Masters Racing (All Disciplines) - Overtraining? Bad data? HR data confusing me...

So, I had two 'great' rides this weekend (felt good, minimal suffering except for a few short steep hills, mostly dodged the rain), and I got the garmin HR monitor working again (after several weeks of confusion, duh...) but I'm not sure I believe the results:

Both rides report an ave. HR of 149, which according to Ride-With-GPS is right on the border line between aerobic and anaerobic - but I'm not at all feeling like I'm rolling at that point (mostly, except for the hills my breathing is relaxed, I would describe the pace as 'moderate' - certainly maintainable for 2-3 hours.

My training / riding goals are first continued weight loss (-21 and progressing), then prep for century / fondo type rides, then (a bit further out) I'd like to try some racing...

So, my questions are these:

1) Am I committing the training faux-pas of just riding too hard too regularly?
2) Are my heart rate zone estimates bogus? (per rwGPS, they are z1: 116-127, z2 127-138, z3 138-149, z4 149-160, z5 160-171) - I know this is very individual dependent, so maybe the question is this: is a max heart rate of 171 in the expected range for a somewhat overweight 54 year old? It seems low to me.
3) Or could it be something completely different?

thanks in advance...

Steve

Now that I've typed this up, I'll go do a search to see if its already been covered...

Hi Steve,

Heart rate is quite variable, both between individuals of the same age group and for those individuals day to day based on a lot of internal and external factors. 171 is in the ballpark of a max at 54, but it's a big ballpark and you really do need to actually test a few times with a good protocol to develop a decent zone chart. Same with 149 as an anaerobic/aerobic crossover point...though I'd say it would be on the low side with a 171 max. For me that's a high-ish tempo ride.

100% of the "your (pick the metric) should be (pick a number) if you're (pick an age) formulas are averages. The number is the midpoint of a range that has some pretty good outliers on either side. I've seen 50 y/o guys with a 220 max.

A 5 and 20 minute test will give you a good idea of the actual numbers.

How long have you been riding? Also, how fast does your heart rate drop after to stop when doing 149 bpm for a long time?

How long have you been riding? Also, how fast does your heart rate drop after to stop when doing 149 bpm for a long time?

Since restarting (after a brief 30 year layoff :(), 5 months now... ( I know this isn't very long comparatively).
Looking at the strava data, it looks like the heart rate drops off pretty fast (into the 120's) when I stop for a light or relax on a downhill after a climb.
(Sunday's wacky ride (http://app.strava.com/activities/30681349)) for example. Every low point on the heart rate chart corresponds to hitting a stop light.

Hi Steve,

Heart rate is quite variable, both between individuals of the same age group and for those individuals day to day based on a lot of internal and external factors. 171 is in the ballpark of a max at 54, but it's a big ballpark and you really do need to actually test a few times with a good protocol to develop a decent zone chart. Same with 149 as an anaerobic/aerobic crossover point...though I'd say it would be on the low side with a 171 max. For me that's a high-ish tempo ride.

100% of the "your (pick the metric) should be (pick a number) if you're (pick an age) formulas are averages. The number is the midpoint of a range that has some pretty good outliers on either side. I've seen 50 y/o guys with a 220 max.

A 5 and 20 minute test will give you a good idea of the actual numbers.

ok... 5 and 20 minute test: 5 minute test is the Aastrand? (5 minutes, resulting heart rate between 120 and 160, 'fixed' power output of 50 / 75 / 100 / or 150)?
20 minute test is this (http://www.endurancefactor.com/Articles/article-heartintro.html)?

and I must say, my oh my how times have changed since I lasted trained seriously...

I think Ex is talking about CP (Critical Power) tests at those durations: as hard as you can go for that time period.

Strava is a pretty broad brush from an analysis standpoint - you might want to open an account at trainingpeaks.com. They have a free version, and it will get you used to the lingo everyone uses, since the Training Peaks folks defined a lot of it: e.g., Training Stress Score, Nominal Power, Etc. They are also the authors of the most popular training software (WKO+).

I think Ex is talking about CP (Critical Power) tests at those durations: as hard as you can go for that time period.

Strava is a pretty broad brush from an analysis standpoint - you might want to open an account at trainingpeaks.com. They have a free version, and it will get you used to the lingo everyone uses, since the Training Peaks folks defined a lot of it: e.g., Training Stress Score, Nominal Power, Etc. They are also the authors of the most popular training software (WKO+).

