Training Smarter & Fitness tests

Sr249

Hi all, It might sound weird but I'd like to become a better & faster cyclist. I base most of my training on a HRM and I dont have, and probably wont have, a power meter ever .

Some quick background: I have worked out my zones and try to keep most of my cycling in Zone 2 + 1 hill sprints interval session and 1 session at LT per week. Improved a little at first, then stopped.

I wanted to be 100% sure i'm training in the right zones and I've been considering these scientific sport specific fitness tests where your HR zones are defined accurately, your strengths and weaknesses too, your get to know your exact LT etc. Now where I live, you can't even get a proper bike fit let alone one of these fitness tests but I will be in Central London first week of December and I was wondering whether, if these tests really help would someone be able to point me in the right direction so I can get these from a good place please?

Thanks all!

ut_och_cykla

If you can pinpont your own levels with a test I would say its worth doing. I've tested myself 4 or 5 times to make sure I'm working in the right zones and it was really worth doing as my LT was much higher than the 'normal' which meant that if I only went by HR % I always trained too easy!! And my maxHR was 18 beats (11%) higher thanthe (fairly useless) 220 minus your age

Obviously you need to bear in mind all the usual things about HR - not very good for short intervalls, prone to vary due to health, sleep, altitude etc. But combined with a good test and getting to know your own body and how different levels feel its a useful tool for ensuring you train hard enough/take it easy enough.

danowat

HR can be a very poor indication of working in the right zone IME, take this example for instance, when doing cadence drills, my power is around 160w and my HR around 150bpm, when doing tempo stuff, my power is around 250w and my HR around 150bpm, two completely different sessions, working completely different systems, but giving the same HR.

Trev The Rev

danowat wrote:

HR can be a very poor indication of working in the right zone IME, take this example for instance, when doing cadence drills, my power is around 160w and my HR around 150bpm, when doing tempo stuff, my power is around 250w and my HR around 150bpm, two completely different sessions, working completely different systems, but giving the same HR.

What system do you think you are working doing 'cadence drills' at 160 watts? The Reverend used to do one legged drills on his Pashley along the Penshurst Rd at 190 watts on his way to Holy Communion every first Sunday in the month.

Sr249

I agree regarding HRM training methods not being accurate enough however at this stage it the only guideline I have.
The problem with power metres is they're too expensive for me and I need an alternative which seems to be the heart rate monitor (unless there is something I am completely unaware of).

Would you suggest any preferred fitness centre (or place in which they do these tests) in Central London that I should go to please? or should I skip it completely and start saving for a power meter?

thanks again for the help!

Tom Dean

One of the problems with using HR is it will vary from day to day for the same efforts, (LT does not translate to a specific HR) so doing a one-off professional test will not be reliable. You can still make good use of the HRM though, you just need to be aware of the limitations.

Testing max HR is easy do do yourself for free and you can do it as many times as you like.

BeaconRuth

Sr249 wrote:

I agree regarding HRM training methods not being accurate enough however at this stage it the only guideline I have.

A HRM is accurate enough to get you a very long way provided that you understand what it is indicating and, perhaps more importantly, what it is not indicating. I won national time trialling championships using nothing more sophisticated than a HRM. When I did buy a powermeter I concluded that I had been nailing my training pretty much as well as I possibly could have done with a powermeter all along. However, I was very clued up and took extreme care to do things like keeping a consistent turbo set-up so that I could use cadence and speed as guides to training intensity and performance. So I didn't need a powermeter to tell me things such as the hardest pace I could sustain constantly on the turbo for 20mins - but I did know which gear and cadence I could do and I found my turbo set up was accurate enough. However, I agree that it is utterly nonsense to try to do intensive training intervals to a HR target - if anyone does try to do that then they are barking up the wrong tree.

Would you suggest any preferred fitness centre (or place in which they do these tests) in Central London that I should go to please? or should I skip it completely and start saving for a power meter?

