Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Heart rate training for long distance?

I have been wearing a heart rate monitor lately for my 20 - 30 mile daily rides. I usually ride at 80% - 85% of my maximum heart rate and that seems to translate into a 17 mph average for most rides. I am wondering if it would be beneficial to try and ride at a 70% heart rate in an effort to get a feel for pacing for longer rides?

Part of me says that I am way overthinking this and just to get out and ride:)

Depends on what your goals are.

If all you want to do is ride and have fun, I wouldn't worry too much about using the HRM.

If you want to put the effort into improve your cycling performance, an HRM is a good tool to get started. You'd have to study (or possibly work with a trainer, if you're really up for it) on how to optimize your training for your goals.

For example, most cyclists who want to improve their century times will do one intense day per week, combined with several days at the projected century pace, and 1 or 2 rest days. You use the HRM to stick to your goals and guide your training efforts. You'd also likely want to use the HRM during the ride to make sure you don't go anaerobic.

So what's the plan, then?

I have been wearing a heart rate monitor lately for my 20 - 30 mile daily rides. I usually ride at 80% - 85% of my maximum heart rate and that seems to translate into a 17 mph average for most rides. I am wondering if it would be beneficial to try and ride at a 70% heart rate in an effort to get a feel for pacing for longer rides?

Part of me says that I am way overthinking this and just to get out and ride:)

70% is near the middle of Zone 2, which is what you want for a century pace. During the century itself, you'll be in a pack (hopefully) so you'll be able to maintain a higher speed for that effort compared to your solo rides. Consider also that the century route may not be as hilly or windy as you regular rides.

Doing well on a century is all about pacing and on-the-bike nutrition. Here are some good links:

Heart-rate training: http://www.cptips.com/hrmntr.htm
Nutrition: http://www.cptips.com/sixrides.htm
Training programs (mileage): http://www.cptips.com/mileage.htm

Good luck!

First off, I strongly recommend an HRM with downloading capabilities. I've used one since Polar came out with them and have benefited tremendously. One caveat though, as you become familiar with using the HRM you will observe that your heart rate follows the stress imposed, thus "listen" to your body in order to maintain a steady heart rate. I ride distance between 65-72.5% max heart rate. If there is anything left "in the tank" at the end, I cut loose.

Two books that address the subject. First and foremost is The Maffetone Method (http://www.amazon.com/Maffetone-Method-Holistic-Low-Stress-Exceptional/dp/0071343318/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236867202&sr=1-1). It is simple almost to the point of simplistic, but if you apply his "method" you will understand training. Point of fact, Maffetone was the trainer for Mark Allen, six time Ironman champion. This book applies to everyone, competitive and noncompetitive.

Second and with reservations is Base Training for Cyclists (http://www.amazon.com/Base-Building-Cyclists-Foundation-Performance/dp/193138293X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236867367&sr=1-1). Chapple spends an excessive amount of time with expensive and frequent VO2 Max evaluations, power meters and analysis. Needless to say his focus is on competitive cyclists with sponsorship, but the book is valuable for its info on endurance cycling interspersed throughout. It would have been useless to me without Maffetone.

Thanks for the input. I quickly perused the weblinks and the info looked very good. I have "base training for cyclist" and found it almost unreadable.

I guess my goal is to really understand what a 65-70% effort really feels like. I tend to hit my natural pace and do really well for 60 miles or so and then run out of gas.

I am building up to the Cross North Carolina ride in Sept. While I can ride the daily distances with little problem, stringing 6 of them together will require a good bit more self discipline with regard to pacing.

if you are at 80% or 85% of your maximum heart rate it means that you are into an intense effort... for long rides you should be at 65 or 70% of your maximum heart rate, so that you can ride longer and won't feel tired to soon!

Rather then using max heart rate, take a look at the "Anaerobic Threshold Test" stickied at the top of the Training & Nutrition forum. Do the test as prescribed and you'll have a good idea of how to build your heart rate zone chart. Helps tremendously in gauging your exertion.

I am wondering if it would be beneficial to try and ride at a 70% heart rate in an effort to get a feel for pacing for longer rides?There is little doubt that a HR monitor can provide feedback that will confirm weather or not you pace yourself effectively as possible.

However, the first thing that popped into my mind regarding your questions has to do with how much previously recorded HR monitor experience you need to form good, usable target heart rate.