I've noticed references to TP and figured out it was Training Peaks... I was planning to shell out the bucks for a 'premier' membership in one of these plans starting
in January, is TP the one that most of you use? (I think it was googling TSS that lead directly to Training Peaks).

And from searching 'critical power test', yep, that seems to be it... ok... off to generate some data, reporting back later this week (weather permitting).

Strava-calcuated power is usually quite inaccurate. If you don't have a power meter you can get the best calculated numbers by doing your tests up a hill and accurately weighing your bike and yourself for the test. Then plug the numbers into one of the on line calculators like http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html or http://kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

I've noticed references to TP and figured out it was Training Peaks... I was planning to shell out the bucks for a 'premier' membership in one of these plans starting
in January, is TP the one that most of you use? (I think it was googling TSS that lead directly to Training Peaks).

And from searching 'critical power test', yep, that seems to be it... ok... off to generate some data, reporting back later this week (weather permitting).

If you don't need/want data 'in the cloud', then you can also buy WKO+ desktop software for a one time fee. TP has spent most of their development time lately on the web service, but have just started a project to upgrade WKO+, which most consider the current "gold standard". There is also a solid free application called Golden Cheetah. But both of those may be overkill unless/until you have power data. I have both the paid web service and the WKP+ software, but that's because I needed to share data over the cloud, but also wanted the extra power of the desktop software. I've stopped also loading into Golden Cheetah and Garmin Connect... I'd down to 'only' two solutions, LOL.

Strava-calcuated power is usually quite inaccurate. If you don't have a power meter you can get the best calculated numbers by doing your tests up a hill and accurately weighing your bike and yourself for the test. Then plug the numbers into one of the on line calculators like http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html or http://kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

hum...
I plugged in the 'best estimate' numbers for my best time on an uphill (just 1.1%) strava segment (Foothill, Arastradero to Edith for you bay area types).
Strava reports 183 watts for the segment. ForcesPower_Page reports 176 watts (my time for this segment: 5:13), Kreuzotter reports 246 watts.
In any case, I'll use this segment for a 5 minute CP test, and see what that turns up...

The Kreuzotter report is trying to factor in some stuff (tyre type, rider height, riding position, wind speed) that ForcesPower doesn't seem to bother with.

If you don't need/want data 'in the cloud', then you can also buy WKO+ desktop software for a one time fee. TP has spent most of their development time lately on the web service, but have just started a project to upgrade WKO+, which most consider the current "gold standard". There is also a solid free application called Golden Cheetah. But both of those may be overkill unless/until you have power data. I have both the paid web service and the WKP+ software, but that's because I needed to share data over the cloud, but also wanted the extra power of the desktop software. I've stopped also loading into Golden Cheetah and Garmin Connect... I'd down to 'only' two solutions, LOL.

I've been uploading to Strava and rideWithGPS, and sometimes Garmin Connect... Holding off on buying Premier package till I had more experience. Loading stuff like this to the cloud doesn't bother me too much, but I don't currently 'need' to share it... It seems like creating route analysis websites is a balkanized industry. I'll probably check out the 'free' version of TP first, what the heck, what's one more upload. If its mapping capabilities match or surpass rideWithGPS, there'll be no reason to use rwgps, if its analysis is better than strava, there's no need for strava, and my life becomes that much simpler...

In my experience, nothing beats ridewithgps for mapping (in advance, that is), but none of the other online services can touch training peaks for analysis. It's also very good if you want to track your net calories, and it has a huge database of food to help with that. You can even scan barcodes from items in the store, or restaurants that have barcodes, to get that into your caloric intake. I can't remember for sure which features you only get with the paid subscription. I even have my Apple calendar pulling my training peaks data, so it shows up on my iPhone, along with any other time commitments I have. TP has a decent iPhone app you can use for that purpose as well, I just like it aggregated so I see when work meetings will conflict with my training - so I can change the work meeting, of course :-). TP a good central repository. In fact, my workflow is to load everything into TP, make my annotations there, then pull it from there into WKO+, which is the format my coach wants to receive. He loads it into his copy of WKO+ and has my complete training history.

The Kreuzotter report is trying to factor in some stuff (tyre type, rider height, riding position, wind speed) that ForcesPower doesn't seem to bother with.

I've found that calculator to be very accurate, certainly on climbs.

All those things noted above have a significant impact on time/distance as it relates to power output.