FWIW I've coached plenty of riders who have been and had physiological tests done but then found that they don't really know what training to do for the best. So they ended up seeking coaching help - which was actually really what they wanted in the first place. So specifying training zones is not really the difficult thing, or, I would suggest, the priority for you. You can get a fair (and accurate enough) idea of what your max HR is by testing on your own. It's knowing what training to do (and how to use your HRM wisely) which are the hard things. So perhaps try to find a testing centre which also provides a training plan? (I know there are very successful physiological testers who provide no meaningful personalised guidance about training following the testing.)

Ruth

(oops - cross-posted with Tom I think!)

SBezza

You can still do very good training via HR, you just need to be aware of the limitations, and also use RPE (though even this is fallible if you are at the end of a hard training block). Short intervals is it pointless, and you need to go fully on RPE here, or if you have a turbo that measures power, you might be able to set it up identical each session and get a reasonable reliable data from that.

As for going to a lab and getting tested, it might be good, it depends on what money you have. I would suggest saving the money and then saving over time to get a powermeter if you really are serious. What is more important is getting the mixture of training right IME, zones are just a gauge and nothing more, you don't suddenly stop being in a zone if your HR goes slightly above or below it.

Jimboliana

I would recommend you doing a VO2 max test which from that you should get all your info LT and HR zones etc. I have had two now at 6 months apart and will prob have another in January, I get mine done at a university in Essex but hospitals also do them, hunt around on Google, you should pay around the £100-£130 mark for a test, you can't exercise 72 hours before and have to watch what you eat 12 hour b4.
If you can't afford a power meter then you can also rent them, don't know if this would be an option for you?
I don't have a proper power meter I have one on my Tacx Fortius and it does me fine.
A HR monitor is fine IMO for long (1+ hours) at a constant speed/cadance in your specified zones and that is what I used to us and it worked great for me, I now though train with both power and HR

Hope this helps ;0)

Trev The Rev

You can train very effectively by 'feel' or perceived exertion.

The body sends all sorts of signals to the brain, it might not transmit data in the form of numbers which you can download or look at on a Garmin but your brain will be receiving masses of data. Pay attention to the data your body is sending you, this is more important than a heart rate number.

Many power meter users can feel or judge power very accurately. It is not compulsory to go down the numbers route, you don't need a power meter. But there are many advantages in training with power if you do choose that route.

Sr249

Thanks again for the valuable feedback. This seems to be going down a different route than I had expected.

Some more background: I got my max HR by doing hill sprints, various days and took the highest reading i had on my HRM. I then used that to get my zones worked out. LT and resting HR were a bit difficult to get and i am not sure they're right. Since i don't have a trainer, I couldn't try the 1 hour all out test and then take the average HR of the last 40 minutes since i have to stop at roundabouts etc which would ruin the test.

I also do feel that sometimes my HR shoots up too fast and i am barely moving in zone 2 and on other times i ride quite fast with the same HR but on taking averages, i was always improving my average pace from one week to the next (until the last couple of months that is)

If i were to put my current training plan on paper (i have been doing this for almost a month now) it would look as follows:

1x per week: hill sprints: all out uphill (usually standing) until i'm spent. continue uphill seated for a while longer on a lower gear. go downhill. My HR would be back in zone 1 by the time i get down for my next hill sprint. Repeat for 5 - 6 times. Usually i get mhr when sprinting uphill. dont really use HRM here except i take a look at it when i'm down the hill to see whether HR is back down to Zone 1 or still in 2 (curiosity rather than dependence).

1x per week: LT for 1hr or 1.5 hrs: Would use HRM to keep in zone. here i would feel that i can push a little harder but try and save a bit of my energy. however i aim to end the ride feeling tired and usually, even though my HR is high, my pace is slower at the end of the ride.

1 longish (2-2.5) hr ride @ zone 2 using HRM. i would be going slow, no problems with tiredness or breathing. just a little bit. I finish the ride feeling that i could have probably kept going for another hour or so more. no real muscle fatigue or breathing challenges here

Similar Zone 2 rides 1 hour and a half or so long.

