Training in HR zones

carbonmanx

I recently hit a bit of a plateau and decided that rather than just going out and riding probably close to max each time, I would look at some proper training plans using heart rate zones.

I put myself through a threshold test, where I rode for about an hour pretty much flat out for the entire hour whilst wearing my HRM.

The results were average 180bpm, max 198.

The questions that i'm hoping someone might be able to help me on are:

1) going up a steep hill only raised my average bpm to about 185 even though I was pretty much maxed out by my breathing - not sure where the 198 was hit, but as its a wrist watch that picks up the signal, everytime I looked at it on the hill it was never over 185.
2) even whilst warming up before I started my threshold test, I was doing about 170 bpm and that was taking it pretty gently.


Looking at some of the zones its suggested to be at 65 - 75% quite a lot to increase efficiency, and 82-89% to increase threshold.

From that hitting 110-125bpm ish is going to mean im REALLY taking it easy, and even 82-89% at 155bpm ish is also going to be pretty easy to hit.

Am I missing something fundamental in the way I have done my calculations? or is that the whole idea of you dont have to go hard to get better?

Any help / suggestions / comments much appreciated :-)

Pross

carbonmanx wrote:

I recently hit a bit of a plateau and decided that rather than just going out and riding probably close to max each time, I would look at some proper training plans using heart rate zones.

I put myself through a threshold test, where I rode for about an hour pretty much flat out for the entire hour whilst wearing my HRM.

The results were average 180bpm, max 198.

The questions that i'm hoping someone might be able to help me on are:

1) going up a steep hill only raised my average bpm to about 185 even though I was pretty much maxed out by my breathing - not sure where the 198 was hit, but as its a wrist watch that picks up the signal, everytime I looked at it on the hill it was never over 185.
2) even whilst warming up before I started my threshold test, I was doing about 170 bpm and that was taking it pretty gently.


Looking at some of the zones its suggested to be at 65 - 75% quite a lot to increase efficiency, and 82-89% to increase threshold.

From that hitting 110-125bpm ish is going to mean im REALLY taking it easy, and even 82-89% at 155bpm ish is also going to be pretty easy to hit.

Am I missing something fundamental in the way I have done my calculations? or is that the whole idea of you dont have to go hard to get better?

Any help / suggestions / comments much appreciated :-)

The percentages you are quoting are of maximum heart rate but you seem to be comparing them against a 1 hour average which would be threshold at most. You need to do a ramp test to calculate your maximum heart rate accurately (or alternatively look at the heart rate zones based on threshold rates). Assuming your highest HR rate recorded was an actual reading and not a blip then 125 bpm is only 63% and 155 would be 78% (and on the type of effort you described you may well have not even hit your maximal HR). If you averaged 180bpm over the course of an hour then even if you were at 90% of maximum then your max HR would be 200.

carbonmanx

Thanks that's what I wasn't sure about.
Whether to calculate my zones from my threshold rate of 180 or my max which today was 198 although I do see it at 230 during squash!

So basically I should use my max not my threshold for calculations?

Thanks!

Alex_Simmons/RST

carbonmanx wrote:

Thanks that's what I wasn't sure about.
Whether to calculate my zones from my threshold rate of 180 or my max which today was 198 although I do see it at 230 during squash!

So basically I should use my max not my threshold for calculations?

Thanks!

You can use either, but since you have what would seem to be a fairly reliable indicator of HR at threshold, then use that. Link below provides guidance on setting training levels. It's meant for power meter users, but also provides indicative HR levels as a % of threshold HR:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... oggan.aspx

RonB

I might stand corrected, but I'm pretty sure that HR max should be regarded as sport specific, so I wouldn't use that squash max to set cycling HR zones.

carbonmanx

Thanks RonB I'll stick to my cycle Max rather than my squash one which does tend to peak quite high!

Alex, Ill check out that link, cheers!

amaferanga

carbonmanx wrote:

Thanks that's what I wasn't sure about.
Whether to calculate my zones from my threshold rate of 180 or my max which today was 198 although I do see it at 230 during squash!

So basically I should use my max not my threshold for calculations?

Thanks!