In my experience, nothing beats ridewithgps for mapping (in advance, that is), but none of the other online services can touch training peaks for analysis. It's also very good if you want to track your net calories, and it has a huge database of food to help with that. You can even scan barcodes from items in the store, or restaurants that have barcodes, to get that into your caloric intake. I can't remember for sure which features you only get with the paid subscription. I even have my Apple calendar pulling my training peaks data, so it shows up on my iPhone, along with any other time commitments I have. TP has a decent iPhone app you can use for that purpose as well, I just like it aggregated so I see when work meetings will conflict with my training - so I can change the work meeting, of course :-). TP a good central repository. In fact, my workflow is to load everything into TP, make my annotations there, then pull it from there into WKO+, which is the format my coach wants to receive. He loads it into his copy of WKO+ and has my complete training history.

Well, I'll definitely check it out. No coach (for now), so no requirements there. No smart phone (yes, I'm a troglodyte), although I'm wavering on that front. I was out Sunday and hit a road closure - it would have been nice to whip out the phone to see if there was an alternate route. And yes, Its important that you have your work / training priorities straight (I noticed that I started putting training ahead of work as the days started getting shorter. I'm still scheming as to how to fit in some 'work from home so I can ride when I want to' days...), in any case, thanks for the info.

I've found that calculator to be very accurate, certainly on climbs.

All those things noted above have a significant impact on time/distance as it relates to power output.

Just to be clear, that's the Kreuzotter?

hum...
I plugged in the 'best estimate' numbers for my best time on an uphill (just 1.1%) strava segment (Foothill, Arastradero to Edith for you bay area types).
Strava reports 183 watts for the segment. ForcesPower_Page reports 176 watts (my time for this segment: 5:13), Kreuzotter reports 246 watts.
In any case, I'll use this segment for a 5 minute CP test, and see what that turns up...

The Kreuzotter report is trying to factor in some stuff (tyre type, rider height, riding position, wind speed) that ForcesPower doesn't seem to bother with.

You are just getting back into cycling and have a lot of work to do. I think you may be going too hard.

The terrain you are cycling is tough on beginners / returning cyclists. When I returned to cycling, I thought Arastradero, Alpine and others on the loop you did were hard and called them climbs. Today, I consider that ride a flat to rolling ride that is pretty easy. Of course one can make any ride hard by going faster.

That segment may not work well for testing. I suggest using a climb like Old La Honda or Kings Mountain road. Another choice for flat to rolling terrain is the time trial course on Canada Road. That is farther but a good warmup with similar features to Alpine and Arastradero and Portola. When you go north from the start it is about 5 miles to the turn around with a 397 foot drop in total elevation.

The other thing you can do is climb to the top of Old La Honda and note your time. Start timing when you cross the bridge at the bottom and stop at the stop sign at the top. However, that climb may be too tough for you today.

Generally, my rides start from Canada and Edgewood road and go to Alpine via Portola Valley and Mountain home and then out to Foothill College and then back. Or I may start from home and I can climb to the top of Skyline. We also ride to the coast from Canada Road and go up Old La Honda or Kings Mountain.

For longer z3 or z4 training, climbing Old La Honda is hard to beat. It is 7.2% average grade for 3.1 miles perfect pavement and beautiful scenery. Kings Mountain is another great climb which is 6% grade for 4.2 miles.

The other advantage to using the time trial course for testing is that it has wide bike lanes and no stop signs. You can go really hard and when you quit, you have a wide bike lane to stop and get off the bike out of traffic, if necessary.

Just to be clear, that's the Kreuzotter?

I use Kreuzotter but I find this to be better:

Analytic Cycling.

(http://www.analyticcycling.com/)

You are just getting back into cycling and have a lot of work to do. I think you may be going too hard.

The terrain you are cycling is tough on beginners / returning cyclists. When I returned to cycling, I thought Arastradero, Alpine and others on the loop you did were hard and called them climbs. Today, I consider that ride a flat to rolling ride that is pretty easy. Of course one can make any ride hard by going faster.

That segment may not work well for testing. I suggest using a climb like Old La Honda or Kings Mountain road. Another choice for flat to rolling terrain is the time trial course on Canada Road. That is farther but a good warmup with similar features to Alpine and Arastradero and Portola. When you go north from the start it is about 5 miles to the turn around with a 397 foot drop in total elevation.

The other thing you can do is climb to the top of Old La Honda and note your time. Start timing when you cross the bridge at the bottom and stop at the stop sign at the top. However, that climb may be too tough for you today.

Generally, my rides start from Canada and Edgewood road and go to Alpine via Portola Valley and Mountain home and then out to Foothill College and then back. Or I may start from home and I can climb to the top of Skyline. We also ride to the coast from Canada Road and go up Old La Honda or Kings Mountain.

