I never get on with HRM'S

kingrollo

I've signed up for an 100 mile closed road sportive next September. I regularly ride 50 miles without a problem - so hopefully getting over the line won't be a problem.

I would in general like to improve my speed - an average of 15 mph is good for me

Ive tried using a HRM - however I always my average HRM is always pretty high - I work out my max on the road - but in general even when on a normal ride I am at 70-80% of that.

The slow level 1 - I can never even do - Id be farting along at 8mph ! - I read somewhere that some people are 'high beaters' - so normal HRM zones won't work.
Im 53, have very mild asthma - and my peak flow tests are always dreadful ! - my gp askes me if I get out of breath going up a flight of stairs - and is amazed when I tell him I am a regular cyclist...

Any advice - thoughts

imposter2.0

Not sure what you mean when you say you 'work out your max on the road' - do you actually know what your true MHR (or LTHR) is? Without knowing it - and without being able to accurately set zones by it, an HRM is useless anyway.

Being around 70-80% of MHR on a 'normal' ride would not necessarily be unusual, as I suspect most people would be within that range, depending on what constitutes a 'normal' ride for them. But if you don't know your true MHR, then believing you are at 70-80% of it is pretty meaningless.

getnoticed

Heart rate lags behind power - not an ideal training method in itself.
What other metrics are you using?

kingrollo

O/P Here.

Sorry a bit more context. I tried using a HRM some years back - and I am now considering trying again

@imposter
What I meant by 'on the road' is that I didn't use 220-age. I rode as fast as I could up a hill a few times - on the last one I sprinted as hard as I could and took that as my max HR

I don't have a power meter - and to be honest I don't think I could justify £200-£300 on one

imposter2.0

kingrollo wrote:

O/P Here.

Sorry a bit more context. I tried using a HRM some years back - and I am now considering trying again

@imposter
What I meant by 'on the road' is that I didn't use 220-age. I rode as fast as I could up a hill a few times - on the last one I sprinted as hard as I could and took that as my max HR

I don't have a power meter - and to be honest I don't think I could justify £200-£300 on one

Either way, an average HR between 70-80% is not unusual for a typical road ride. If that only gives you a 15mph average, then that is also not unreasonable, depending on the ride profile. If that reflects your level of fitness, then that's how it is. If you want to get your average up, then it will be difficult to suggest anything specific without knowing more about how many hours per week you are riding now and what kind of rides you are doing.

Man Of Lard

kingrollo wrote:

What I meant by 'on the road' is that I didn't use 220-age. I rode as fast as I could up a hill a few times - on the last one I sprinted as hard as I could and took that as my max HR

220-age is a finger in the wind guess - certainly doesn't fit for me (or I'm 15 years younger than my passport says) - it's a start point if you have no other data.

If you go and ride hard and your HRM says your max HR is x, and that is the highest you've ever seen, then your Max HR is at least x

bendertherobot

Have to say, since getting my Fenix 3, I'm loving training with a HRM. More so for running, but also cycling.

Last Monday my average was 80% of max over 30 miles at 18.5mph. Training level 4 Garmin says. Seems fine to me to be in that range.

Midlands Grimpeur

As has been pointed out, you need to get an accurate max HR number to set any real training zones. The best way to do so is to undergo a MAP test but I fully appreciate not everyone can justify the cost of this. If not, I would follow the British Cycling Functional Threshold Test protocol from their website if you are going to DIY.

As Imposter says, riding at 70-80% of max or threshold HR would be fairly typical for a lot of cyclists. Without knowing your training it is hard to give sound advice on increasing speed but as a general rule if you can consistently ride at 75-85% of max HR you should eventually see average speed increase.

As an example I do an average of 2-3 rides per week between 79-84% of max HR, ride length can be from 1hr to 3hrs. My speed in that zone years ago was around 15/16mph, it's now around 19/20.

john1967

kingrollo wrote:

I don't have a power meter - and to be honest I don't think I could justify £200-£300 on one

If you are interested in training then a power meter can transform the way you train and help give real improvements.I didn't think i needed one either but i wouldn't be with out it now.

fenix

You don't need a hrm to get better. You jus need to ride more. Get used to riding centuries and put in some hard efforts.

Just increasing your amount of cycling will help.

stueys

If you want to train in a structured way (which will drive the biggest return for time invested) then you need a way to measure the training effort. Power is the gold standard but people used heart rate zones for years very successfully.

I used the BC zones for a while but then switched to Joe Friels zones which are based on threshold as opposed to max heart rate. Which seemed more logical, now I'm using my power my heart rate zones also tally very closely with my power zones using friels method.

Take a look at http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/arti ... ting-zones

StillGoing

kingrollo wrote:

I've signed up for an 100 mile closed road sportive next September. I regularly ride 50 miles without a problem - so hopefully getting over the line won't be a problem.

I would in general like to improve my speed - an average of 15 mph is good for me

Ive tried using a HRM - however I always my average HRM is always pretty high - I work out my max on the road - but in general even when on a normal ride I am at 70-80% of that.

