Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Senior Member buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    306
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Heart Zone 1 Training?

    I have been reading Carmichael's book "Seven Weeks to the Perfect Ride" in his program for he has one training two times a week in Zone 1.

    For me zone one is 90 to 108 bpm. My heart goes above 108 bpm as soon as I get on the bike and start pedaling. To be able to keep my heart even close to 108 bpm I would have to have my bike in the easiest gear and my cadence would have to be around 50 RPM.

    Not being able to stay in Zone 1 is this indication of being in bad shape? If I want to follow this program should I put the bike in a easy gear and pedal a moderate cadence between 80 to 85 RPM even if my heart rate goes around 120 bpm.

    Thanks for the help.

    buddy

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    71
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Initially it sounds like you haven't done the fitness test correctly. If you've truly hit your MaxHR, then Zone 1 should feel very easy and your HR would correlate similarly.

    Second culprit could be environmental factors. Are you coming off a hard workout (or were on a string of tough workouts prior to your first base building session?) Are you sensitive to caffeine? Have you slept enough. Those play into your HR numbers.

    If neither of the above is the case, I would say to skew your efforts more towards RPE, that is, if you feel like 120bpm is very easy (like you could do it all day long without getting tired) then do it at that pace and follow the HR numbers when the book calls for more intense efforts.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    5,115
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    According to Carmichael's book, zone 1 is defined as 60-65% of MHR. Your zone one of 90 to 108 does not fit that definition. What is your MHR?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Eastern Long Island
    My Bikes
    DeBernardi road ... Pedal Force RS2....Gary Fisher mountain
    Posts
    247
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree...I don't think your calculating your zones correctly. If you've verified the zone target ranges and you're correct, then yes, you could argue that you need to do whatever you have to do in order to stay in those ranges. And they will change as you get in better shape......
    Compromise - Let's agree to respect each other's views, no matter how wrong yours may be.

  5. #5
    Senior Member tntyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nabob, WI
    My Bikes
    '03 Trek 7500, '08 Madone 4.5
    Posts
    1,176
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a similar problem and don't feel that I'm in particularly bad shape. My MaxHR (calculated) is 170. I get on the bike and cannot imagine going slow enough to stay at 102-110, so I don't do that. When I need a workout in zone 1 I go for a walk instead.

    BTW, my recorded max HR is 187. If I use that, then my zone 1 is more like 110-120 which seems much more reasonable to me.

  6. #6
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,527
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    You can't calculate the MHR that the zones are based on. There is no formula that works for everyone. You have to measure it. If you warm up on the bike with a pretty good effort for 1/2 hour, then attack a hill at least 10 minutes long going as hard as you dare, and then sprint out of the saddle for the last 200 yards at the top - you'll probably reach MHR, or close enough.

    Be that as it may, you still may not be able to ride on the road in zone 1. I can't, and I know my MHR exactly. Too many hills everywhere. If the whole world were flat, maybe. So I do all my zone 1 workouts on the rollers or trainer. Or use a spin bike or exercise bike at the gym if you don't have rollers or trainer.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,941
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buddy View Post
    I have been reading Carmichael's book "Seven Weeks to the Perfect Ride" in his program for he has one training two times a week in Zone 1.

    For me zone one is 90 to 108 bpm. My heart goes above 108 bpm as soon as I get on the bike and start pedaling. To be able to keep my heart even close to 108 bpm I would have to have my bike in the easiest gear and my cadence would have to be around 50 RPM.

    Not being able to stay in Zone 1 is this indication of being in bad shape? If I want to follow this program should I put the bike in a easy gear and pedal a moderate cadence between 80 to 85 RPM even if my heart rate goes around 120 bpm.

    Thanks for the help.

    buddy
    In "the ultimate ride", he uses a field test to set heart rate ranges. Using MHR is pretty useless.

    I'm 44 with a reasonably low MHR, and my low zone is below about 130 BPM. I think your zones are incorrect.
    Eric

    2005 Trek 5.2 Madone, Red with Yellow Flames (Beauty)
    199x Lemond Tourmalet, Yellow with fenders (Beast)

    Read my cycling blog at http://riderx.info/blogs/riderx
    Like climbing? Goto http://www.bicycleclimbs.com

  8. #8
    Senior Member buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    306
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
    According to Carmichael's book, zone 1 is defined as 60-65% of MHR. Your zone one of 90 to 108 does not fit that definition. What is your MHR?

    You are correct and I am wrong. My MHR is 180. I did not realized that Carmichael was defining Zone one as 60-65% (108 to 117). I was using Edwards/Reed definition 50-60% (90 to 108). That makes better sense. My bad...Sorry.

    It appears to me that Carmichaels definition is a more workable defnition than Edwards/Reed.

    Thanks for pointing that out to me.

    buddy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •