Heart rate monitor - limited use for mtb?

scarbs85

Just wondering how useful heart rate monitors are for improving your training for XC racing. I can understand their use in road biking, where consistent efforts and speeds are possible to stay in certain zones. But riding off-road, things go up and down, rough and smooth, and riding at any sort of consistent speed or effort to stay in zones would be pretty tricky.

Anybody use one? Has it improved your training? Any and all answers welcome, thanks chaps.

njee20

Not of much use for structured training off road for the reasons you say. MTB rides are for having fun, honing skills and turning all the hills into intervals. If you want to do structured training sessions stick to the road or the turbo.

thelonegroover

Agreed, if you want to improve fitness, ride up hills as fast as you can. Then repeat but faster.

concorde

For training off-road... PLF is the way!

YeehaaMcgee

scarbs85 wrote:

Just wondering how useful heart rate monitors are for improving your training for XC racing. I can understand their use in road biking, where consistent efforts and speeds are possible to stay in certain zones. But riding off-road, things go up and down, rough and smooth, and riding at any sort of consistent speed or effort to stay in zones would be pretty tricky.

Anybody use one? Has it improved your training? Any and all answers welcome, thanks chaps.

I've been using one on the roadie, which has made a big difference, and to be honest I find that HR training still applies fairly well to MTB riding, although you don't tend to sit at the same BPM for as long.
I've also found it useful to track effort over time. I was finding myself getting into a routine speed, even though my fitness was getting better, and that resulted in me doing less and less work over time and plateauing out.
By keeping an eye on the HR monitor when training, I can make sure that I'm still putting as much work in.

YeehaaMcgee

Concorde wrote:

For training off-road... PLF is the way!

?

ric/rstsport

i would say they're not of huge use for road riding either!

scarbs85

Well I'm quite liking mine for use on the road. I didn't realise how often I ease off the workrate when the road starts going downhill a fraction. I was maintaining speeds, but my heart rate would drop without realising it. Having something beep angrily at me makes me pick the pace up again and maintain a good effort. It stops me slacking!

It is slightly tricky trying to spin up hills and maintain HR in a zone though!

ric/rstsport

for e.g. when i coach riders, i may say on the flat ride at zone 1, while uphill you should hit it hard at zone 5.

i'm not sure from what you've written whether you're trying to keep it at the lower intensity when riding uphill?

YeehaaMcgee

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

i'm not sure from what you've written whether you're trying to keep it at the lower intensity when riding uphill?

There's several articles suggesting you should, from time to time, try and stay in a low zone for the duration of a ride. I believe the theory is that as you slowly pick up speed at a low heart rate, your average speed when actually riding hard will increase markedly.

I tried it, then realised we have bloody big hills round this way!

ric/rstsport

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

i'm not sure from what you've written whether you're trying to keep it at the lower intensity when riding uphill?

There's several articles suggesting you should, from time to time, try and stay in a low zone for the duration of a ride. I believe the theory is that as you slowly pick up speed at a low heart rate, your average speed when actually riding hard will increase markedly.

I tried it, then realised we have bloody big hills round this way!

this is untrue.

You should try and stay at a low intensity (not HR as they can dissociate) on occasion but this is usually for other reasons e.g. you're on a recovery spin, or the ride is ultra long and you don't want to blow, or you're riding with someone significantly less fit than you

YeehaaMcgee

Well, I've read that from you, and read the opposite from others. Hence confusion.

ric/rstsport

there's no physiological reason why you should train solely easily. Briefly, the adaptations that need to occur to increase aerobic performance, are based around increases in mitochondrial and capillary density. while it is true that these adaptations occur on a continuum (as do all physiological adaptations), they occur at their greatest rate around maximal sustainable 1 hour effort (~40km TT effort) and at intensities approaching VO2max (which is significantly above 40km effort).

there are reasons to moderate your effort (it's impossible to smash it every day absolutely flat out at VO2max as the volume of training would be too low). you do need to do some low intensity efforts. but i can't think of any reason why you'd specifically constrain the intensity on a hill to a low effort (unless there was something wrong with you, e.g. recovering from illness, or the points i made above)

YeehaaMcgee

Where do you ride, Ric?
I can think of several hillclimbs here that I'd definitely not want to hit hard in Zone 5. They just go on too long.
And why stay at 1 on the flat?

I'm not belittling your information, or trying to take anything away from it, but there's rarely a one-size-fits-all solution.
Which is probably why there's competing theories, and various coaches, otherwise people could just be told to "do this, and achieve this".

ric/rstsport

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Where do you ride, Ric?
I can think of several hillclimbs here that I'd definitely not want to hit hard in Zone 5. They just go on too long.
And why stay at 1 on the flat?

I'm not belittling your information, or trying to take anything away from it, but there's rarely a one-size-fits-all solution.
Which is probably why there's competing theories, and various coaches, otherwise people could just be told to "do this, and achieve this".

I ride in England and Wales (although i've ridden in other countries as well). I can't think of any hills in the UK that you can't ride in zone 5, because there isn't any climb in the UK that takes longer than 30-mins (for me) that i'm aware of. However, that wasn't the point i was making, i started my point by saying "e.g.". In other words it was an example that i suggest zone 5. Sometimes i suggest zone 4, other times i may say zone 6. sometimes zone 7. And sometimes i say zone 3. The point being that i was suggesting that you don't need to stay at a very low level (e.g. zone 1) as the OP was suggesting.

I haven't said there's a one size fits all. there's more than one way to skin a cat in training. However, my points still stand there is no real physiological reason to ride at a very low intensity uphill (other than with the suggestions i mentioned and perhaps one or two other very similar ones)

Ric

scarbs85

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

for e.g. when i coach riders, i may say on the flat ride at zone 1, while uphill you should hit it hard at zone 5.

i'm not sure from what you've written whether you're trying to keep it at the lower intensity when riding uphill?

Basically, yes. Some workouts, I try to maintain a moderate heartrate (zone 2 or 3) for a bigger mileage/duration, to work on building a good base of endurance and pedal power.

Other workouts I do differently, with intervals etc of higher heart rate zones. The training book I work from begs to differ with regard to longer workouts maintained in an endurance building HR zone.

Still, appreciate your info and input, there is a lot of conflicting information regarding training methods and I like to try to keep as many in mind when deciding what works for me.

ric/rstsport

both endurance and power are tied to your FTP (your maximal sustainable time trial power) and your MAP (VO2max). As these increase (which is another way of saying your fitness increases) then the amount of work that can be done and covered by using 'fat' rather than 'carbohydrates' increases. This naturally extends our endurance (as our carbohydrate stores are significantly limited in comparison to our fat stores).

It's hard for me to comment further on the books, as you don't mention what books they are or the specific physiological reasons they to give to justify their assertion. However, there is a commonly held belief that training at high intensity (i.e., around TTpower/FTP to MAP/VO2max) is 'bad' because it destroys and damages the tiny capillaries and mitochondria. While this is a long held belief by some coaches there is no evidence *whatsoever* to support it's notion, and in fact the evidence shows exactly the opposite (that training at these intensities increases capillary and mitonchondrial density).