The slow level 1 - I can never even do - Id be farting along at 8mph ! - I read somewhere that some people are 'high beaters' - so normal HRM zones won't work.
Im 53, have very mild asthma - and my peak flow tests are always dreadful ! - my gp askes me if I get out of breath going up a flight of stairs - and is amazed when I tell him I am a regular cyclist...

Any advice - thoughts

Forget the HR monitor. HR is affected by so many variables and lags behind the physical output to render it almost useless as an accurate measuring system. 220-age as an estimate is also no good. I'm 55 with a max HR of 177bpm, yet the estimate if used, would put me wildly out at 165bpm max HR and when riding at that heart rate,puts me in my anaerobic zone rather than what is actually my threshold pace zone and would make me slow down or worry about damaging the heart. (I have a completely blocked subclavian artery and have suffered a stroke 2 years ago.) When you ride using a HR monitor, you'll push until the targeted HR is reached. Trouble is, you'll exceed that rate while your HR catches up with the physical exertion. Then it will race past the target and you'll ease off trying to balance it, and if you're anything like me, get frustrated trying to hit the target and eventually give up. A power meter differs by giving you 3s, 5s or 10s average power readings and is instant allowing you to see immediately that you're within your targeted area of training. Power is also not affected by the things that affect the HR such as the weather, illness, altitude, what you've eaten or drunk etc. Yes, a power meter is an expense, but I haven't looked back after buying one and with my health issues, it gives me the confidence to push rather than worry that I'm over exerting by my HR readings.

Riding is normally done at tempo or threshold pace so you're not doing anything any different by being at 70-80% of MHR. Zone 1 or active recovery is slow and whilst ideal for recovery rides after events, there is plenty of varying opinion as to its use in helping build endurance or stamina and the most recent views I've read are that it isn't of use. In reality, unless you're very good at recognising your RPE and can equate them to the training zones, you'll struggle without a power meter to be able to train accurately in the zones. If you're not in the market for one, just enjoy the riding. Like myself, you're probably not going to be discovering that you've got some hidden talent that is going to catapult you onto the cycling headlines, so just enjoy yourself knowing that if you're riding at a pace where you can only get the odd sentence out without having to pause for breath, you'll develop your speed and endurance.

bobmcstuff

/\ HR is a perfectly adequate training metric for long duration efforts in particular (such as training for a century...) and to suggest it isn't is rubbish. Your particular heart situation doesn't apply to everyone.

It has some limitations as noted but that does not make it useless...

StillGoing

bobmcstuff wrote:

/\ HR is a perfectly adequate training metric for long duration efforts in particular (such as training for a century...) and to suggest it isn't is rubbish. Your particular heart situation doesn't apply to everyone.

It has some limitations as noted but that does not make it useless...

What was said, certainly by me, was "rendering them almost useless as an accurate measuring system" which they are.

https://runnersconnect.net/coach-corner ... eart-rate/

imposter2.0

philthy3 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

/\ HR is a perfectly adequate training metric for long duration efforts in particular (such as training for a century...) and to suggest it isn't is rubbish. Your particular heart situation doesn't apply to everyone.

It has some limitations as noted but that does not make it useless...

What was said, certainly by me, was "rendering them almost useless as an accurate measuring system" which they are.

https://runnersconnect.net/coach-corner ... eart-rate/

I wouldn't say HR is 'almost useless'. Zones (assuming they are correct) give a pretty useful guide for endurance efforts up to around 85-89%. For long, steady state riding in specific HR zones, an HRM is perfectly adequate and pretty effective. Power may well be a better, more accurate way to train overall. But not everyone has/wants a PM.

kingrollo

philthy3 wrote:

kingrollo wrote:

I've signed up for an 100 mile closed road sportive next September. I regularly ride 50 miles without a problem - so hopefully getting over the line won't be a problem.

I would in general like to improve my speed - an average of 15 mph is good for me

Ive tried using a HRM - however I always my average HRM is always pretty high - I work out my max on the road - but in general even when on a normal ride I am at 70-80% of that.

The slow level 1 - I can never even do - Id be farting along at 8mph ! - I read somewhere that some people are 'high beaters' - so normal HRM zones won't work.
Im 53, have very mild asthma - and my peak flow tests are always dreadful ! - my gp askes me if I get out of breath going up a flight of stairs - and is amazed when I tell him I am a regular cyclist...

Any advice - thoughts

Forget the HR monitor. HR is affected by so many variables and lags behind the physical output to render it almost useless as an accurate measuring system. 220-age as an estimate is also no good. I'm 55 with a max HR of 177bpm, yet the estimate if used, would put me wildly out at 165bpm max HR and when riding at that heart rate,puts me in my anaerobic zone rather than what is actually my threshold pace zone and would make me slow down or worry about damaging the heart. (I have a completely blocked subclavian artery and have suffered a stroke 2 years ago.) When you ride using a HR monitor, you'll push until the targeted HR is reached. Trouble is, you'll exceed that rate while your HR catches up with the physical exertion. Then it will race past the target and you'll ease off trying to balance it, and if you're anything like me, get frustrated trying to hit the target and eventually give up. A power meter differs by giving you 3s, 5s or 10s average power readings and is instant allowing you to see immediately that you're within your targeted area of training. Power is also not affected by the things that affect the HR such as the weather, illness, altitude, what you've eaten or drunk etc. Yes, a power meter is an expense, but I haven't looked back after buying one and with my health issues, it gives me the confidence to push rather than worry that I'm over exerting by my HR readings.