That 230 is probably a dodgy reading.

jgsi

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

carbonmanx wrote:

Thanks that's what I wasn't sure about.
Whether to calculate my zones from my threshold rate of 180 or my max which today was 198 although I do see it at 230 during squash!

So basically I should use my max not my threshold for calculations?

Thanks!

You can use either, but since you have what would seem to be a fairly reliable indicator of HR at threshold, then use that. Link below provides guidance on setting training levels. It's meant for power meter users, but also provides indicative HR levels as a % of threshold HR:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... oggan.aspx

Nothing to add except, average HR of 180 for an hour... blimey.. I'll get my slippers more fitting for my age

carbonmanx

No I get 230 peaks regularly in squash used a couple of HRM's too... I have had some small heart oddities in my life and have a heart specialist who says yes it is high, but nothing to worry about.

I'm 33 too!
Resting heart rate of about 45/50 which is one of the reasons I was surprised that my threshold was as high as 180, considering the TdF guys average around 150, they must be seriously strong!

amaferanga

HRmax and threshold HR don't determine how good a cyclist you are or can be.

carbonmanx

By good, I presume you mean, fast / powerful?

My biggest problem seems to be I top out VO2 wise before my legs give in. According to strava im also only generating about 250w of power for my 5 min max and 225 for my long term max (appreciate its only a rough calculation)

Presumably using heart rate zones to train in will build my strength and endurance up?

I have been cycling regularly for over a year on relatively hilly routes and I generally tend to stay in my threshold by habbit more than a concious decision, and after doing some reading on RCUK about training, it seemed to suggest that a structured training plan around the HR Zones is probably going to get me off of my current plateau...

Sound reasonable?

Thanks

amaferanga wrote:

HRmax and threshold HR don't determine how good a cyclist you are or can be.

Alex_Simmons/RST

carbonmanx wrote:

No I get 230 peaks regularly in squash used a couple of HRM's too... I have had some small heart oddities in my life and have a heart specialist who says yes it is high, but nothing to worry about.

I'm 33 too!
Resting heart rate of about 45/50 which is one of the reasons I was surprised that my threshold was as high as 180, considering the TdF guys average around 150, they must be seriously strong!

HR is not a measure of performance.

carbonmanx

So what is then?

How do you measure performance? Power is relative, HR obviously doesnt count, so what does?

amaferanga

carbonmanx wrote:

So what is then?

How do you measure performance? Power is relative, HR obviously doesnt count, so what does?

Power in W/kg. Why do you say it's relative?

carbonmanx

Because I hadnt considered it as W/kg :-)
I was just thinking power as a figure, but you are quite correct it should be considered as a /kg figure, although that doesnt really help you measure performance does it, rather output?

Someone who can do a 10k TT in 1:20 say but who is operating at their maximum current performance could be said to be performing at the same level as someone say <1hr mark?

Obviously the sub hour guy is stronger and more powerful likely, but if you are running to 100% of your capacity, then are you performing the same?

I guess it comes down to my previous question of how do you measure performance?
As is obvious im certainly no expert in this, but its really interesting as an understanding of that, will help me to focus my training to help me perform better I guess...

inseine

Someone who can do a 10k TT in 1:20 say but who is operating at their maximum current performance could be said to be performing at the same level as someone say <1hr mark?

I didn't know what this means. Is this a 10k walk?
To your original point, as has been said, your threshold is a good base to use and sounds about right with a 200ish max. You're not measuring power so don't worry about it, but although it is a performance measure unlike heartrate it is still specific to the individual since there are other variables (weight, aero etc).

carbonmanx

lol perhaps my scale is off a little :-)
:-D

Alex_Simmons/RST

What I am saying is that HR can be used as a guide to exercise intensity (with certain limitations), but that is about the limit of its use. Hence why we have HR training levels or zones.

However HR is not a measure of performance or fitness. What power you can sustain is.

A rider can have the same HR, but perform at a completely different level depending on their fitness (let alone their daily variability in HR response). And of course different riders can have the same HR but be on totally different planets performance wise.

The best physiological indicator of performance is power output per kg of body mass for time durations of most interest (e.g. over 5 seconds, or 5-minutes, or 60-min, or 5 hrs etc - whatever is most relevant for your cycling).

Pithy Power Proverb: "The best predictor of performance is performance itself" - A. Coggan