Doug28450

That formula yields -174.6.

MSCyclist

I am in Miami, Florida... the main hill is a bridge in Key Biscayne!!LOL I don't consider myself as a beast, just an average rider. I do think I hit a plateau, been hitting the same numbers for a while. I think I"m training wrong way... for sure but that's another story...

hueyhoolihan

zone 5. is that somewhere in District 9 or Area 51?

MSCyclist

I used the max HR I've seen on my monitor going all out on a workout. So I used that one...
Not very scientific but I thought using that number instead of the 178 would give me more room
in the training zones.

chaadster

What are you saying? Earlier you said you used 181bpm based off a formula. Was Surgeonstone right?

Nachoman

story not adding up. fuzzy math and\or trolling.

MSCyclist

Again, why troll, that is why I stated the question. Yes. I used the formula. But in a few of my workouts my HR went over the number the formula gave me. So I decided to use the max HR I ever recorded to see if it would make a difference in the time spent on training zones. It change a bit but not enough to make sense of why it would say I'm spending so much time in Zone 4-5. Based on what people have said my zones are wrong. I need to do it the right way to establish them.

caloso

How are your zones defined? Different programs use different zones.

gregf83 

Normally, I would recommend establishing your maxHR but in your case I would suggest a stress test first.

Other than the the stress test, my recommendation would be to get rid of the HRM and just ride. Worrying about optimizing your training zones, while continuing to smoke, seems somewhat pointless.

Drew Eckhardt 

Without side effects like tunnel vision and vomiting you didn't reach your maximum heart rate.

BillyD

OP, this would be my recommendation as well. Just work on riding as much as possible and forget about the numbers mumbo jumbo for awhile.

Focus instead on cutting out the smoking. It will kill you, so it has the highest priority. Getting that monkey off your back is not easy, it's a demanding mental process. Once you're off the cigarettes then you can worry about the numbers again if you need to.

Everyone else, let's resist the urge to look at him as a troll for a while, let's just assume he's confused as he says.

intransit1217

How I define my zones.
1 Couch sitting
2 following fast kids
3 solo at pace ride
4 fast group ride
5 fast group ride climbing a hill
6 I just blew up

chaadster

Gross hyperbole.

FLvector

Do you always ride/train that hard? Or are you getting the training zones mixed up? Zone 2 is a tempo ride, not too hard.

Zone 7 Neuromuscular Power > 106% of LTHR
Zone 6 Anaerobic Capacity - 103% - 106% of LTHR
Zone 5 VO2 Max - 100% - 102% of LTHR
Zone 4 Lactate Threshold - 94 - 99% of LTHR
Zone 3 Sub Threshold - 90 - 93% of LTHR
Zone 2 Endurance - 81 - 89% of LTHR
Zone 1 Active Recovery - < 81% of LTHR

surgeonstone

OP, regarding smoking.
Any product that is designed to get you off smoking , prolongs getting off smoking. Having counselled thousands on this issue, those that do it cold turkey seem to be most successful.
And BillyD and others have it right, focusing on zones now is less important than quitting.
Nearly every one of my patients ends up quitting, now when healthy or later when they are told they have a year to live before their cancer or heart disease kills them ( although I often wonder why they quit at that point, still, most do).
Regarding zones, How you feel is as good a guide if not better than anything else. Your body tells you very convincingly how you are doing, i.e., i'm dying here.
Read this for an alternative view from none other than Lance.

How hard am I working? Am I pushing myself and getting the maximum from my training efforts? These are common questions for those of us focused on a high quality workout. Although Heart Rate Monitors are touted as THE only way to know the exact intensity level of your cardiovascular workout, there is a cheaper, easier alternative - the Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale {below** proposed by G. A. Borg in 1982 (Med Sci in Sports Exer. 14(5):377-81, 1982).
Perceived exertion was the approach used by Lance Armstrong in his 55-km (34-mile) time trial victory in his 6th Tour de France. The following is from an interview by Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen. "I didn't have a speedometer. I said I'm not looking at speed, I'm not looking at cadence. I'm just going to ride like I feel."

It worked. He won the stage convincingly, taking 61 seconds out of time-trial rival Jan Ullrich. "Going naked" in a TT seems an unusual strategy for Armstrong who, prompted by coach Chris Carmichael, is an extremely scientific cyclist. Lance uses a watts meter on most rides and sends Chris the files to download and analyze for planning subsequent workouts. Lance could have ridden the TT with a watts meter to monitor intensity and avoid crossing his red line. Yet the only feedback he used was what his body was telling him. Like many experienced riders against the clock, he has a keen sense of pace.He has learned to tread the border between going at a semi-comfortable pace (thus losing time) and going too hard early (thus slowing dramatically in the final kilometers).

