Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fifty Plus (50+)
Reload this Page >

Heart Rate Zone based training

Notices
Fifty Plus (50+) Share the victories, challenges, successes and special concerns of bicyclists 50 and older. Especially useful for those entering or reentering bicycling.

Heart Rate Zone based training

Old 02-11-22, 08:34 PM
  #26  
rm -rf
don't try this at home.
 
rm -rf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,619
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked 275 Times in 201 Posts
My "training plan" for years has been:
"I have to go ride today, I've only ridden once this week so far. I'll get too slow for the group rides I do!"
and occasionally,
"I have some big elevation vacation rides coming. Need some longer and harder efforts."
rm -rf is offline  
Likes For rm -rf:
Old 02-11-22, 11:20 PM
  #27  
ofajen
Cheerfully low end
 
ofajen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,622
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 512 Post(s)
Liked 830 Times in 529 Posts
Originally Posted by Wildwood View Post
Clear your handlebars and your mind will follow
I was thinking about making that change last fall and you inspired me to try it. I pulled off my wired cycle computers and really havenít missed them. Nothing on the bars, but I keep my bell on the stem.

As long as I can ride my single speed bikes with abandon, Iím fit enough. Itís a delightfully mindless thing. On a stair machine or elliptical, Iíll get some feedback about my heart rate and output, and it always seems to make sense.

Tonight I spent 30 minutes on a climber at a high workload and HR was around 145 bpm. More typically Iíll be running around 125 for a nice long workout on the elliptical.

Otto
ofajen is offline  
Old 02-11-22, 11:37 PM
  #28  
Wildwood
Veteran, Pacifist
 
Wildwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 12,196

Bikes: Bikes??? Thought this was social media?!?

Mentioned: 270 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3359 Post(s)
Liked 3,243 Times in 1,584 Posts
Originally Posted by ofajen View Post
...... Nothing on the bars, but I keep my bell on the stem. ..... Otto
I broke down and bought an Acorn handlebar bag for my sport touring type bikes. Holds just enough stuff, but not the tire repair items. It is on the AD Vent Noir pictured above.

Last edited by Wildwood; 02-11-22 at 11:46 PM.
Wildwood is offline  
Old 02-12-22, 04:13 PM
  #29  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 4,314
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2094 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,424 Posts
Originally Posted by force10 View Post
Can you share how you arrived at this belief? I have the same max hr as you but I would hardly get anything done at all at 120 bpm. That is a recovery ride for me - I'd be putting out something like 150-60 watts.

I'm far from the most informed, but my understanding is that bpm in the 130's are still considered within Zone 2 (for this max HR). My usual harder rides average in the upper 140's with a peak in the upper 160's (typically over ~3 hours). I'd like to know if I am overlooking data about training accumulating in and unhealthy way.

Thanks.
Similar for me. I would recommend reading "Fast after 50" by Joe Friel and you will get all the answers you need. Spoiler - you need some intensity in your training if you want to stay healthy and not decline too much in your performance.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-12-22, 04:18 PM
  #30  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 4,314
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2094 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,424 Posts
Originally Posted by rm -rf View Post
"Flapping jersey syndrome" was the name for high HR readings from a chest strap. (sometimes in the 220 range.) It was caused by static electricity on the fabric. I used to see this, and could revert it back to reasonable 110-140 readings by pulling out the jersey, away from the sensor. It would stop once some sweat built up.

I wonder if a jacket can do this to a watch HRM.
It's an optical sensor, so I very much doubt it. IME of optical wrist HRMs they tend to read low if anything, especially with higher intensity efforts.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-12-22, 10:41 PM
  #31  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 18,766

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 113 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3521 Post(s)
Liked 1,519 Times in 1,105 Posts
Originally Posted by force10 View Post
Can you share how you arrived at this belief? I have the same max hr as you but I would hardly get anything done at all at 120 bpm. That is a recovery ride for me - I'd be putting out something like 150-60 watts.

I'm far from the most informed, but my understanding is that bpm in the 130's are still considered within Zone 2 (for this max HR). My usual harder rides average in the upper 140's with a peak in the upper 160's (typically over ~3 hours). I'd like to know if I am overlooking data about training accumulating in and unhealthy way.

