Joe Friel's endurance HR zone

raymond82

Hello there,

I decided to add a touch of structure to my cycling and bought Joe Friel's "Total Heart Rate Training" book. The zones he uses puzzle me a bit however. I had my LTHR determined last year and on the basis of that my HR zones. For endurance/base rides I target what is called "endurance zone 1" which is 69-80% of my LTHR, there is also an "endurance zone 2" between 80-94% of LTHR but I don't spend much time there. However, the endurance zone in Friel's book (zone 2) is quite some higher, 83-89% of LTHR and doesn't overlap at all with the endurance zone I was previously targeting. Can anyone explain that difference?

Thanks a lot!

imposter2.0

Different coaches, different opinions. If you've bought the book, you might as well follow it and see what happens...

BeaconRuth

raymond82 wrote:

Hello there,

I decided to add a touch of structure to my cycling and bought Joe Friel's "Total Heart Rate Training" book. The zones he uses puzzle me a bit however. I had my LTHR determined last year and on the basis of that my HR zones. For endurance/base rides I target what is called "endurance zone 1" which is 69-80% of my LTHR, there is also an "endurance zone 2" between 80-94% of LTHR but I don't spend much time there. However, the endurance zone in Friel's book (zone 2) is quite some higher, 83-89% of LTHR and doesn't overlap at all with the endurance zone I was previously targeting. Can anyone explain that difference?

As Imposter says, there are no hard and fast rules about how training 'zones' are defined. They are not fundamental principles like Newton's Laws of Motion or the Laws of Thermodynamics. Maybe Friel intends his 'endurance' rides to be slightly harder (and perhaps shorter) than the endurance rides you have previously done. He may have a slightly different aim/focus for the rides he prescribes - after all, 'endurance' is an extremely vague term...

Ruth

jgsi

BeaconRuth wrote:

raymond82 wrote:

Hello there,

I decided to add a touch of structure to my cycling and bought Joe Friel's "Total Heart Rate Training" book. The zones he uses puzzle me a bit however. I had my LTHR determined last year and on the basis of that my HR zones. For endurance/base rides I target what is called "endurance zone 1" which is 69-80% of my LTHR, there is also an "endurance zone 2" between 80-94% of LTHR but I don't spend much time there. However, the endurance zone in Friel's book (zone 2) is quite some higher, 83-89% of LTHR and doesn't overlap at all with the endurance zone I was previously targeting. Can anyone explain that difference?

As Imposter says, there are no hard and fast rules about how training 'zones' are defined. They are not fundamental principles like Newton's Laws of Motion or the Laws of Thermodynamics. Maybe Friel intends his 'endurance' rides to be slightly harder (and perhaps shorter) than the endurance rides you have previously done. He may have a slightly different aim/focus for the rides he prescribes - after all, 'endurance' is an extremely vague term...

Ruth

Yes, I hear he is a traditionalist and likes to be back for his Sunday roast dinner at 1pm listening to 2 Way Family Favourites.

raymond82

BeaconRuth wrote:

raymond82 wrote:

Hello there,

I decided to add a touch of structure to my cycling and bought Joe Friel's "Total Heart Rate Training" book. The zones he uses puzzle me a bit however. I had my LTHR determined last year and on the basis of that my HR zones. For endurance/base rides I target what is called "endurance zone 1" which is 69-80% of my LTHR, there is also an "endurance zone 2" between 80-94% of LTHR but I don't spend much time there. However, the endurance zone in Friel's book (zone 2) is quite some higher, 83-89% of LTHR and doesn't overlap at all with the endurance zone I was previously targeting. Can anyone explain that difference?

As Imposter says, there are no hard and fast rules about how training 'zones' are defined. They are not fundamental principles like Newton's Laws of Motion or the Laws of Thermodynamics. Maybe Friel intends his 'endurance' rides to be slightly harder (and perhaps shorter) than the endurance rides you have previously done. He may have a slightly different aim/focus for the rides he prescribes - after all, 'endurance' is an extremely vague term...

Ruth

Imposter wrote:

Different coaches, different opinions. If you've bought the book, you might as well follow it and see what happens...