For longer z3 or z4 training, climbing Old La Honda is hard to beat. It is 7.2% average grade for 3.1 miles perfect pavement and beautiful scenery. Kings Mountain is another great climb which is 6% grade for 4.2 miles.

OLH is on my 'I think I'm ready for this' list. Certainly it'll be useful for gathering 5 and 20 minute CP data. What's frustrating is that 30 years ago I thought nothing of jumping on the bike and riding up Hwy 9 to Boulder Creek. In any case, OLH, Kings Mountain, or the Canada time trial course are all 15+ miles out from home (as the crow pedals), so this looks like it'll have to happen over the next couple of weekends.

Thanks... I'll report back when I have some data.

I use Kreuzotter but I find this to be better:

Analytic Cycling.

(http://www.analyticcycling.com/)

Ok... That's what I was calling the 'ForcesPower' page - Analytic Cycling it is then - and interestingly Strava was closer to this than to Kreuzotter (probably due to bad guessing on my part with the data I put into Kreuzotter, given all their different variables). We'll see where this leads.

If you are using HR as your training metric, the 20 minute test will get you in the ballpark. HR varies for many physiological reasons, but for someone who is not racing, can be a good metric to have on board when riding. The end goal of that test is to find your threshold HR, which is the typical HR you would have at 60:01 after going as hard as you can for an hour. With this metric you can set your training zones. But it won't give you your max HR, which isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things. I have hit my max HR twice, each time in races when I was OTF solo on the last lap on the way to the win. I wasn't paying much attention to my computer at the time.

If you are using HR as your training metric, the 20 minute test will get you in the ballpark. HR varies for many physiological reasons, but for someone who is not racing, can be a good metric to have on board when riding. The end goal of that test is to find your threshold HR, which is the typical HR you would have at 60:01 after going as hard as you can for an hour. With this metric you can set your training zones. But it won't give you your max HR, which isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things. I have hit my max HR twice, each time in races when I was OTF solo on the last lap on the way to the win. I wasn't paying much attention to my computer at the time.

I'll bet. And yes, for now (till I'm ready to invest in a powertap setup, HR is what I have to go with. I have aspirations and the straw-man of a plan. We'll see how it goes from here.
One follow up question: If money was not an issue, would you prefer the Quarq crankset or the Powertap hub?

I'll bet. And yes, for now (till I'm ready to invest in a powertap setup, HR is what I have to go with. I have aspirations and the straw-man of a plan. We'll see how it goes from here.
One follow up question: If money was not an issue, would you prefer the Quarq crankset or the Powertap hub?

From what I've been able to find out, the Quark is a cleaner installation. Also, you get to keep your wheels. The Powertap is less expensive, and the ANT version is a clean install, too. However, you either have to use the wheel the hub comes with (usually a Mavic OpenPro rim) or have the hub laced to your rim (I understand Easton doesn't condone the use of the PT with their wheels). As far as accuracy, I have read they're very close, with the Quark being slightly more accurate.

All that said, Look has finally released their "pedals with power" system. It's pricey, like the Quark, but simple, and moving it from bike to bike would be easy.

I have both. Here's some pros and cons.

A Powertap is generally cheaper. The wheel is heavy because the hub is heavy, although the latest models (G3) are reasonably light. A wheel can be swapped between bikes easily without tools. You also get another wheel out of the deal, and a wheelset if you get a cheap front wheel. I have a Powertap SL+ (wireless) wheel on my CX commuter bike with a $79.00 Neuvation front wheel to match.

A Quarq, SRM or other crank based power meter is generally more expensive than a Powertap wheel. However, if you race, it's ideal in the sense that you can swap different race wheels and pit wheels out and still have calibrated power. Cranks can be swapped depending on each bike's particular setup, but it requires tools.

Both of my bikes are set up for as much cross-compatibility as possible, i.e. 10 speed Shimano, 3T bars, Toupe saddles. etc. so that if I crash my race bike and destroy something I have a spare either on the CX bike or on the shelf. The Powertap falls into this category. If my Quarq has to be sent back for service, I have an Apex crank on the shelf, and the Powertap wheel from the CX bike. No time without power. But I am a racer, and I need this capability. You may not.