Thanks.
Training is very simple in one way: endurance riders who train the most hours in a sensible fashion will be the strongest riders, all else being equal. Thus how one trains is dependent on the hours available. The limit is the same no matter how many hours one puts in recovery. It's therefore easy to see that the most successful riders will train at least 20 hours a week. To do that, they mostly train at low intensity with limited hours of high intensity. The rider with limited hours will put in more time at high intensity in order to reach their own recovery limit. Given equal physiology, the rider who rides 250 miles/week will always beat the rider who rides 100 miles/week - as long as they are both pushing their recovery limits. 20 hours of just zone 1 in a week is not easy.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 02-13-22, 10:39 AM
  #32  
BlazingPedals
Senior Member
 
BlazingPedals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle of da Mitten
Posts: 12,303

Bikes: Trek 7500, RANS V-Rex, Optima Baron, Velokraft NoCom, M-5 Carbon Highracer, Catrike Speed

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1444 Post(s)
Liked 652 Times in 406 Posts
Originally Posted by rm -rf View Post
"Flapping jersey syndrome" was the name for high HR readings from a chest strap. (sometimes in the 220 range.) It was caused by static electricity on the fabric. I used to see this, and could revert it back to reasonable 110-140 readings by pulling out the jersey, away from the sensor. It would stop once some sweat built up.

I wonder if a jacket can do this to a watch HRM.
My current watch HRM seems to be fairly accurate -- when it registers at all.
BlazingPedals is offline  
Old 02-13-22, 12:33 PM
  #33  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 4,314
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2094 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,424 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Training is very simple in one way: endurance riders who train the most hours in a sensible fashion will be the strongest riders, all else being equal. Thus how one trains is dependent on the hours available. The limit is the same no matter how many hours one puts in recovery. It's therefore easy to see that the most successful riders will train at least 20 hours a week. To do that, they mostly train at low intensity with limited hours of high intensity. The rider with limited hours will put in more time at high intensity in order to reach their own recovery limit. Given equal physiology, the rider who rides 250 miles/week will always beat the rider who rides 100 miles/week - as long as they are both pushing their recovery limits. 20 hours of just zone 1 in a week is not easy.
There is now an overwhelmingly massive body of research that says 50+ year old endurance athletes benefit from high intensity training (structured with appropriate recovery). As a 54 year old I've had my best results in recent years by reducing my training volume (from around 12-15 hours per week to around 6-8 hours) but with increased intensity. My longest events are around 8-9 hours with up to 5000m elevation, so not ultra-endurance. But certainly in the endurance category for 99% of riders. Would I get even better results with 20+ hours low intensity training? Maybe, maybe not? But the general health benefits of structured high intensity training for us older guys is what motivates me the most. I'm following the general advice from books like Joe Friel's "Fast after 50". So far it's working for me and doesn't take up 20+ hours of my week!
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-13-22, 02:38 PM
  #34  
ofajen
Cheerfully low end
 
ofajen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,622
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 512 Post(s)
Liked 830 Times in 529 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski View Post
There is now an overwhelmingly massive body of research that says 50+ year old endurance athletes benefit from high intensity training (structured with appropriate recovery). Ö.

So far it's working for me and doesn't take up 20+ hours of my week!
Iíll confess that even if I didnít have other things calling for my time, I still wouldnít want to ride a bike for 20 or more hours per week. Thankfully, a smaller period of diverse exertion keeps me in good shape.

Otto
ofajen is offline  
Old 02-13-22, 05:13 PM
  #35  
GhostRider62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 3,060
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1795 Post(s)
Liked 1,486 Times in 946 Posts
Joe Friel never figured out why he had precipitous drops in performance.

If anyone looks at the actual training of endurance athletes, there is a substantial volume just below the aerobic threshold over a long period of time. The type of intervals and particularly the rest period is very interesting. Older athletes need intervals, but the prescription is not so clear.

There is no long term research showing the benefit of 2-4 HIIT sessions per week for older cyclists. What you do find is 6-12 week studies. The average being 7.9 weeks.

If I recall correctly, Friel recommends VO2 max intervals every 9 days. I am not sure if I still have his book, I'd have to look. He never defines LSD other than to trash it. He says the mistake of older riders is gravitating to long and slow. But what is slow and what is long. Most take that to mean, do HIIT over and over and not to really understand that a long workout just below AT is not easy. There are two mistake oldies make is not understanding how hard Friel's intervals are, these are VO2 max and are extraordinarily difficult and painful. Secondly, these intervals can be done about once every 10 days for an older rider whereas a young competitive rider might do twice per week in some training blocks/

Excessive HIIT risks burnout or overreaching with poor sleep and high cortisol levels, especially older riders. This is a real risk with no corresponding benefit in my experience. I am not talking about 50 year old elites but 60-70 year old average athletes.

