Training & Nutrition - Heart rate zone question.

I am relatively new to cycling and overweight. Today I decided to use my heart rate monitor on my ride. I did a 15 mile ride with a pretty good head wind. During this ride I was in the upper side of zone 4 and zone 5 most of the time. Coming down to the low side of zone 4 when I finally got the wind at my back. It took me a little over an hour to complete the ride. My question, Is it bad for me to be spending that much time in the upper zones?

A little bit about me.
I'm 36, 217 lbs, 5' 8" and according to all of the formulas I should have a max HR of 185. I have ridden 175 miles this month.

Thanks,
Jason

You never know your zones until you find your max. In general, yes, in a week of riding, it's not a good idea to spend more than 5% of your riding time in the upper zones. However, it's a good idea at the start of training to spend a little more time there to develop your V02max which will allow you to do the longer endurance rides at a lower HR later on.

You will be best served for weight loss/fat burn to keep your heart rate around 50-65% of max. However, as a new cyclist(and where you live), this may be incredibly slow. Since you are new, you should see a decent weight loss simply by adding in the riding and keeping your caloric intake the same.

If you are using a calculation to find (or letting the HRM calculate) your MaxHR and your zones, they are most likely wrong. Calculations do not work. - TF

During the ride I hit 185 but I think my heart can go higher. When I hit 185 I was not breathing as hard some of my other rides. Even if I hit lets say 190 as my max it would only slightly alter the zones, correct?

No, it's not bad for you.

When I started riding again as an adult, I did every ride at over 80% of max (and I knew what my max was), sometimes much over that. The whole ride, up to 4 hours at a time. When you start riding, the zone thing isn't that meaningful. Those zone theories were developed by elite riders for elite riders. Ignore it until you get stronger. I'd ignore it your whole first year. Just ride to have fun. If it's more fun to ride harder, do it. If you feel tired, you'll naturally ride slower.

You will get far greater gains, far faster by just having fun than trying to observe some training ritual that was developed for people 3/4 your weight with hearts having double your stroke volume. Your cardiologist will tell you that you can't hurt yourself by having fun on your bike. I asked mine. As your heart's stroke volume increases, the HR at which you have fun riding will come down.

BTW, I'll guess your max HR is closer to 195 than 185. And you burn more fat riding hard than riding slowly. Duh.

I just posted this over in road bikes, but since it relates to zones, I'll add it to this thread. I am having an "issue" with what exactly constitutes zone 4 and 5.

To the OP - forgetting speed and wind, the upper end of Zone 4 should have been sustainable but the upper end of Zone 5 would hurt (a lot). So I think your zones are off. Don't worry about max, since as noted above the formulas are way off. Instead try to determine your functional threshold - which is what I am driving at below.

Cross-post:

I did a cycling performance assessment yesterday, and of course today I have questions. This was a 48th birthday present, and by the way was very cool. I like having this as a benchmark to retest every year to check my fitness as I near the 50 mark (and beyond)

The test was done at Endurance PTC in Mill Valley. One thing I noticed is that the protocol seemed different than some other member’s test. The V02 max test started at 150w and went up 40w every two minutes. I was doing pretty good at 310, but could only make a minute at 350.

The numbers:
VO2max – 68.5 ml/kg/min / 4.66 liters per minute
Peak Power – 330 watts or 4.9w/Kg
VT1 220w at 161bpm
VT2 290w at 176bpm
I’m not training with power. Yet. Thinking about it, but a few of you have indicated that it is very effective but takes some fun out. I like fun.
I do use heart rate zones though, most of the time to regulate myself on easy days. But I also want to up the intensity (intervals) and am trying to figure out what band to use. I have Friel, Edwards and the lab recommendation. And of course none of them use the same zones. My complete confusion is around exactly what should be Zone 4 and Zone 5., and probably more accurately stated – what is the threshold heart rate to use?
Friel’s definition of “threshold” LTHR seems to match VT2 (avg. time trial heart rate) – That makes Z4 165 to 175 and Z5 176+. Makes sense.
Lab: Z4 at 172, Z5 at 176 (Z4 is pretty narrow)

Edwards: Her specific definition of “threshold” is VT1 and that sets the zones much lower – Z5 starting at 161.

It looks to me like Edwards is just wrong in this – by her definition Z4, which is below your VT1, is just below 40k TT pace. 40k TT pace would be u near VT2 right?

Sorry for the long post, this is the culmination of a bunch of frustration in figuring out what the zones should be. And yes, power would make it all simple…

To the OP - forgetting speed and wind, the upper end of Zone 4 should have been sustainable but the upper end of Zone 5 would hurt (a lot). So I think your zones are off
I guess my max could be off. When I hit 185 it was at the top of a pretty good climb and I could only stay at 185 for a short time. I found that at 160 -165 I felt rather good. 165 - 170 was ok but I was working. 171 and up the lactic acid started building.

I used this link to determine zones using 189 as my max. http://www.heartmonitors.com/zone_calc.htm

Reaching your true max can't be determined on a ride which is why functional threshold is better. Well not unless you ride to the point you are about to fall over! I think Carbonfiberboy is right and your true max is closer to 195 though. Maybe higher.

