Shut up & ride

I recently started biking and would like to train so that I can do distance events in reasonable time (charity type stuff... not racing), so I got a HRM and did some tests.

Max HR = 187

Anaerobic threshold test (on an exercise bike):
- After warming up I got up to a steady brisk pace. I held that pace for about 10 minutes, but could have done it for quite a while longer. HR was 166 (89% of max).
- Then I notched up a bit to HR = 170 (91%) and did that for 10 min w/out a problem.
- I was at HR = 174 (93%) for some time (not certain exactly how long), but I'm certain I could sustain that for 10 minutes without a problem. At this point I could still have a conversation, but would need to take breathes in between sentences.
- I could even handle maintaining HR = 177 (95%) for some time, but really pumping at this point and probably not comfortable having a conversation.

Questions:

- I figure my anaerobic threshold is 174 or 93% of max. What do you think?

- Now I know that pretty much all of my exercise routines over the past few years have been predominantly in Zone 4. I imagine that's good for some things and not good for other things, but not sure what. What did this type of training prepare me to do well? And what downside was there to being in Zone 4 so much vs spending more time in Zone 3?

- I've seen various guidance about how to test for threshold. How would you do it? Which source do you trust most for this?

merlinextraligh

you might buy Chris Charmichael's book. It will give you a method to calculate your HR zones for different types of intervals.

simplyred

10 minutes = not good enough to determine anerobic threshold. You need to be able to do the 2 X 20 minute run to determine your threshold.
2 X 20 Thread

Doing too much anerobic training wipes your aerobic system clean. Try running an aerobic gear now and sustaining it for a couple hours. It'll be tougher - that I can assure you. Zone 4 Training [I'm assuming the entire time that Zone 4 = Redline] is good for short bursts of immense power. But short is the word.
Your description sounds eerily close to what I've been doing for a while. Since then, I've stopped almost any anerobic intervals and gone completely to aerobic training. I want solid wattage for hours versus insane wattage for minutes.

Good Luck!
-Peter

NoRacer

How did you determine your Max Heart Rate?

I hope you didn't use 220 minus age.

bac

My question also. If this number is off, all the rest is meaningless.

Shut up & ride

Interesting. I guess I haven't acquired the sensitivity to know that by feel yet, but perhaps will develop it some day.


I measured it during a fitness test. I suppose it's possible that I left it a beat or two short, but I tried my damndest and think it should be very close. That measured number is about 10 bpm more than my calculated max.


Thanks for the link. Actually, it turns out that I did something close to this. Main difference is that I didn't take a 5 minute rest interval, and I kept ratcheting up instead of maintaining at a single heart rate. My total workout was 50 minutes. The first 8 minutes were warmup and getting up to speed. The next 42 minutes were all at 166 (89%) or more. Most of it was 170 (91%) or more. With the 2 x 20 version of a workout, I know I could easily sustain 170 (91%), probably even the 174 (93%). Will do it this way next time to verify.

To your other point, I was using "Zone 4" on the 1-5 scale. I know there are various scales, but I was not redlining / anaerobic. I only got to heart rates that I knew I could sustain for a while. It's possible that I could not sustain the 177 (95%) for 40 minutes, so perhaps the time I was in there was technically anaerobic. But that was for purposes of this "test", a bit higher than my regular workout effort.


I'll be getting Joe Friel's book in a couple days. After taking a look at it, maybe I'll get Charmichael's or Sally Edwards' book too.

NoRacer

IMHO, as a runner and a cyclist with over 6 years of heart rate monitor experience:

Terex

A very nice review of variability of HR (which has probably been referenced before) is at: https://home.hia.no/~stephens/hrchngs.htm

Shut up & ride

I believe the last two posts regarding variability. But I'm not sure what the implications are. Does this suggest:
- If you're not analy precise about your measurements and exercise targets for specific activities and conditions, then you're wasting time or even being counterproductive?
- Don't worry about the number.... go by feel?
- Take tons of data and try to arrive at a specific LT for the activity, conditions, etc?
- Work out under the same conditions as much as possible? (It seems like that wouldn't train you well for the real world. If nothing else, the course and weather will vary.)

Given that I don't have tons of data, from what I've told you so far, would you agree that I should consider my LT to be 174 until I get data that says otherwise?

And back to my other initial question, assuming I've been exercising at or just under my LT for years, what have I missed out on (if anything) by not working at a lower intensity? What will I improve by starting to do more workouts in Zone 3 (regular aerobic range)?

Just got the Friel book in the mail. Guess it's time to start reading.

NoRacer

My vote is to go by feel--listening to your body--avoiding getting wrapped around the axle, so to speak, with numbers and zones.

For me:

An aerobic ride is anywhere where I can have a conversation with full sentences. My perceived effort level is 'easy'.

Crossing LT brings on tightness in my quads, approaching or just exceeding ventilatory threshold, and if I keep it up, tightness becomes evident in other muscles in my body. My perceived effort level is 'comfortably hard'.

Anaerobic--I'm breathing very hard (I'm way above the ventilatory threshold) and I wouldn't be able to hold this intensity for longer than 6-10 minutes.

If you are training to race, you'll want to keep track of how much time you spend at each level of intensity, otherwise, IMHO, just stay aerobic for the best health benefits and the biggest 'bang for the buck' when it comes to developing the aerobic portion of your cardiovascular system.