Riding is normally done at tempo or threshold pace so you're not doing anything any different by being at 70-80% of MHR. Zone 1 or active recovery is slow and whilst ideal for recovery rides after events, there is plenty of varying opinion as to its use in helping build endurance or stamina and the most recent views I've read are that it isn't of use. In reality, unless you're very good at recognising your RPE and can equate them to the training zones, you'll struggle without a power meter to be able to train accurately in the zones. If you're not in the market for one, just enjoy the riding. Like myself, you're probably not going to be discovering that you've got some hidden talent that is going to catapult you onto the cycling headlines, so just enjoy yourself knowing that if you're riding at a pace where you can only get the odd sentence out without having to pause for breath, you'll develop your speed and endurance.

O/P Here - yes the above describes exactly what happens.

one the one hand you have probably saved me £50 on a HRM

On the other how much do power meters start at !!!!

imposter2.0

If you're struggling to justify £50 on a HRM, then you can forget about buying a PM for a couple of years...

StillGoing

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

/\ HR is a perfectly adequate training metric for long duration efforts in particular (such as training for a century...) and to suggest it isn't is rubbish. Your particular heart situation doesn't apply to everyone.

It has some limitations as noted but that does not make it useless...

What was said, certainly by me, was "rendering them almost useless as an accurate measuring system" which they are.

https://runnersconnect.net/coach-corner ... eart-rate/

I wouldn't say HR is 'almost useless'. Zones (assuming they are correct) give a pretty useful guide for endurance efforts up to around 85-89%. For long, steady state riding in specific HR zones, an HRM is perfectly adequate and pretty effective. Power may well be a better, more accurate way to train overall. But not everyone has/wants a PM.

That's the thing with HR measuring though; you can't be sure it is correct as it is affected by so many variables. OK, I'll accept that for someone that doesn't have access to a power meter or can't relate to RPE for zonal training, it is better than nothing.

stueys

philthy3 wrote:

That's the thing with HR measuring though; you can't be sure it is correct as it is affected by so many variables. OK, I'll accept that for someone that doesn't have access to a power meter or can't relate to RPE for zonal training, it is better than nothing.

Seriously, I'm not disputing that HRM is affected by more variables than power but to assume that RPE (i.e subjectively how you feel) isn't is a bit nuts.

Ultimately you need a way to measure training intensity, you can either use power (which measures the output irrespective of any other factor), heart rate or RPE. Both heart rate and RPE are assessments of the input, but they are both subject to many of the same variables (being tired, too much coffee, etc etc).

There's nothing wrong with training with heart rate, professional athletes did so for years, you just need to work within it's limitations. For someone new to interval training and structured training my view is that it's a better tool than 'feel'.

StillGoing

I think you're misunderstanding me. My own view based on my experience, is that RPE is a subjective measurement. What I think is tempo might not be what was intended by the originator of RPE zones. I may be above, within or below zone when trying to train within a specific zone. The point I was probably not making clear, was that unless you are certain that your own perception of RPE is accurate and as the zone creator or your trainer intends, it is no more accurate than a HR monitor.

Things develop in science and especially sports science. Whilst a training by HR was the norm years ago, developments recognise the flaws in using it as an accurate means of measurement.

joe2008

philthy3 wrote:

Things develop in science and especially sports science. Whilst a training by HR was the norm years ago, developments recognise the flaws in using it as an accurate means of measurement.

I like to use heart rate zones for endurance riding, and a power zones for intervals.

Marcin agrees

"Five hours zone 2 and 3. I am using heart rate for my zones this year, but I used power last year. I did a lot of experimenting with my time trial position with a power meter. That’s very interesting. You can make changes to your position and see if you are going faster for the same power. I know that stuff now, and if I ride some time trials this year I’ll use it. I know my heart rate zones from experience. I used to have a coach, but I have enough experience now to know what works for me."
Marcin Bialoblocki

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/fitness/ ... v2Az7Qx.99

stueys

It's a different point really but, yep, Friel advocates the same thing. The one time he advises heart rate over power is zone 2 endurance rides, he then monitors aerobic decoupling to see when base is good enough. Great if you have the 22+ hours a week to ride that the pro's have, not much use for those of us who sadly have to work. Think most coaches now advise sweet spot type base for 16 hours or less of training time per week, which takes you back to interval training.

OnTheRopes

Stueys wrote:

It's a different point really but, yep, Friel advocates the same thing. The one time he advises heart rate over power is zone 2 endurance rides, he then monitors aerobic decoupling to see when base is good enough. Great if you have the 22+ hours a week to ride that the pro's have, not much use for those of us who sadly have to work. Think most coaches now advise sweet spot type base for 16 hours or less of training time per week, which takes you back to interval training.

He also advocates aerobic decoupling monitoring on shorter duration work like 2 x 20mins at Sweetspot if I recall correctly.