One of the best deals in power meters out there is the used Powertap Pro+ or SL+ wheel. Avoid the Elite because it's a slug. The going rate for a clean used one is $600. If you have an ANT+ head unit with power capabilities such as the Garmin 500 or 800, it's pretty much plug and play. I bought my first Powertap SL+ from www.slowtwitch.com for $550, trained and raced the hell oout of it for a year, then sold it for $600 to fund the Quarq. When I got my club race reimbursement I bought a Powertap SL+ wheel from a fellow racer for $600 that had just come back from Saris after a full rebuild. That is what I have on the CX bike.

Power is critical for a dedicated racer, but pretty much informative for a recreational cyclist. Think hard before you drop the coin. Buy used to minimize the depreciation in case the wonder wears off.

Good luck.

I'll bet. And yes, for now (till I'm ready to invest in a powertap setup, HR is what I have to go with. I have aspirations and the straw-man of a plan. We'll see how it goes from here.
One follow up question: If money was not an issue, would you prefer the Quarq crankset or the Powertap hub?

If money is no object:

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/trisports_2240_167408180

SRM. Like Porsche, there IS no substitute.

No doubt. If anyone is seriously interested, an SRM dealer on slowtwitch is selling off 2012 models at 30% off. That works out to between $1900 and $2200 depending on which unit.

The one drawback with SRM is that the batteries in the PC7 and crank are not user replaceable unless you are comfortable with a soldering iron. Quarqs have a user-replaceable button battery. In my opinion they are not as reliable as SRM's, but service is top shelf.

No doubt. If anyone is seriously interested, an SRM dealer on slowtwitch is selling off 2012 models at 30% off.

Link?

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Classifieds_F2/SRM_End_of_year_Sale_P4267667/

I use Kreuzotter but I find this to be better:

Analytic Cycling.

(http://www.analyticcycling.com/)

That's the one I use too, but some people find the units conversion a pain.

I have a Quark and Powertap (not on the same bike, that would be too geeky). They're both good. With PT you can move it between bikes easily. With Quark you can use any wheels you like. They're both accurate enough for me, except for the PT's cadence guesser, which is terrible for me. If I cared enough about cadence I'd use a seperate sensor for it.

One disadvantage for the SRM is you have to send it in to get the battery replaced, or be willing to do some soldering on it. For my purposes the Quark (or PT) is accurate and consistent enough and much cheaper than the SRM.

I have a single Quarq unit, and move it back and forth between my road bike and my TT bike. It has become so quick and easy (I'm thinking ~ 4') I sometimes do it after dressed for a ride, just like pumping up the tires. One advantage to this method is that, because the crankset is removed so frequently, it's easy to keep it (and both BB's) well-maintained. I definitely prefer a crank based PM. Well, if Brim Brothers get their shoe based system released, and it's accurate, that would be pretty sweet: power data on any bike you ride.

I have a single Quarq unit, and move it back and forth between my road bike and my TT bike. It has become so quick and easy (I'm thinking ~ 4') I sometimes do it after dressed for a ride, just like pumping up the tires. One advantage to this method is that, because the crankset is removed so frequently, it's easy to keep it (and both BB's) well-maintained. I definitely prefer a crank based PM. Well, if Brim Brothers get their shoe based system released, and it's accurate, that would be pretty sweet: power data on any bike you ride.

The Brim Zone looks interesting... but details are pretty sketchy, and now they're quoting mid-2013. The engineer in me says 'oh, they're having some serious technical issues if they're slipping the schedule that much'. But, it does look really interesting. I wonder if it'll cost less than a crank or hub based system.

Steve,

I too am a numbers junky and got back on the bike after a couple year absence last August. My wife gave me an Edge 500 for my bday in December and it has been great. Yes, training has certainly changed since we were younger.

With regard to max HR. You've got to go test for it. The mathmatical and time trial estimates are just that, estimates. I'm only 42, but, ride with a number of 50+'ers. Their max's tend to be higher than the "average". I suspect, because the 'average' includes a lot of untrained individuals.

Anyhow, when I first got back on the bike, it was reasonably easy to achieve my max heart rate. Several months later, it was considerably more difficult and required tailoring a workout to achieving that. If you already have several months of aerobic conditioning in you may be facing the later.

At least in my case, to achieve max HR I need a good 20 minutes of warm up with a few efforts of increasing intensity. Then, I need a decent hill of at least 2-3 minutes in length. I start climbing said hill at around 80%rpe until my HR plateu's (low to mid 170's), then increase to 90% driving my HR up a few more beats per minute (175-180) and as my rate of HR increase slows or I feel fatigue setting in, I SPRINT FOR ALL I'M WORTH to exhuastion (183-185). At which point I need to be reasonably close to home. There is no way I can achieve the same result using a steady state hill climb.