I just posted this over in road bikes, but since it relates to zones, I'll add it to this thread. I am having an "issue" with what exactly constitutes zone 4 and 5.

To the OP - forgetting speed and wind, the upper end of Zone 4 should have been sustainable but the upper end of Zone 5 would hurt (a lot). So I think your zones are off. Don't worry about max, since as noted above the formulas are way off. Instead try to determine your functional threshold - which is what I am driving at below.

Cross-post:

I did a cycling performance assessment yesterday, and of course today I have questions. This was a 48th birthday present, and by the way was very cool. I like having this as a benchmark to retest every year to check my fitness as I near the 50 mark (and beyond)

The test was done at Endurance PTC in Mill Valley. One thing I noticed is that the protocol seemed different than some other member’s test. The V02 max test started at 150w and went up 40w every two minutes. I was doing pretty good at 310, but could only make a minute at 350.

The numbers:
VO2max – 68.5 ml/kg/min / 4.66 liters per minute
Peak Power – 330 watts or 4.9w/Kg
VT1 220w at 161bpm
VT2 290w at 176bpm
I’m not training with power. Yet. Thinking about it, but a few of you have indicated that it is very effective but takes some fun out. I like fun.
I do use heart rate zones though, most of the time to regulate myself on easy days. But I also want to up the intensity (intervals) and am trying to figure out what band to use. I have Friel, Edwards and the lab recommendation. And of course none of them use the same zones. My complete confusion is around exactly what should be Zone 4 and Zone 5., and probably more accurately stated – what is the threshold heart rate to use?
Friel’s definition of “threshold” LTHR seems to match VT2 (avg. time trial heart rate) – That makes Z4 165 to 175 and Z5 176+. Makes sense.
Lab: Z4 at 172, Z5 at 176 (Z4 is pretty narrow)

Edwards: Her specific definition of “threshold” is VT1 and that sets the zones much lower – Z5 starting at 161.

It looks to me like Edwards is just wrong in this – by her definition Z4, which is below your VT1, is just below 40k TT pace. 40k TT pace would be u near VT2 right?

Sorry for the long post, this is the culmination of a bunch of frustration in figuring out what the zones should be. And yes, power would make it all simple…

As I implied in answer to your other post, these 'zones' are not physiological phenomena. They are only artificial constructs invented by the authors of the various training systems. There are no zones without the system. - TF

I think I get what you are saying but they should correlate to the actual points where changes in energy processing occur. That should be should be at VT1 (3L/min) and VT2 (4L/min). Yes, the zones overlay those areas because there is a big difference between training just above VT1 and right below VT2. But the zones should be anchored at those places where changes actually occur.

good reference: http://alancouzens.blogspot.com/2007/10/vo2-testing-for-long-course-triathletes.html

Three things. First, don't use formula's. Warm up for 10-15 minutes. Find a long stretch of road where you can ride continuously. Gradually increase your gearing while maintaining a 90 rpm cadence. Every minute or two, shift to a more difficult gear until you can't go any harder and cadence drops considerable. At this point, shift one more and sprint. When you are getting tired, stand up and sprint as hard as you can for 10-15 seconds. That should be your max.

Two, don't ride in zone 5 for training. Read about training and get a schedule to follow. Generally do intervals in zone 4.

Lastly, it's easy to get false/high HR readings when it's dry and windy. Your sweat is drying quickly and your HR monitor may not be making good contact. Also you get static on your synthetic jersey materail that causes high reading which stay there

according to all of the formulas I should have a max HR of 185.Thanks,
Jason

All of the formulas are worthless. At best they represent an average only. Any particular individual can be subtantially over or under what the formulas predict. For the zones to have any value they must be based on an accurate MHR--whether measured directly or arrived at indirectly by inference from a sub-maximal test. For more about the validity of the "formulas" see: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/24TRAI.html?ex=1209700800&en=ef8f61368b8f6dd1&ei=5070 and http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Myth-Of-Maximum-Heart-Rate-=-220-Age&id=678707.

FWIW, when I was 43 my MHR was tested in a physiology lab at 208. I haven't done an actual maximal test since then, but now at 55 based on inference I believe my MHR to still be about 200-203. I have seen 195 on my monitor recently. Note, having a high MHR doen't say anything about fitness or ability, its just an individual variation that needs to be known to make heart rate training useful.