And here's another I found in www.roadbiker.com. "In a recent interview with VeloNews, 2004 Paris-Roubaix winner Magnus Backstedt commented on how his training changed after several years of poor results. I got back to what I did when I started racing, said the 30-year-old Swede. [I had been] doing all kinds of controlled training, hitting thresholds, intervals, all that. Instead, I went back to what my body told me. I took every single piece of equipment off my bike. At the end of the day, despite what technology tells you, if it's not right, it's not right. It's been fine ever since.

Backstedt's comments have provoked lively exchanges on internet discussion groups devoted to training. Some applaud his return to more "natural" workouts. Others deplore his flight from analysis and scientific training with watts meters and heart monitors. Which approach works best? We like the way Allen Lim, Ph.D., coaches his riders. In his ground-breaking doctoral work at the University of Colorado, Lim analyzed data from power meters used by pro riders in races and training. You'd think Lim would advocate scientific training. He does, but recommends a middle ground: training by feel and then analyzing the results by scientific means.

Structured training plans are important to help you meet your cycling goals. But as Lim and Backstedt point out, you need to be flexible. If your training plan calls for hard intervals, climbing or long distance on a certain day and your body isn't cooperating, it's crucial to recognize that you're not ready for more work. Then apply a combination of less strenuous workouts and more rest instead of blindly soldiering on and digging yourself into an even deeper hole."

The key to improving, using percieved exerion is to ride at an effort you can barely maintain for the distance. Push beyond this and you'll accumulate too much fatigue and slow down. Go easier and you won't be riding at your best for your current fitness level. This maximum sustainable pace is your lactate threshold (LT) which is approximately 90% of your maximum heart rate. You could use a HRM to pinpoint the highest heart rate you can maintain for 30-60 minutes. But you can also ride without a heart monitor (or power meter) and listen to you body, constantly monitoring your sense of perceived exertion. To take this approach, learn to pay attention to your lungs and legs.

Your lungs. When your breathing is steady and regular, it means you're at or below your LT. Start to pant, and you've gone over your limit and should back off a bit to be at your LT again.
Your legs. If y

chaadster

Why are you quoting me, @surgeonstone? Did you mean to quote someone else, perhaps, because none of that has anything to do with hyperbolic assertion that one needs to puke in order to find their max HR.

surgeonstone

No , mistake, was typing it on my iphone and apparently I had gotten onto your message by mistake. Sorryy.

merlinextraligh

1) unless you're really pushing yourself, that's likely not your true max.

2) basing zones on functional threshold, or lactate threshold, is much more accurate.

merlinextraligh

Mild hyperbole. Unless you at least feel like you're about to puke, it's like not your true max

merlinextraligh

OP,

At 44 a smoker, and new to training, I'd get a physical, and quit smoking before pushing it. General health benefit, you can get all you need with moderate efforts.

Before you start pushing it, you need to address your cardiovascular health.

surgeonstone

Now I'm confused. When I have used a HR monitor , I am usually between 89 and 90 % mHR for the majority of the ride.

Carbonfiberboy 

Yes, I guess so. I have on occasion been able to hold my LTHR for 45' out of a 3-4 hr. ride as long that was the only LT work I did that ride. 60' of it will have most cyclists crying for their mommies. So IMO you sure as heck have not been holding "89 and 90 % mHR for the majority of the ride" unless you're only doing shortish TTs. Looking back at some of my recent full throttle 3-4 hr. rides, I'm doing well to average 80% of MHR or 90% of LTHR.

As some above have intimated, most people have no idea how difficult it is to attain true MHR. Even the "g*n to your head" analogy is faulty, as most people would rather have their brains blown out.

MSCyclist

Wow this has given me a lot of info and feedback, I greatly appreciate all the replies and information. First thing quit smoking, which I'm working on. I feel fine when I ride but I'll ask my doc for his opinion. I'll follow the advice given by many and figure out the right training zones.

MSCyclist

@billlyD thanks for the feedback and trying to get people to cut me some slack! I wasn't expecting to be called a troll so many times! I thought it would less controversial.

chaadster

I use snuff periodically (and non-habitually), which may be a decent intermediate step. No one talks about snuff anymore, but it's still out there.