I take 1-3 days rest (sleep more and eat more) a week depending on how I feel, what i eat and how much i sleep.

So from what i'm getting, the HRM is helping me with my zone 2 rides but is most probably inaccurate when it comes to the LT ride and useless for the hill sprints.

What would you suggest as the way forward from here? seems with the Power meter (or maybe an indoor trainer) I would have a more accurate indicator when it comes to sprints and LT rides. Or am i completely off?

SBezza

Do the 1 Hour and a half rides in zone 3, it really isn't long enough in zone 2 to be honest.

HR will be useless for the hill sprints, you need to go on RPE here, HR takes a while to respond to effort.

If you did have a powermeter and kept at the power you produce at LT, you would see a continually rising HR, if you go on just HR and you went to high too quickly, then you would likely see a drop in power towards the end.

Herbsman

BeaconRuth wrote:

Sr249 wrote:

I agree regarding HRM training methods not being accurate enough however at this stage it the only guideline I have.

A HRM is accurate enough to get you a very long way provided that you understand what it is indicating and, perhaps more importantly, what it is not indicating.

Ok, so heart rate isn't going to tell me how hard or fast I'm pressing the pedals - just how fast my heart is pumping blood. Obviously the harder and faster I pedal, the faster my heart will beat. But how can I make use of this info without knowing how hard or fast I'm pressing the pedals? How can I know I'm getting fitter, or that I'm pedaling too hard, or that I'm not pedaling hard enough but I'm fatigued so it feels like I'm pedaling harder than I actually am? Is knowing my heart rate at any particular time really much better than using RPE alone?

BeaconRuth

Herbsman wrote:

Ok, so heart rate isn't going to tell me how hard or fast I'm pressing the pedals - just how fast my heart is pumping blood. Obviously the harder and faster I pedal, the faster my heart will beat. But how can I make use of this info without knowing how hard or fast I'm pressing the pedals? How can I know I'm getting fitter, or that I'm pedaling too hard, or that I'm not pedaling hard enough but I'm fatigued so it feels like I'm pedaling harder than I actually am? Is knowing my heart rate at any particular time really much better than using RPE alone?

(Is this really a serious question from Herbsman? :shock: )

To answer the question in bold, I don't think you can - which is why measuring cadence (in a given gear) or rear wheel speed on a consistently-calibrated turbo is so vital. It's not really possible to do successful, progressive and controlled training on a turbo with a HRM but no objective indication of any kind as to how much work you are doing. HR is not a measure of how much work you are doing and that's what many people fail to understand.

You can know you're getting fitter if 2 months ago you could maintain, say, 20mph on your turbo for 20 mins and now you can maintain 21mph for 20 mins.

I think that once you are experienced enough to know how different types of training should feel, then knowing your HR at any particular time is not any better than using RPE alone. The crux of the problem, though, is that if you are a beginner in the world of cycle training, how do you know what RPE is the right one for any given training session or training goal?

Ruth

danowat

BeaconRuth wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Ok, so heart rate isn't going to tell me how hard or fast I'm pressing the pedals - just how fast my heart is pumping blood. Obviously the harder and faster I pedal, the faster my heart will beat. But how can I make use of this info without knowing how hard or fast I'm pressing the pedals? How can I know I'm getting fitter, or that I'm pedaling too hard, or that I'm not pedaling hard enough but I'm fatigued so it feels like I'm pedaling harder than I actually am? Is knowing my heart rate at any particular time really much better than using RPE alone?

(Is this really a serious question from Herbsman? :shock: )

To answer the question in bold, I don't think you can - which is why measuring cadence (in a given gear) or rear wheel speed on a consistently-calibrated turbo is so vital. It's not really possible to do successful, progressive and controlled training on a turbo with a HRM but no objective indication of any kind as to how much work you are doing. HR is not a measure of how much work you are doing and that's what many people fail to understand.