I've used HR monitors off-and-on for twenty years - but I only began recording my HRs to training logs about eight years ago. Therefore, I have no records regarding HR for some of my most extreme efforts, although I can recall what my "max" was......

Now that I have eight years of HR records from both trainer and outside efforts, that were recorded during maximum efforts at one, two, or three hours, as well as sub-maximal efforts for as long 12 hours, I can make honest, informed assumptions about what I could expect to "go for" with respect to heart rate on a given ride, or a portion thereof.

Yet, even with experience, each training or racing event is different. And while knowing your heart rate is probably a good thing, there is no hard and fast rule that a given heart rate will track uniformly with glycogen depletion nor stay uniformly stable at the aerobic threshold.

Your current level of hydration, current training status and individual genetic traits will all contribute to determining a possible optimal HR for a particular ride.

My pacing strategy would utilize a pace providing for an average HR that continues to climb for the first two or three hours of an event. But everyone is different.

I tend to hit my natural pace and do really well for 60 miles or so and then run out of gas.
If you keep your heart rate down as suggested and you still "run out of gas" at 60 miles, then I suggest you read the Nutrition section on the Ultra Marathon Cycling Assoc. (http://www.ultracycling.com/nutrition/nutrition.html) website. After that, go to the Training section. Between the two you will learn much about how to prepare for your upcoming ride.

Also, you may want to re-read the introductory info in Chapple, the part where he explains the benefits to riding "slow" to build your aerobic base. Pay attention when he describes (1) increasing capillarity, (2) increasing mitochondrial activity, and (3) increasing your bodies ability to utilize fat as an energy source. I do not care what kind of shape you're in, base training is critical and it cannot be circumvented, and its benefits will be critical to surviving the Mountains to the Sea event. You will be amazed at how relaxed a 65-70% max effort really is and you will be tempted to pick up the pace. Don't pick up the pace for 8 weeks. Then follow Chapple's endurance training regimen, using heart rate as your metric.

Good luck.

I guess my goal is to really understand what a 65-70% effort really feels like. I tend to hit my natural pace and do really well for 60 miles or so and then run out of gas.

I think that's a great idea. Even if you rarely use a HRM, it's useful to know what a pure aerobic effort feels like.

I guess my goal is to really understand what a 65-70% effort really feels like. I tend to hit my natural pace and do really well for 60 miles or so and then run out of gas.
Just an FYI, it's nearly impossible to accurately "feel out" your level of exertion. For example, your metabolism changes significantly when you go above LT -- but there's no way for you to know that's happening without an HRM. Our bodies just don't provide that kind of feedback.

I agree with Houston that what is most likely happening is you are not eating and/or drinking enough. It's possible you might also be hitting a mental wall, but I'd think if you're running out of energy, you probably just need more carbs during the ride.

Some data points for you: Last year I rode a 400k with over 12,000' of climbing, at an average HR of 122 (not counting my short breaks), which is about 73% of my MHR and 80% of LT. Max recorded HR was 146 or 95% of LT. Never go over LT on a long ride. I was toasty at the end, but could still go OK, though it hurt some. Eating and drinking are the key. Max recorded temp was 104° on the longest climb.

Part of me says that I am way overthinking this and just to get out and ride:)

FWIW, I agree with that part of you. :p

If you enjoy worrying about your heart rate then more power to you, but cyclists have been enjoying centuries sans HRM for, well, about a century now!

...Never go over LT on a long ride.

May I ask why not ever go over LT on a long ride? Even if it's for a short period?...

May I ask why not ever go over LT on a long ride? Even if it's for a short period?...
Going over LT means your body has gone anaerobic. You burn through your blood glucose faster, which depletes your body's energy supply too fast, and kills your performance. It's also harder for you to recover from the ride.

E.g. if you go over LT climbing a hill at mile 25, you are more likely to run out of readily available fuel by mile 75, and if you spend too much time over LT, it could take an extra day or so to recover.

May I ask why not ever go over LT on a long ride? Even if it's for a short period?...I mean a long ride. A century is not a long ride. Races are longer than that. I say not to go over LT on a long ride because when you're over LT you're burning glycogen at 10X the rate you burn it in your aerobic zone. It's a waste. Better to save it and parcel it out slowly over the hours. On a double, I will usually limit myself to 4-6 beats below LT. That works best for me and gives me the fastest ride. What's fun on a double or similar ride is to get down in the drops or on your aerobars for your last 30 miles or so and hammer with what you got left. Spend it then. You probably won't be able to raise a HR even close to LT by then, though.