I've stated to some of the guys I ride with that I believe they are underestimating their true Max HR becasue they have based theirs on either a steady state climb, where it plateus much like mine. Or, have performed a TT style LT test and have assumed the average HR of that to be their LT HR.

Anyhow. Enjoy the return to form. I certainly am.

Steve,

I too am a numbers junky and got back on the bike after a couple year absence last August. My wife gave me an Edge 500 for my bday in December and it has been great. Yes, training has certainly changed since we were younger.

With regard to max HR. You've got to go test for it. The mathmatical and time trial estimates are just that, estimates. I'm only 42, but, ride with a number of 50+'ers. Their max's tend to be higher than the "average". I suspect, because the 'average' includes a lot of untrained individuals.

Anyhow, when I first got back on the bike, it was reasonably easy to achieve my max heart rate. Several months later, it was considerably more difficult and required tailoring a workout to achieving that. If you already have several months of aerobic conditioning in you may be facing the later.

At least in my case, to achieve max HR I need a good 20 minutes of warm up with a few efforts of increasing intensity. Then, I need a decent hill of at least 2-3 minutes in length. I start climbing said hill at around 80%rpe until my HR plateu's (low to mid 170's), then increase to 90% driving my HR up a few more beats per minute (175-180) and as my rate of HR increase slows or I feel fatigue setting in, I SPRINT FOR ALL I'M WORTH to exhuastion (183-185). At which point I need to be reasonably close to home. There is no way I can achieve the same result using a steady state hill climb.

I've stated to some of the guys I ride with that I believe they are underestimating their true Max HR becasue they have based theirs on either a steady state climb, where it plateus much like mine. Or, have performed a TT style LT test and have assumed the average HR of that to be their LT HR.

Anyhow. Enjoy the return to form. I certainly am.

I think you left out the step where you fall off and puke your guts out... but thanks for this, I think :injured:.

I've always struggled with the push to the wall and beyond, we'll see how I do trying this for the first time in a long while.

I think you left out the step where you fall off and puke your guts out... but thanks for this, I think :injured:
.

Intentionally. I haven't puked. Yet. But, that is the reason for noting that you really want to be close to home when you've completed this. Don't try it at the turn around point of a long ride.


I've always struggled with the push to the wall and beyond, we'll see how I do trying this for the first time in a long while.

I think most of us do. Hence the underestimating of most those TT based tests. I know that studies have repeatedly shown athletes are usually capable of more than they believe themselves to be.

I do not in any way advocate Max HR tests on a regular basis. And, I believe that most training guides would point out that "you should consult a physician, yadda, yadda, yadda," before attempting such.

Oh, and when you collapse, ....try to topple AWAY from the traffic:-)

I have done a similar test as bigfred. As noted, upon completion of the extreme effort be ready to feel like puking and peeing your shorts at the same time.

Lactate Threshold HR is more useful than MaxHR. Training zones are based off LTHR. How do people get the zones from MaxHR? They use a study which relates people's LTHR to their Max. BUT, that is different for different people, and it's trainable. If you train the right systems your LTHR will go up while your MaxHR stays the same. If you base your zones off LTHR it'll take that into account. If you're using MaxHR your zones will be off.

Here's a test for LTHR: http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/04/determining-your-lthr.html

Lactate Threshold HR is more useful than MaxHR. Training zones are based off LTHR. How do people get the zones from MaxHR? They use a study which relates people's LTHR to their Max. BUT, that is different for different people, and it's trainable. If you train the right systems your LTHR will go up while your MaxHR stays the same. If you base your zones off LTHR it'll take that into account. If you're using MaxHR your zones will be off.

Here's a test for LTHR: http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/04/determining-your-lthr.html

hum... ok, well... Now the newbie is all confused...

Racer Ex, as you were the one who mentioned the 5 / 20 CP tests originally, which would you recommend?

Maybe the original question needs to be reworded as this: I'm using an HRM in my training, how do I go about getting the zones set properly? If that's the better question, Ericm's reply may make more sense? :newbie is confused:

Here is the Low Key Hill Climb power calculator. It contains the NorCal climbs plus some international ones. You set the power and the weight and it calculates speed and time. I have found these to be pretty accurate. There is a Highway 9 climb, OLH, Kings Mountain and others. http://www.coastsci.org/Power/ClimbCalc.html

bigfred, I wasn't advocating using MHR to establish HR zones. Mine are based on the 20 min test using data from a power meter.