You can know you're getting fitter if 2 months ago you could maintain, say, 20mph on your turbo for 20 mins and now you can maintain 21mph for 20 mins.

I think that once you are experienced enough to know how different types of training should feel, then knowing your HR at any particular time is not any better than using RPE alone. The crux of the problem, though, is that if you are a beginner in the world of cycle training, how do you know what RPE is the right one for any given training session or training goal?

Ruth

Great post

Herbsman

Thanks Ruth.

What made me ask the question is that you said "I won national time trialling championships using nothing more sophisticated than a HRM. When I did buy a powermeter I concluded that I had been nailing my training pretty much as well as I possibly could have done with a powermeter all along.".

Now, I'm not actually looking to get a HRM. Unless someone convinced me that I would really benefit from using one, I really don't want to strap a device to my chest every time I train. However, as I have no way of measuring my performance at the moment (unless I started timing myself up hills) I've long been considering getting a power meter. But as it would take a significant chunk out of my bank balance, I'm still not sure I want to get one - yet.

So can I infer from what you're saying, that a heart rate monitor would only really be useful for me if I used it alongside a measure of performance, i.e. speed on a trainer, or with power? So would it only make sense to use heart rate post-training session, to see how the relationship between speed or power and heart rate changes over a few weeks/months of training (e.g. increase or reduction in speed/power at the same heart rate, or vice versa)

BeaconRuth

Why thank you danowat.

Sr249 wrote:

What would you suggest as the way forward from here? seems with the Power meter (or maybe an indoor trainer) I would have a more accurate indicator when it comes to sprints and LT rides. Or am i completely off?

You started this thread by saying you wanted to be a "better and faster cyclist". I think you're going to have to be quite a lot more specific before it's possible to comment on a way forward for you. In what way, exactly, do you want to be a better and faster cyclist? Do you have some events or races in mind and/or a level of performance you would like to achieve? Without knowing a little more about your goals it's impossible to say what training would be best for you. The other thing is to specify when you want to achieve those goals - there aren't many cyclists to whom I'd give hill-sprint reps at this time of year!

Ruth

BeaconRuth

Herbsman wrote:

Thanks Ruth.

What made me ask the question is that you said "I won national time trialling championships using nothing more sophisticated than a HRM. When I did buy a powermeter I concluded that I had been nailing my training pretty much as well as I possibly could have done with a powermeter all along.".

Oops - I see what you mean. Yes, I did have a way of measuring cadence on the turbo along with using my HRM. In my little world a cadence meter is less sophisticated than a HRM - IYSWIM.

Now, I'm not actually looking to get a HRM. Unless someone convinced me that I would really benefit from using one, I really don't want to strap a device to my chest every time I train. However, as I have no way of measuring my performance at the moment (unless I started timing myself up hills) I've long been considering getting a power meter. But as it would take a significant chunk out of my bank balance, I'm still not sure I want to get one - yet.

I have a lot of sympathy with that view. As I hope I implied above, I made all the improvements to my racing performances (enough to win 10 or 11 national medals) before buying a powermeter - and then found I couldn't really make any more progress even with a powermeter. That's essentially why I think it's a shame that forums like this give people the impression that you're not really a serious cyclist unless you have a powermeter. (That's notwithstanding the fact that I've coached dozens of riders with powermeters and it's certainly nice as a coach to see exactly, down to the last Watt, what a rider has done in training.)

So can I infer from what you're saying, that a heart rate monitor would only really be useful for me if I used it alongside a measure of performance, i.e. speed on a trainer, or with power? So would it only make sense to use heart rate post-training session, to see how the relationship between speed or power and heart rate changes over a few weeks/months of training (e.g. increase or reduction in speed/power at the same heart rate, or vice versa)

A HRM can be useful on the road to gauge the general intensity of a long (say 30mins+), evenly paced training effort. On the turbo it's not a complete waste to have a HRM with no cadence or speed measurement - if you spent 30mins pedalling on a turbo and finished with an av HR of 150bpm then you would have almost certainly trained more intensively than if you'd finished 30mins with an av HR of 140bpm - but that is just about all you can say. But the HRM would be useless for, for example, doing 1-minute intervals and trying to assess over a month or so whether you are getting better at doing 1-minute intervals.

