Redbullet

Hello,

I can’t find a way to reasonably use my HR monitor for training. My max. HR is somewhere between 175 – 180 and the minimum is around 80-90. While cycling, I can’t lower my HR below 130 (unless I really stop pedaling for 5-10 minutes). I use a 4 zones monitor (60-70%, 70-80%, 80-90% and 90-100%). The final result is that, for any 70-90 km ride, I “spend” some 2-4% in zone 4, some 92% in zone 3, and some 4-6% in zone 2. Nothing for zone 1 - it would mean almost stop pedaling.

Overall, I can see that training plans normally spread between 50-100% of max HR, but I can’t use such a plan – my HR is in zone 3 (80-90% of max HR) for most of the ride and I can’t pull it below without a lot of stops. Should I change the 60 – 70 – 80 – 90 - 100% percentages on my HR monitor to a higher scale?

Thanks,
R.

Mumonkan

how did you come to the number you understand as your max?

going slow is hard work.

RISKDR1

are you saying that your monitor limits you to four zones? I use five zones with zone 1 (55-65%), zone 2 (65-75), zone 3 (75-85), zone 4 (85-90), zone 5 (90-95). These are custom zones and not exactly traditional. I find that I can roll along pretty well in zone 2 "forever". For me that is 100-115 bpm. As I get to the top of zone 3 I am starting to work but can hold that pace for long time without stress. As i move into zone 4 I am at anaerobic threshold and would do a 10 mile tt at that rate if I were ever inclined to do a TT (which I am not). I deliberately set my zone 4 and 5 zones to be narrower than most use. I intend never to go over 95% which for me would be a HR of 146. My max is 154 but why would I ever ride at max? I am 70 and not racing anyone. I find that when I compare my average HR and Max HR for a ride with my friends my numbers are quite a bit lower than theirs at the same speeds they are riding (and I am not sucking wheel either).

For you I think you will find that if you do your very long rides at 60-70% that you will get faster in that zone over time. It will be very economical of fuel (glycogen) use as well. I don't think riding along at 80-90% for 90% of your riding is good and may result in over training. I am wondering if your max is not higher than you think. When you say your minimum is 80-90 bpm that sounds high to me. Mine is 49-52. Is that your true resting heart rate when you are well recovered? I have some friends, mostly the women, who have high heart rates all the time. I call them the humming birds.

capsisking

I'd also be interested to know how you came up with your max.

Element GT

I usually spend most of my ride in zone 3 also. If I'm going really slow I can manage zone 2 for a bit.

Redbullet

I estimated the max. HR as follows:
- My HR monitor is fixed to 180 for my age
- Various formulae for max HR say 170 – 175 for my age
- My HR monitor shown that I reached 3 times the value of 175 during short time hard efforts
Overall, I estimated that my max HR is at least 175 and not more than 180.

My HR monitor has only 4 zones. The factory settings are 60-70, 70-80, 80-90 and 90-100 %. I can customize them as I want, but I noticed that the factory settings are consistent with the training programs I found on the web.

Going slow to zone 2 (70-80% of max HR) would mean well below 20km/h for me and zone 1 (60 – 70%) is quite a non-sense – probably 10 km/h or stop pealing.

As about zone 3 (80-90%), I can reach 25-35 km/h on flats depending on wind, with just some manageable knee problems.

TimothyH

Max heart rate is pretty much a useless number. You can't train your max heart rate.

Lactic threshold is the number you want for cycling. Zones should be built as a percentage of LT, not HRmax. A higher LT is what allows you to pedal harder for longer periods of time. LT is highly trainable.

Test for LT and build your zones like this...



I wrote a short paper on how to test your lactic threshold, how to build your zones as a percentage of LT (above) and specific exercises (tempo, intervals) to train your LT higher.

Heart Rate Training Basics for Cyclists


-Tim-

Mumonkan

well theres your problem.

youre probably actually riding in zone2-3 but underestimating your max

do an actual test as Tim has mentioned if you want any degree of accuracy, "training with hr" is pointless without a goal and a baseline to work from

HazeT

Your heart rate zones are probably all wrong, as other have mentioned. Look at this document to find out how to calculate your zones properly:

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zu...SHOLD_TEST.pdf

spdracr39

Base training at painfully slow zone 2 speeds will lower your heart rate over time. You have to commit to this program for it to work at its best but just putting in seat time will take care of it also.

gregf83 

LTHR isn't really any more 'trainable' than HRmax. What is trainable is power at LT. In literature LT often refers to the power at LT.

OP: You can use either MaxHR or LTHR for setting your training zones but you'll need to get a reasonable estimate of either and you can't get that from a book. For your max it's best if you can find a decent length hill 5-10 min long. Go hard up the hill until your HR starts to plateau and then stand up and sprint as hard as you can. It's not pleasant so many prefer to measure their LTHR which involves riding all out for 30min and taking the average for the last 15min.

DrIsotope

I was really curious as to whether or not the semmingly arbitrarily set heart rate zones on Strava were at least close, so I went out and did a lactic threshold test slash impromptu 40k time trial on Friday morning-- which basically just consisted of finding a long, relatively flat place to ride at a good pace (upper SART) where I could go full-out for at least 20 minutes. Then looking at some of the references above, I found that the preset zones were pretty darn close, within a few beats at either end, simply based on the simple 220 minus age formula.