That makes sense, although it's a little bit unsatisfying... I can imagine that different coaches have slightly different ways of calculating the zones but in this case they don't even overlap would be quite different training modes depending on who you'd ask. To me doing e.g. a three hour ride at Friel's zone 2 would feel like quite a tough tempo ride and it would be pretty tiring. I do get the impression Friel bases his values on relatively short training sessions.

Last year I spend most of the time riding at the lower endurance zone determined during the LTHR test, this year I wanted to add some higher intensity work to it for the climbing events in the summer. I guess I'll just make sure to spend more time at the higher end of what I used to do, which is close to the lower end of Friel's zone and also spend some time around LTHR towards the spring. Since I can't afford a coach, that's about as scientific and structured as I can get then!

FatTed

Is it because one coach use a % of LTHR and the other a % of Max HR?

bahzob

LTHR is definitely a more useful and reliable measure to set zones off. This is for a number of reasons:
- It's easier to determine through testing
- You will often hit it during training. You will rarely if ever hit MaxHR outside of competition.
- It marks a more useful point in terms of training zones (time spent at/above LTHR is a very important training measure both in absolute terms and relative to time spent below

As regards "endurance zone" this is probably the most contentious issue in training atm.

On the one hand there is the established idea of building up a base through steady rides then slowly adding up harder efforts as the training year contines.

On the other there is the "polarised" approach. This says you should either train at high (LTHR+) or low (below aerobic threshold). There have been a number of studies seeming to demonstrate this is better. (See my post today for a good example)

There is probably no one size fits all approach. What works for an individual will probably depend most on who they are so what works for one wont work for another.

Also what works for you will most likely change. Going from unfit>fit then the "traditional" approach may well be best. However after a few years then you may hit a plateau and changing to do more high intensity work will shake things up.

FWIW my personal view, having tried both, is that it is a mistake to lose all the fitness you have built up over a season during winter. I would suggest including at least one workout per week when you hit LTHR just to keep fitness up.

Also FWIW I have a copy of the Joe Friel book. For cycling though I think the Time Crunched Cyclist is better. It follows the newer thinking that higher intensity workouts are better especially for the vast majority of people who do not have unlimited time to train. It also has very hand 12 week training plans that make it easy to follow.
My guess is that, for the same time investment, most people will get fitter faster following TCC

raymond82

FatTed wrote:

Is it because one coach use a % of LTHR and the other a % of Max HR?

Good point, that's what I thought too but both are based on LTHR.

bahzob wrote:

LTHR is definitely a more useful and reliable measure to set zones off. This is for a number of reasons:
- It's easier to determine through testing
- You will often hit it during training. You will rarely if ever hit MaxHR outside of competition.
- It marks a more useful point in terms of training zones (time spent at/above LTHR is a very important training measure both in absolute terms and relative to time spent below

As regards "endurance zone" this is probably the most contentious issue in training atm.

On the one hand there is the established idea of building up a base through steady rides then slowly adding up harder efforts as the training year contines.

On the other there is the "polarised" approach. This says you should either train at high (LTHR+) or low (below aerobic threshold). There have been a number of studies seeming to demonstrate this is better. (See my post today for a good example)

There is probably no one size fits all approach. What works for an individual will probably depend most on who they are so what works for one wont work for another.

Also what works for you will most likely change. Going from unfit>fit then the "traditional" approach may well be best. However after a few years then you may hit a plateau and changing to do more high intensity work will shake things up.

FWIW my personal view, having tried both, is that it is a mistake to lose all the fitness you have built up over a season during winter. I would suggest including at least one workout per week when you hit LTHR just to keep fitness up.

Also FWIW I have a copy of the Joe Friel book. For cycling though I think the Time Crunched Cyclist is better. It follows the newer thinking that higher intensity workouts are better especially for the vast majority of people who do not have unlimited time to train. It also has very hand 12 week training plans that make it easy to follow.
My guess is that, for the same time investment, most people will get fitter faster following TCC

After being relatively fit for a while now, I would like to make the next step to see if I can manage a gold time at the marmotte this year. For that I will have to start training with a bit more structure. I had heard about the polarized approach and found it actually quite appealing as it means spending a lot of time riding easily and doing 20% work around threshold. That's perfect, I very much prefer doing that over doing tempo rides. However, from what I've seen these data are always based on pro's who spend a lot more time per week training, I wonder if it is as effective for people who train less.