IMHO the middle of zone 2 is way too slow for a century pace. On a double it's possible to ride at about 85% of LT most of the time. Just takes training. Folks with average VO2max can train to ride a century in 6 hours or less. One can really do some hammering when the ride's only 6 hours. Spend that glycogen! To do that takes training, but that's what we talk about in these forums.

Thanks for the last 2 posts; they explain clearly the pain I go through after a long ride.

Some data points for you: Last year I rode a 400k with over 12,000' of climbing, at an average HR of 122 (not counting my short breaks), which is about 73% of my MHR and 80% of LT. Max recorded HR was 146 or 95% of LT. Never go over LT on a long ride. I was toasty at the end, but could still go OK, though it hurt some. Eating and drinking are the key. Max recorded temp was 104° on the longest climb.

Out of curiousity, what was your average speed on that ride?

I mean a long ride. A century is not a long ride. . . .

+1, with the usual caveats and disclaimers that what's long is all relative, etc., etc.....

But from the standpoint of when it makes sense to do anaerobic work, in my experience most of us with day jobs can spend a lot of time above AT on a century and get away with it. Less so on doubles and 12-hour races, but it's still doable and there are times when it makes strategic sense, such as bridging gaps (or opening them up!).

I haven't been able to make the transition in my own riding to doing work purposefully above AT on 24-hour and longer races. Every time I've done it, I've paid the price, big time. Gotta ride more.

This thread's way off track from where it started - but it won't die so:
But from the standpoint of when it makes sense to do anaerobic work, in my experience most of us with day jobs can spend a lot of time above AT on a century and get away with it. Less so on doubles and 12-hour races, but it's still doable and there are times when it makes strategic sense, such as bridging gaps (or opening them up!).Assuming you really have two clearly defined "effort-thresholds" that seemingly call upon discreet energy reserves depending on "heart-rate-based" info - one being mainly muscle-based glycogen, and the other being lipids in the circulatory system - you could plan such a "AT"/"AT" sparing ride.

Sadly, that is not the case. You're always expending a mixture, and all ride/race long, you snack and "hold back" trying to determine whether you're drawing-down a mixture of reserves in the most beneficial way possible.

This is why the crucial question in competitive long distance cycling will always remain:

"Should I go with the fastest guy out there, or should I ride my own race?"

Which would be a great subject for another thread........

Out of curiousity, what was your average speed on that ride?In-the-saddle average was 16.0, or about 15.5 hrs. pedaling. ET was about 18.5 hrs., finishing 15th out of 61 finishers. So slow, but not that slow. Had a couple bad flats, pump broke, and ran out of water at one point. Excuses, excuses! :lol: But I've got a Road Morph now!

In-the-saddle average was 16.0, or about 15.5 hrs. pedaling. ET was about 18.5 hrs., finishing 15th out of 61 finishers. So slow, but not that slow. Had a couple bad flats, pump broke, and ran out of water at one point. Excuses, excuses! :lol: But I've got a Road Morph now!

That's still a pretty good average with a good result. :thumb:

my advice would be to spend much of your time training at a pace that feels so slow you feel guilty. combing this with a day a week of hard intervals and a tempo ride and you will improve no end. they key is to mix it up.

... E.g. if you go over LT climbing a hill at mile 25, you are more likely to run out of readily available fuel by mile 75, and if you spend too much time over LT, it could take an extra day or so to recover.

It makes you wonder how the Tour de France Pro's do it for 3 weeks straight. :innocent:

Being 25 years old and training 5-7 hours a day probably has something to do with it...

Just finished my 1st 100 mile ride (yesterday) and I found that finding my comfort zone kept my heart rate and respiratory rate very safe. I stayed off the tall gears but also stayed away from spinning unnecessarily.

I'm not the type to continually analyze using continuous measurements.

I have been wearing a heart rate monitor lately for my 20 - 30 mile daily rides. I usually ride at 80% - 85% of my maximum heart rate and that seems to translate into a 17 mph average for most rides. I am wondering if it would be beneficial to try and ride at a 70% heart rate in an effort to get a feel for pacing for longer rides?

Part of me says that I am way overthinking this and just to get out and ride:)

Heart rates based on maximum heart rates don't work very well. If you look at the training and nutrition forum, you'll find a sticky post for a LT test. Basing heart rates off of that will give you much better results.