I adjusted the numbers on Strava to accommodate, and used Strava's estimated power numbers as well. According to the online stuff, my MHR is supposedly 178bpm, but I have never seen that number. I've hit 173bpm a couple of times, and it brings with it a "don't go toward the light" feeling. According to my self-administered test, my LTHR is 156bpm, which seems on target. The more I ride, the easier it is to sustain longer periods of elevated upper-zone-4 or lower-zone-5, but at the same time, increased cardiovascular fitness is bringing my typical riding HR over distance down, so I have to keep increasing the intensity to compensate. A 20-mile ride that would have had me at a 155bpm average for 85 minutes is now a 143bpm average for 75 minutes. Those 155bpm average rides would leave me simply flattened. I would be almost worthless for hours afterward. An hour or two (or 3 or 4) in the 143 area is totally manageable.

The closing disclaimer is that I have only a recently developed ability to pace myself. I ride circuits that start and finish at home, and generally finish on a downhill or at worst a flat, so I tend to just go full-bore right out of the driveway, and as a result have gotten really close to bonking several times, and have just fully run out of gas on a couple of others. So now that I know the numbers and the zones... it is probably going to make very little difference. I'll still do those rides where it's as if I'm punishing myself for unknown crimes. 80% of the ride in upper zone 4. That kind of thing.

chasm54

That's not entirely true, Greg. Retesting for LTHR saw mine move up from 156 to 162 over a few months training. Of course, power at LT probably increased much more - I wasn't training with a power meter - but LTHR will definitely shift with training.

gregf83 

LTHR can shift for a lot of reasons unrelated to fitness. My HR is significant higher climbing a hill in the middle of summer, dehydrated, than it is in cooler weather at the same power output. It might go up or it might go down but it's not a particularly worthwhile metric to focus on. If your power goes up you won't care what happens to your LTHR.

And for the purposes of this thread, a few % change in LTHR isn't going to affect your training zones whether you use LTHR or MaxHR.

chasm54

Well, up to a point. But a rising trend over a period of systematic training isn't likely to be attributable to the circumstances of a particular ride - especially when the tests are undertaken on a trainer.

And as far as the OP is concerned, accuracy isn't that big a deal. But in my own case, the difference between 156 and 162 is material as far as setting traing zones is concerned. Six bpm spans the whole of my Z4.

gregf83 

I think you're better off using power or RPE for determining intensity of intervals in any case. HR isn't very effective for shorter interval periods and has significant day to day variation.

chasm54

I don't disagree. But the OP was asking how to use a HRM. Telling him a power meter is a superior training aid is fair enough, but if he's going to use a HRM he may as well do so as effectively as possible.

Clipped_in

Nice exchange of ideas that I think is probably instructive for the OP. You're both right--well done!

merlinextraligh

A lucky coincidence. The whole formula thing is somewhat predictive for populations, but has a very low predictive value for any one individual.

For me, the formula is off my Max HR by 28 beats (based upon actual observation). My LTHR, as tested in a lab, and observed from field tests, and time trials, is off by 30 beats.

Based on anecdotal reports in these threads over the years, the formula is far enough off for most people to make it worthless as a training tool.

While it may average out for a population group, it's only going to be accurate for any one individual by happenstance.

Additionally, the formula seems to skew low for trained individuals, given that LTHR is somewhat trainable. It also appears to skew low for older riders that have trained a lot over the years.

Seattle Forrest

What I do:

Find your max HR through experimentation. And your resting heart rate, like lying in bed when you get up in the morning. Base HR zones on the spread between them. If you have a Garmin (which it doesn't sound like) it does this for you automatically as %HRR, because your resting HR will lower as your cardiovascular system gets stronger. It's popular with runners and somewhat with swimmers. LTHR is needlessly complicated (unless you're an engineer and like complexity for its own sake) and I think it's easier to accurately find your max than to find your LTHR.

But heart rate isn't for short term how-hard-should-I-be-working (like interval training). It reacts too slowly for that. What it's good for is evaluating the quality of a workout, how much time did you spend in each zone? Like someone else said, going slow is hard work.

caloso

This is true for me. My actual LTHR is 10 beats higher than my predicted MaxHR. You have to test and get actual, personal data or you're wasting your time.

Training off a number derived from a chart makes as much sense as buying shoes based on average foot size.

Redbullet

Thanks for the answers.

Indeed, there is a lot of information here. I shall probably “play” with finding Lactic Threshold, although it means a long work and the result is based on perceived effort over a long time (which might have low accuracy).

As about identifying the maximum heart rate, I think I’m not far from that. I reached 3 times 175 bpm during the first 20-30 km of a ride, after 1-2 days of resting, and I could not do any further effort – it was like automatic shut down, I couldn’t even ride straight. My maximum HR can not be far from that point. Let’s say 180 (although I don't think I can ever reach this; as a benchmark, it is already above the calculated 170-175 for my age).

I tend to assess that riding at 60-75% of maximum HR is for well trained people. For me, riding at 125-130 bph (70-75%) means 10-15 km/h and intermittent pedaling. Like a wounded animal. For the moment, I think I shall simply change my first zone to start at 75% (130 bpm) and proportionally adjust the other zones. Later, I shall try LT zones and see how it works.

R.

merlinextraligh

The shortest, least painful way is to do two 3 mile TT's, ( or 2 8 minute efforts on the trainer) Do it after a good warm up, 10 minutes recovery between efforts.

Take 92% of your average HR for the 2 efforts and that's a pretty good measure of your LTHR.

Redbullet

Thanks, I'll take it into account, too.

Today I tried the method with 30 km after warming and measure the average of the last 20 km. The average was 160 bpm. As a matter of facts, the muscles failed first at the middle of the distance, then the back of the right knee became the bottle neck during the last kilometers. So, I don’t know how accurate it was…

merlinextraligh

That would indicate your LTHR is in the high 150's.

I'd set it at 155. Then see how the intervals feel. If they're too easy, or you're seeing higher HR than that on long intervals, then bump it up a little.