. Of course It once gave a HRM of 34BPM which was due to poor contact of the pads. They really do depend on good contact I think.

Anyway I wonder if HRMs are the best way to train. Isn't perceived effort better? I mean I got my first HRM which was a cardiosport and the shop gave me a free running book from Polar telling how to use their HRMs. At the back it had tables so you could estimate your real max HR and it made a comment that the estimation of the max HR is always inaccurate and the only way is a proper maximal exertion test (or something like that) with proper equipment. The comment was that people often don't conform to the 200 or 220 minus your age estimation or any of the other similar methods. Just pushing your self as hard as you can also is not truly accurate (although its probably good enough). That is why I reckon that perceived effort is better.

When I used to run I would check my effort level by trying to sing or talk to myself. If I couldn't then I'd sloiw a bit if I found it too easy I'd speed up a bit. It looked daft but I was running at night in the dark and it didn't matter and worked.

amaferanga

orthodub wrote:

Thats what prompted me to go lab (aka turbo and one of the ecg machines in the staff room) test it.

Didnt see how i could reasonably hit 280bpm and not die, or be in the process of dying.

Like garmin say though, its the static, which is produced by cycling gear. They didnt accept my point that it was retarded to have a training tool for cyclists; that was made redundant by wearing cycling gear.

Still, would suggest to the OP that they may wish to check their gear on its accuracy before assuming it may be their activity.

If you wear tight fitting cycling gear instead of flappy stuff there's usually little or no problem IME. Only issue I have is actually with one of my (tight fitting) baselayers - get erroneous readings with most of my jerseys with it unless I'm extremely sweaty. I think one of the Polar HRM straps works with the Garmin transmitter units so some use that instead (can't remember the exact model of the Polar, but its only about a tenner for the strap).