In the end I think what I'll do is ride my long weekend rides at the lower endurance level and the shorter (turbo) rides in the higher one, that way I'll train both. Then towards spring I'll start doing more LTHR work. I also have the TCC book, but last year I didn't used it too much because without a powermeter it's hard to do things like over-unders. Also on the road it's not always easy to do the workouts right because of traffic etc. I now have a tacx for that and a cyclocross bike, which I noticed is really nice to do some high intensity work and put pressure on the legs.

Tom Dean

Not arguing against using the LTHR concept but

bahzob wrote:

LTHR is definitely a more useful and reliable measure to set zones off. This is for a number of reasons:
- It's easier to determine through testing

This is nonsense.

bahzob wrote:

- You will often hit it during training. You will rarely if ever hit MaxHR outside of competition.

Why is hitting the anchor point during training relevant? It isn't. You are unlikely to hit MaxHR even in competition but so what?

bahzob wrote:

On the one hand there is the established idea of building up a base through steady rides then slowly adding up harder efforts as the training year contines.

On the other there is the "polarised" approach. This says you should either train at high (LTHR+) or low (below aerobic threshold). There have been a number of studies seeming to demonstrate this is better. (See my post today for a good example)

This is not an either/or proposition. (The 'polarised' training in the study quoted in the other thread uses traditional-looking periodisation).

napoleond

OP-
I get my zones done through lab testing. For the price of a carbon railed saddle I get pinpoint accurate zones and a good training plan.
The top end of my endurance zone set by this coach is the point at which I start to become anaerobic. Therefore my 'endurance' rides are actually pretty tough.
I've been following what he's said for nearly 12 months now and my power at the top end of endurance zone has increased by about 60 watts. Now this 12 months of base building is done I can start looking forward to the racing this year

bahzob

Tom Dean wrote:

"On the other there is the "polarised" approach. This says you should either train at high (LTHR+) or low (below aerobic threshold). There have been a number of studies seeming to demonstrate this is better. (See my post today for a good example)"

This is not an either/or proposition. (The 'polarised' training in the study quoted in the other thread uses traditional-looking periodisation).

No it doesn't. You obviously didn't read it properly. The "treatment" group spent an average of 25% of their time during "base" period at LTHR-5bpm or above (compared to next to none in the control who were following the traditional approach).

Of course if you don't know what your LTHR is or understand how important it is in terms of zone setting/impact of training you won't really understand what this means.

Tom Dean

bahzob wrote:

No it doesn't. You obviously didn't read it properly. The "treatment" group spent an average of 25% of their time during "base" period at LTHR-5bpm or above (compared to next to none in the control who were following the traditional approach).

Is there a definition of normal or 'traditional' periodisation that says you can't go 5bpm above LTHR in winter? The study is about training intensity, not periodisation. If the groups were periodised differently it would make it difficult to draw conclusions about the effect of intensity wouldn't it?

bahzob wrote:

Of course if you don't know what your LTHR is or understand how important it is in terms of zone setting/impact of training you won't really understand what this means.

:roll:

raymond82

NapoleonD wrote:

OP-
I get my zones done through lab testing. For the price of a carbon railed saddle I get pinpoint accurate zones and a good training plan.
The top end of my endurance zone set by this coach is the point at which I start to become anaerobic. Therefore my 'endurance' rides are actually pretty tough.
I've been following what he's said for nearly 12 months now and my power at the top end of endurance zone has increased by about 60 watts. Now this 12 months of base building is done I can start looking forward to the racing this year

I had another look at the documents I received after the test I did last year, up to LTHR the zones are divided in three endurance zones, the highest ending at LTHR. The guy that took the test didn't give me any recommendation as to in what zones to train, other than indicating that I had a gradual rise in lactate levels at relatively low heart rates and that therefore it would be good to train in the lower endurance zones. Last year I've spent most of the time aiming at the lower endurance zones. This year I can do another test, I was thinking of doing it closer to the summer but it's probably better to do it soon to get a better idea of my current level of fitness and adjust my training accordingly.