Not sure if that makes sense. Maybe tell us what training you think you might do with a HRM and we can comment on whether it would make sense to have a HRM?

Ruth

Sprool

not wishing to hijack this post but if you use a heart rate monitor to keep your HR at or just below 75% of max during a training session on rollers, you can see how long it takes you to cover 10 miles without exceeding the 75%.
If you rerun this test every week or two this should indicate whether your base fitness is improving or not. Is this correct? Is it a valid measure of performance improvement?

Herbsman

You'd need to be in the same gear...

Alex_Simmons/RST

Sprool wrote:

not wishing to hijack this post but if you use a heart rate monitor to keep your HR at or just below 75% of max during a training session on rollers, you can see how long it takes you to cover 10 miles without exceeding the 75%.
If you rerun this test every week or two this should indicate whether your base fitness is improving or not. Is this correct? Is it a valid measure of performance improvement?

I'd say that's probably not hard enough, even for a sub-maximal test. 80-85% HRmax would probably be better.

Even then it requires a lot of controls as there are things that can influence HR response that won't necessarily affect what power you could maximally sustain, as well as allowing for HR response time.

But then I do prefer to test what you can do maximally as a way to find out what you are maximally capable of.

Besides, regular intervals will do this anyway.

Add to that, it's only ever going to be as good as the precision of power measurement method (in your case how well and consistently the wheel speed on your trainer is representative of actual power output).

For many people power is a great tool, can be fun, and enjoyable to learn how to use it wisely etc. But it's just a tool, not a way of training, which is why we talk about training with power, not by power. Broadly the training is no different, but with knowledge of the data you can spot things quickly, assess whether training is actually being executed as desired (and having the desired impact) and make appropriate changes.

But for many, if you follow a good plan (mostly), maintain consistency, and have a good hillclimb somewhere within reach every 4-8 weeks, then that will be enough to know if you are improving. Some turbos/rollers will be suitable as well, and some won't, but it takes a bit more knowledge to understand which group your unit falls into. Might be good for training on, but may or may not be suitable for reliable performance testing.

Sr249

BeaconRuth wrote:

Why thank you danowat.

Sr249 wrote:

What would you suggest as the way forward from here? seems with the Power meter (or maybe an indoor trainer) I would have a more accurate indicator when it comes to sprints and LT rides. Or am i completely off?

You started this thread by saying you wanted to be a "better and faster cyclist". I think you're going to have to be quite a lot more specific before it's possible to comment on a way forward for you. In what way, exactly, do you want to be a better and faster cyclist? Do you have some events or races in mind and/or a level of performance you would like to achieve? Without knowing a little more about your goals it's impossible to say what training would be best for you. The other thing is to specify when you want to achieve those goals - there aren't many cyclists to whom I'd give hill-sprint reps at this time of year!

Ruth

Thanks for the help Ruth. I think my main aim at this stage is being able to do a 40km time trial in a decent time. I don't have a defined target time in mind yet. I have some friends who are triathletes and it seems that in some events I would be able to team up with a runner/swimmer and do the cycling part myself. In the future I might also be looking at some sportives. but that would come next year. If I can achieve both goals at once, it would be awesome of course . But I'd say time trialling would be my first preference.

Let me try to explain myself a bit better regarding becoming a faster cyclist: When it comes to endurance rides (eg a 4 hours ride once in a while when time permits), I feel pretty comfortable. But I would be doing approx 22km per hour here. Terrain isn't too hilly. just some short hills . Now if I try to go faster on a short 30km ride and I would do this in Zone 5, I would achieve a maximum of 24-25km/h.

