WalksOn2Wheels

Ok, I started a thread about being between a couple of bikes, or something like that, and when I mentioned using the 52-11 combo on my bike rather often, you all said I was a moron. Well, you could have put it more nicely, but you were right. I was probably doing about 60 rpm most of the time while riding.

I hit up a gear ratio/mph chart and set it on 90 rpm and targeted those speeds in their respective gears. I got a much better feel for what 90 rpm should feel like. And on top of it, it kicked my ass!

I rode my 18 mile short ride, which is a point A to B to A route. I usually stop at point B, catch my breath, get a little water and hit the road back. This time when I stopped, my heart was going pretty heavy. I actually had to put my bike on a tree and have a sit down.

Upon my return, I noticed in my post ride stretching that my legs muscles weren't nearly as tight as they normally are after a ride. So it looks like I've managed to build some good muscle, but my cardiovascular is lacking.

Anyhow, I think I'm going to look into getting a computer with a cadence monitor to keep a better eye on it. I'm coming around to the fact that keeping an eye on your heart rate and cadence is a heck of a lot more important than you best average speed.

bostongarden

Howdy W2W...I believe heart rate, power and cadence are better items to monitor that mph...I believe that there is much that goes into finding the right cadence...in general, finding a good balance/tradeoff in aerobic capacity/ability and leg strength will lead you to a good cadence...I do a lot of my best work in low cadence (i.e., 60s and 70s) -- e.g., avg just under 27mph in 32 mile crit recently -- so, I would not necessarily accept "high" cadence as necessarily being best for you. However, it can be useful to have good ability at high cadence...for example, sometimes you have no choice, such as when spinning out in 53-11 or whatever is your top gearing...best of luck with your riding!!

WalksOn2Wheels

True, I do need to find what works best for me, but I know when I was doing about 60 rpm, I was getting hardly any cardio work done. I could finish a 22 mile ride and barely feel it other than in my legs. Maybe 70-80 would be a better target for me as I start stretching the cardio side of things. 90 seemed to really work me over, but not in a bad way.

I also have a HRM I borrowed, though I'm scared to find my max heart rate. I think I'll just use the old fashioned formula for now. My birthday is just around the corner, so I asked my in-laws (also cyclists) for a computer with a cadence monitor.

Syscrush

It's a cheap, easy, and worthwhile addition to your bike. And you're right about what matters. Good work.

When I got some good pointers about increasing my cadence, my experience was like yours - I felt really winded at first and I was sure I'd burn out any second. However, I quickly settled into it and found that I could keep going a lot longer and manage a higher average speed. It's counter-intuitive, but it does work.

Creakyknees

hey bud, there's some great riding around Denton - envious!

+1 on the HR if you're training for fitness / speed. and don't worry about max HR, here's a cut n paste that explains a better way:

https://www.roadbikerider.com/

Heart Rate Training Zones

What's the matter? You want to calculate your heart rate for different training zones but it's confusing. Some authorities say to base the percentages on max heart rate while others suggest calculating from lactate threshold. One book says to figure max heart rate using the 220-minus-age formula while another says you should get a lab test. Can't this be simpler?

Here's help: If there were a "perfect" range for training and recovery rides, it seems like the experts would agree. In fact, no such ideal heart rate exists. That's because heart rate (HR) for a given power output varies from day to day depending on your state of hydration, mental condition, whether you're tired or fresh, and environmental conditions such as heat and humidity.

In addition, the 220-minus-age formula for determining max heart rate is based on an ancient guesstimate that has a standard deviation of 11. Thus, for many people the max HR predicted by this formula is not very close to reality.

Our advice is to base exercise zones on your lactate threshold (LT) rather than on your max heart rate.

LT corresponds to the highest average heart rate you can maintain for 45-60 minutes. You can find it without pushing yourself to your painful max HR, an effort that requires medical supervision.

A good way to find your LT is to ride a fairly flat15-mile course at a hard pace. Use a heart monitor that averages heart rate for the distance or just check it occasionally to see where HR settles.

You'll quickly find that you can maintain a certain high HR, but if you go a few beats higher you'll start panting and be unable to control your breathing. Trial and error will reveal the highest HR you can maintain for the distance. That's your LT.

Three simple exercise zones based on your LT heart rate are sufficient. These guidelines should work for most riders:
Recovery takes place about 40 beats below LT
Endurance is built on rides about 25 beats below LT
"Breakthrough" training is done from 10 beats below LT to about 5 beats above
No heart monitor? You can do just as well by monitoring your perceived exertion. For instance, recovery rides should be so easy that you barely feel the pedals. The idea is to take a "walk" on the bike.

Hard efforts, such as intervals and climbing, should be at the limit separating steady-but-labored breathing from panting and gasping. By experimenting you'll find this LT boundary.