Dan

I think I get what you are saying but they should correlate to the actual points where changes in energy processing occur. That should be should be at VT1 (3L/min) and VT2 (4L/min). Yes, the zones overlay those areas because there is a big difference between training just above VT1 and right below VT2. But the zones should be anchored at those places where changes actually occur.

good reference: http://alancouzens.blogspot.com/2007/10/vo2-testing-for-long-course-triathletes.html

There are no point changes. It is a continuum over the entire range. You use anaerobic energy sitting on the couch and aerobic at MaxHR. The VO2 Max area does have a 'deflection' more than other places, but even there it's not a break point. The other 'points', like between 'Tempo' and 'Endurance' are arbitrary. They are set by the author at a zone where he/she thinks that this area will elicit a certain response more than above or below this area. The zone goes along with the response the author is looking for within his/her training philosophy. – TF

There are no point changes. It is a continuum over the entire range. You use anaerobic energy sitting on the couch and aerobic at MaxHR. The VO2 Max area does have a 'deflection' more than other places, but even there it's not a break point. The other 'points', like between 'Tempo' and 'Endurance' are arbitrary. They are set by the author at a zone where he/she thinks that this area will elicit a certain response more than above or below this area. The zone goes along with the response the author is looking for within his/her training philosophy. – TF

My understanding is that at VT1 and VT2 are both clear deflection points on the curve. This is a learning process for me, so just looking for clarification. This is the explanation (the same one the exercise physiologist gave me yesterday) from http://alancouzens.blogspot.com/2007/10/vo2-testing-for-long-course-triathletes.html


On a VE curve, you will typically see 2 clear deflection points, where VE and VCO2 both increase in a non-linear fashion, i.e. there is a jump in Ventilation (the blue line) and VCO2 (the purple line) that is noticeably greater than the preceding steps. The first of these (VT1 on the curve below) is related to the metabolic shift from fat to carbohydrate oxidation noted above (McLellan and Skinner, 1980). The second of these is caused by the rapid accumulation of lactate in the blood once the athlete passes the lactate balance point and the consequent rise in ventilation elicited in an effort to expel the additional CO2 created from the dissociation of lactate. On a normal individual, this point (VT2) will correspond exactly with LT2, or the onset of blood lactate accumulation (OBLA).

So wouldn't it make sense to build whatever zones you decide to use from one or both of these points where significant changes in curve gradient occur?

No, it's not bad for you.

And you burn more calories riding hard than riding slowly. Duh.

FYP...

If you aren't too uncomfortable (ie can still breathe, talk a little if necessary, don't feel sick or faint) it is fine. As you get fitter your HR should decrease. Since you can sustain that pace for an hour, I imagine you aren't feeling any ill effects.

It's not necessary? Are those points somehow going to make you faster? Most authors are trying to devise training systems that use the 'zones' that best elicit certain physiological responses. They also need this system to be usable. If they can define their zones using a functional test that you can easily perform as needed, why define it using a lab test? - TF

Two, don't ride in zone 5 for training. Read about training and get a schedule to follow. Generally do intervals in zone 4.



Why is it bad to train in zone 5? Is that just for cycling or is it the same for other conditioning like running where it is much easier to get your HR high in that zone?

I agree with the advice to ignore the zones. I did too when I got serious about training. There are a couple of simple things your HR monitor can help with though.

- Set a max alarm, just to make sure you don't push it too high. 185 is probably fine for this. You said your are overweight. Don't risk a hear attack while getting your heart in shape.

- Without paying attention to zones, push your heart rate high and then give yourself recovery intervals on your rides (going up and down hills does this anyway). Intervals are more effective than steady for CV training.

- Work for fitness, not weight loss. You WILL lose weight as you become more fit.

Best of luck

Thank you to everyone for your replys.


You said you are overweight. Don't risk a heart attack while getting your heart in shape.Oh how that would suck. But that is one of the reasons I put the HRM on. I did a 25 mile group ride last week and during the ride I got to a point where if I were riding solo I would have stopped. We were climbing for several miles and because I was way behind the group and had no idea of where I was going I continued on. As I was gasping for air I thought to myself, I wonder what my HR is right now. It had to be whatever my true max is but I didn't have the monitor on.

BTW, all I ride is hills. Living in a town called mountain top says is all.

I am relatively new to cycling and overweight. Today I decided to use my heart rate monitor on my ride. I did a 15 mile ride with a pretty good head wind. During this ride I was in the upper side of zone 4 and zone 5 most of the time. Coming down to the low side of zone 4 when I finally got the wind at my back. It took me a little over an hour to complete the ride. My question, Is it bad for me to be spending that much time in the upper zones?

A little bit about me.
I'm 36, 217 lbs, 5' 8" and according to all of the formulas I should have a max HR of 185. I have ridden 175 miles this month.

Thanks,
Jason

If you want to know what your zones are, you need to do a field test. That will give you a good estimate for your LT, and then you can know where you are riding in relationship to it.

Generally, most cyclists ride too had for most of the ride and not hard enough on the hardest parts.

BTW, all I ride is hills. Living in a town called mountain top says is all.

I think I saw another post of yours about always having to finish uphill. If not, there is someone else from your town here.

As for riding with others and trying to keep up, that can get you in trouble. Sure, it can make you push harder, just always make sure that you can get back on your own without hurting yourself to keep up. Fitness will come with perseverance.

A little bit about me.
I'm 36, 217 lbs, 5' 8" and according to all of the formulas I should have a max HR of 185. I have ridden 175 miles this month.

Jason, if your formula has AGE as a variable (and it looks like it may) that formula is junk. You have to find your REAL MHR in order to set any meaningful HR zones. If you don't, you are wasting your time with a HRM.

... Brad