So when i chat with my triathlete friends or other cyclists, they would mention numbers much higher than these.


Previously, I was monitoring my improvement by timing myself and keeping myself in zones. At one point. i could see improvement every week when comparing same route/zone rides. not any more.

The best I got so far is 25.5km/hr over 40km and this is what I would like to improve.

I appreciate all the feedback btw.

BeaconRuth

Sr249 wrote:

I think my main aim at this stage is being able to do a 40km time trial in a decent time.

OK, so the first thing I would do is drop the hill reps. Decide what is the maximum amount of time you can dedicate to training each week and then fill that time each week with training (except perhaps on slightly easier weeks when you allow your body to have a bit more rest than usual). Ride as hard as you can for the time you have available for training BUT ensuring that you don't go so hard that you can't recover for your next training session. So, if you come back from your longest ride feeling fresh and under-challenged, ride a bit harder next time. If you do 2x20mins quite hard one day and your legs are very sore the next day (when you do have a chance to train) then you've gone too hard. (However, that same 2x20mins might have been exactly the right pace another day if you had a planned rest day the next day.)

Previously, I was monitoring my improvement by timing myself and keeping myself in zones. At one point. i could see improvement every week when comparing same route/zone rides. not any more.

Unfortunately you can't expect your rate of progress to continue to be measurable every week. Initial gains are much greater than subsequent gains - it becomes a question of hard graft, dogged persistence and confidence that what you're doing is going to bring benefits in the long run.

Coming back to your opening question, I doubt that getting your training zones more accurately defined will help you much. I think you possibly just need to tweak your training and then continue to work at it. When I was at my fittest I was pleased to see tiny improvements over a timescale of months, not weeks. I was once given some words of a wisdom from a former World pursuit champion: "Enjoy the process." If you don't enjoy the process of training and you're only motivated when you see improvement every week, then it won't be long before you're looking for another sport!

Ruth

danowat

BeaconRuth wrote:

Unfortunately you can't expect your rate of progress to continue to be measurable every week. Initial gains are much greater than subsequent gains - it becomes a question of hard graft, dogged persistence and confidence that what you're doing is going to bring benefits in the long run.

This is so true, my first season of TT'ing, I was seeing improvements weekly, my second season was an eye opener, and improvements were much more subtle, can be a cruel mistress at times.....

Alex_Simmons/RST

BeaconRuth wrote:

"Enjoy the process." If you don't enjoy the process of training and you're only motivated when you see improvement every week, then it won't be long before you're looking for another sport!

+1

Sr249

Thanks again for your help Ruth.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

"Enjoy the process." If you don't enjoy the process of training and you're only motivated when you see improvement every week, then it won't be long before you're looking for another sport!

+1

+2 That's what's so good about cycling. The process is fun . But i do need to watch out so i don't fall into that trap. would be a pity. However, I really enjoy this part of it all - getting the training right, knowing that what i'm doing will give results in the long run, learning about it etc

BeaconRuth wrote:

Decide what is the maximum amount of time you can dedicate to training each week

What was worrying me the most was that performance was somehow getting worse.I was thinking that I have reached a plateau and I need to get out of it if I want to see further improvement.
I'd say i would afford approx between 1 hour and 1 hour and a half everyday in the morning and also have some time for a long ride in the weekend. i would be able to fit in either a 30km session or a 42km session. So to be sure i'm understanding you correctly regarding the intensity of the sessions: I guess if i were to use my HRM as a guideline I should aim for LT heart rate for my training sessions? I should maybe skip the zone 2 and 3 sessions so as to allow for more recovery time (maybe some zone 1 sessions). Should go at it with a mentality where I try and do a better time than the previous one?

Quick question: would you suggest keeping my slow endurance session during the weekend? (I love that one - less cars - new places etc )

you referred to 2x20min: that means going hard for 20 minutes, riding for some time at a slower rate to recover and then do another fast 20 minutes right?

Thanks again for all the feedback