Here is the Low Key Hill Climb power calculator. It contains the NorCal climbs plus some international ones. You set the power and the weight and it calculates speed and time. I have found these to be pretty accurate. There is a Highway 9 climb, OLH, Kings Mountain and others. http://www.coastsci.org/Power/ClimbCalc.html

Interesting. It doesn't look like you can run this backwards (e.g. given the time to do the climb, and ave. speed, get the power number), but once you've
done the ride and have power estimates, you can see if this matches your actual results.

bigfred, I wasn't advocating using MHR to establish HR zones. Mine are based on the 20 min test using data from a power meter.

Is a twenty minute test the same thing as a Friel 30 minute test (where he has you toss out the first 10 minutes)?
It seems like the Friel test can be done on any ride (a climb is not required).

Not quite the same. Just pick one and stick to it

FYI I am 55 years old and my Max HR is 193. I could NEVER hit that in training.

Lactate Threshold HR is more useful than MaxHR. Training zones are based off LTHR. How do people get the zones from MaxHR? They use a study which relates people's LTHR to their Max. BUT, that is different for different people, and it's trainable. If you train the right systems your LTHR will go up while your MaxHR stays the same. If you base your zones off LTHR it'll take that into account. If you're using MaxHR your zones will be off.

Here's a test for LTHR: http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/04/determining-your-lthr.html

Fair enough, and, agreed. However, it sounded as though the OP was working with zones derived from a mathmatical MaxHR. If that was the case, zones determined from a tested Max would probably be more accurate than the aforementioned, but, less than from a lab based LTHR.

I contend that the ride based LTHR approximations "may" result in an underestimation of the actual value. Some of us may be good at riding "as hard as we can" for 30 minutes, but, a lot of us could probably go harder or at least more evenly than we do. I know Carmichaels "field test" uses shorter duractions and he claims that helps offset this.

I would be interested in learning from those of you who have had the opportunity to do a lab (blood sampled) LT test, how did those numbers compare with your ride based approximations?

Anyhow, my daily HR response to a given stimulus varies by more than the difference between approx. LTHR bands and those based on measured MaxHR. It's not so easy to notice such on the road. But, when doing the same interval workouts on a fluid trainer and matching ones gear choice and speed, it's pretty easy to see the days when your HR is up or down. Hence, the superiority of training with power. Which, one day I hope to have.

All this for a bloody hobby!

bigfred, I wasn't advocating using MHR to establish HR zones. Mine are based on the 20 min test using data from a power meter.


See my response above. But, you're one up on me with the power meter. I do currently base mine on my "measured" max. When I formalized my training program, I performed Carmichaels "field test" a couple of times over two weeks. On both the road and trainer. Both resulted in lower bands than those I was already using from the measured max, so I've stuck with those. However, with the number of different coaches, ways of establishing bands, their realative width, the cross over between them and the fact that we then train realative to our weeknesses, does being a point or two low or high, really make any difference? If you're traing with HR, you're already off by that much just because of daily influences. Wishing I had a spare grand laying around for a powertap.......

Interesting. It doesn't look like you can run this backwards (e.g. given the time to do the climb, and ave. speed, get the power number), but once you've
done the ride and have power estimates, you can see if this matches your actual results.

No, it does not solve for time but you manually iterate for time by putting in different power numbers. It is easy to do. And for your weight, you can see how much time 10 pounds is worth as well as watts.

In reality, my ride times up OLH do not vary much. I can predict my climb time by the 3 second power I am producing.

See my response above. But, you're one up on me with the power meter. I do currently base mine on my "measured" max. When I formalized my training program, I performed Carmichaels "field test" a couple of times over two weeks. On both the road and trainer. Both resulted in lower bands than those I was already using from the measured max, so I've stuck with those. However, with the number of different coaches, ways of establishing bands, their realative width, the cross over between them and the fact that we then train realative to our weeknesses, does being a point or two low or high, really make any difference? If you're traing with HR, you're already off by that much just because of daily influences. Wishing I had a spare grand laying around for a powertap.......

don't we all...

But, I think I get the general sense of all of these comments, and it would appear (pending actually doing a test) that my 'estimated formula based numbers' are low, as compared
to the actual measured heart rates I'm seeing from my rides, AND that I'm probably over-training as well.

In any case, I'll be doing a test shortly and will report back so we can close the book on this.

My wife did tell me the other day that I could spend money on 'anything' exercise related as long as I used it... have I mentioned I love my wife?