(Adapted from Coach Fred's Solutions to 150 Road Cycling Challenges

AndrewP

Any cheap bike computer will do - just mount the magnet on the chainring and set the wheelsize to the max. It wont give exact cadence in revs/min, but will give an accurate relative reading which you use for training.

Ratfish

So you have huge guads now due to the mashing, right?

SMH707

Just a friendly note: the 'formula method' really isn't accurate at all for predicting max HR. There are several 'sub maximal' tests that you can perform that will give you a better 'estimate' of *your* MHR than the formula will. You're probably wise in not trying to peg your MHR if your cardio level isn't as good as it should be (or will be).

I used to think my MHR was around 186, since that was the highest I'd every seen since I started riding. This year I've become more serious and have finally done some fast group rides with a couple of local clubs. On the first ride alone I hit 193 (and I think I saw 194). I felt all sorts of physical signs I've never experienced before at 186 and know I'm close (if not at) my MHR at 193-194. BTW, I'm 35, so my formula result is 185, and decreasing (MHR doesn't really decrease with age either, its genetically programmed and stays fixed--according to Sally Edwards anyway...).

Anyway, you'll probably want to start by building your base (keeping your HR under 70% of max) for most of your riding, and then develop some of the higher zones as your fitness improves. Don't worry about MHR as its not really useful except for calculating zones (you'll also need your resting HR to calculate using the Karvonen method, or Heart Rate Reserve).

noise boy

I just bought my first road bike in 27 years, and I got this computer: https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/product.a...S&currency=USD it is wired and does cadence, both a continuous counter, and average and max, speed, elapsed time, time of day all for $40. So far it seems to work well, and the display is easy to read.

umd

I don't think I actually called you a moron. I think I said I felt bad for you knees...

As others have already pointed out, that "formula" is worthless as a prediction of MHR, and MHR is not terribly useful anyway.

Voodoo76

Spinning out a 53-11??? Must be a little faster up there in Austin then I realized.

lung

I know this is sacrilege... but I achieved huge gains when I turned my HRM off on my Garmin. I was so nervous when I exceeded my 85% HR that I slowed and freaked out even when I felt OK. I turned the damn thing off... rode on feel... and have improved dramatically in the past 2 mos.

Voodoo76

Makes sense. I really beleive the most effective use of a HRM is to slow down and keep you out of "Dead Zone" (if you beleive in that). For jra workouts or many intervals it's of no practical use at all, just a number.

Kai Winters

Hmm I've spun out my 53/11 when sprinting...can't really sprint when it's spun out lol...for the line of stage 1 of Killington SR...hitting well over 40mph probably closer to 50...He must be flying and strong as hell to spin out a 53/11...well over 120rpm's too whew.

grwoolf

I'm back into cycling the last couple months after many years off and upgraded to a computer with HRM. I'm not sure about zones or max or anything, but the HRM does help me guage my effort (poor mans power meter?). The max HR I can sustain is in the low 160's when I'm turning a cadence in the 90-105 range (I'm 40 years old and have been sitting on the couch way too long). Sometimes I'm not sure if I'm being a puss or not when heading into a wind or up a grade, but if I look down at my HR and it's in the high 150's or low 160's, I know I can't push too much harder without my HR shooting way up.

A couple other things I notice related to HR and don't understand:

1. When my legs are really sore, I can't get my HR anywhere close to 160, no matter how hard I try to push through the soreness. I figure this is my body saying it's time to rest and I'll take an easy ride.
2. Sometimes when I'm climbing in my lowest gear and my cadence drops into the 70's, I feel like my heart rate is sky rocketing and I'm sucking air really hard, but my HR might only be in the mid 150's (which is very comfortable when not climbing). Not sure why this is, but assume it has to do with the lower cadence/mashing (or maybe I just freak out of steep hills).

Yellowgiant

question: How do you know your cadence if you don't have a cadence function on you computer?

WalksOn2Wheels

Yellow, I used this and set the "gain ratios" to "MPH @ 90 RPM", entered the gearing from my bicycle, noted those speeds and targeted them in their respective gears. This is, of course, rudimentary, which is why I plan on getting an actual cadence monitor.

khatfull

Count revs for 15 seconds, multiply x 4
Count revs for 10 seconds, multiply by 6
Count revs for 6 seconds, multiply x 10.

Take your pick

logdrum

The 4DBW whatever it was is now on sale on Performance for 19 bucks. You can't even get out of Chipotle for a light lunch for 2 for that price. There is a big difference between 94 and 87 RPM. Plus how accurate is one-mississippi anyway.

The key to cadence is always pedal faster than what you are pedaling now.

khatfull

The OP must have a computer since he's "targeting speeds". Most computers display time, either clock or elapsed...easy enough to watch a few seconds go by without Mississippiing?! 6 seconds x 10 is what I counted before I got a cadence computer. Worked acceptably.

Howzit

Just stick with 53-11. all you have to do is learn to ride fast enough so that you average 90rpm with your 53-11