But I think I'll N+1 first before getting a power meter. Besides, the shoe-meter seems really cool, so I may hold out for that.

No, it does not solve for time but you manually iterate for time by putting in different power numbers. It is easy to do. And for your weight, you can see how much time 10 pounds is worth as well as watts.

In reality, my ride times up OLH do not vary much. I can predict my climb time by the 3 second power I am producing.

Got it. that sounds very useful.

My MHR of 188 (the highest I've ever hit) is higher than an age based estimate. So initial zones I set based on age were really far off. I tried Friel's perceived effort test to find LTHR, and I believe those zones were closer. Then I had a metabolic test, which pushed them down, and then a later test, after I had gained fitness, pushed them back up.

Like Shovel, I never come close to MHR in training - I've only hit mine in crit's, and haven't hit it in quite awhile. Adrenaline contributed to my earlier efforts - my heart was racing even before the start. Now, I'm more relaxed, and also better at smoothing out my efforts. My HR general peaks in the mid-to-high 170's in a crit. Often less than that. On climbs, I'm generally wanting not to blow up, so I'm not going to hit my MHR during a climb in a race. If you hit your MHR in a race, it better be right at the end, or at a point where you will have a chance to recover, because you -will- blow up, and quite possibly puke, after hacking up a lung and a half. You may also cough for a week.

One advantage of power based training is that the testing is more readily made part of your regular training. You can test each month, and adjust your power zones as indicated. IMO, the only truly accurate way to nail HR zones is with a metabolic test. The additional benefit they provide is substrate utilization, so you know how efficient you are at burning fat versus glycogen, but getting them frequently is expensive.

Among us here, Hermes is the most eloquent about how we can let our minds limit our performance. There are points where you set the tables aside, and just push yourself past the point you ever thought you could. Fortunately, you can train that... you can learn to stop listening to your muscles and the negative thoughts. The people who win are almost universally extremely good at the mental aspects of the sport. It's something i continue to work hard to improve.

I'm only 42

Just so you know you're on an 8 year probation here ;)


I would be interested in learning from those of you who have had the opportunity to do a lab (blood sampled) LT test, how did those numbers compare with your ride based approximations?

Pretty much spot on in my case.


it would appear (pending actually doing a test) that my 'estimated formula based numbers' are low, as compared
to the actual measured heart rates I'm seeing from my rides, AND that I'm probably over-training as well.

I'd be pretty comfortable with the former but would need a lot more information to conclude that the latter is true, if you're using the most accepted definition of "over training"


Besides, the shoe-meter seems really cool, so I may hold out for that.

I know people that are 4 years onto waiting for Metrigear.

My biggest issue with the shoe system, provided it really works, is that cable. I've had more than a few shoes that have had scuff marks right in that spot, from everything from crashes to emergency clip outs. I'm also wondering how dirt in the cleat could affect readings and how walking in the cleat is going to affect readings.

SRM is the most robust PM out there right now and even it requires a bit of careful set up to achieve consistent readings. There's very little technical information (on Brim) out there at the moment, so it's hard to get a handle on potential engineering +/-.

Devil is always in the details.

<snip>

I'd be pretty comfortable with the former but would need a lot more information to conclude that the latter is true, if you're using the most accepted definition of "over training"

I know people that are 4 years onto waiting for Metrigear.

My biggest issue with the shoe system, provided it really works, is that cable. I've had more than a few shoes that have had scuff marks right in that spot, from everything from crashes to emergency clip outs. I'm also wondering how dirt in the cleat could affect readings and how walking in the cleat is going to affect readings.

SRM is the most robust PM out there right now and even it requires a bit of careful set up to achieve consistent readings. There's very little technical information (on Brim) out there at the moment, so it's hard to get a handle on potential engineering +/-.

Devil is always in the details.

Well, I'm not sure I'm using the 'most accepted definition'... at the time of the original post I was thinking: 'If the HR zones are right, should I be riding at this tempo consistently'? After the discussion in this thread I'm pretty sure that 1) the zones aren't that right, and 2) I'm probably not going about this in the smartest / best way - there's just a ton to learn. But, that can be corrected. I'm going to look into getting a powertap wheel - maybe that'll go on Santa's list... I'll have to do some thinking about where I want to go with all of this.

As for the shoes - yeah - that external wire does sound a bit sketchy. With that much schedule slip, you know there has to be something that just isn't working well yet...

In any case, thanks (everyone) for all the discussion, its been very thought provoking.