Minutes 31-37 are good explanation of heart rate, power, and what level is sufficient to provoke improvement.


However, the health benefits, risks, and optimal design of HIIT are still unclear. Further, most of the research on the effects and benefits of HIIT has been done in younger and middle-aged adults, and as such, the tolerability and effects in older populations are less well-known.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8289951/
GhostRider62 is offline  
Likes For GhostRider62:
Old 02-13-22, 06:36 PM
  #36  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 4,314
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2094 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,424 Posts
Originally Posted by GhostRider62 View Post
He never defines LSD other than to trash it. He says the mistake of older riders is gravitating to long and slow.
What he actually says is that it's a mistake to gravitate entirely to LSD without any intensity IF you want to retain your performance potential. He doesn't trash LSD, he just points out that at least one long term longitudinal study (20 years) has shown that you lose less of your VO2 max if you keep some intensity in your training. How much intensity is debatable and probably varies on an individual basis and in relation to specific performance goals. But his takeaway is that it's generally better to reduce volume rather than intensity as you age, but many older athletes tend to do the opposite. He makes it pretty clear that LSD is very good for your health, but some form of higher intensity exercise keeps your VO2 max at a higher level for longer. Okay I'm only 54 so I don't find high intensity intervals particularly painful and still recover from them fairly quickly. But I have reduced my overall volume considerably, while my endurance performance has still continued to improve.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-13-22, 06:57 PM
  #37  
caloso
Senior Member
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,815

Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2933 Post(s)
Liked 3,026 Times in 1,383 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski View Post
What he actually says is that it's a mistake to gravitate entirely to LSD without any intensity IF you want to retain your performance potential. He doesn't trash LSD, he just points out that at least one long term longitudinal study (20 years) has shown that you lose less of your VO2 max if you keep some intensity in your training. How much intensity is debatable and probably varies on an individual basis and in relation to specific performance goals. But his takeaway is that it's generally better to reduce volume rather than intensity as you age, but many older athletes tend to do the opposite. He makes it pretty clear that LSD is very good for your health, but some form of higher intensity exercise keeps your VO2 max at a higher level for longer. Okay I'm only 54 so I don't find high intensity intervals particularly painful and still recover from them fairly quickly. But I have reduced my overall volume considerably, while my endurance performance has still continued to improve.
What he said.
caloso is offline  
Old 02-13-22, 09:49 PM
  #38  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 18,766

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 113 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3521 Post(s)
Liked 1,519 Times in 1,105 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski View Post
What he actually says is that it's a mistake to gravitate entirely to LSD without any intensity IF you want to retain your performance potential. He doesn't trash LSD, he just points out that at least one long term longitudinal study (20 years) has shown that you lose less of your VO2 max if you keep some intensity in your training. How much intensity is debatable and probably varies on an individual basis and in relation to specific performance goals. But his takeaway is that it's generally better to reduce volume rather than intensity as you age, but many older athletes tend to do the opposite. He makes it pretty clear that LSD is very good for your health, but some form of higher intensity exercise keeps your VO2 max at a higher level for longer. Okay I'm only 54 so I don't find high intensity intervals particularly painful and still recover from them fairly quickly. But I have reduced my overall volume considerably, while my endurance performance has still continued to improve.
I am the oldest rider still doing the hard Sunday rides with my decades-old group. The ones who left the group before me all had some sort of heart issue. There are riders younger than I who had heart issues, got them resolved, and are still riding with us. My advantage (I think) is that I never did as much high end work as the others. I was also not as fast, but I think that's much more genetics than training methodology.

I should note that GhostRider62 is not advocating only LSD. He posted a Seiler link. As we all should know by now, Seiler advocates 20% of training days to be devoted to intervals at about 105% of FTP. I tried to do Seiler, with a PM but training with that much discipline is not my thing. I like to ride in all the zones. That said, my practice is to only do intensity once a week and below VT1 and drills during the week. I've always tried to get about 45' of HR zone 4 per week.

This is a HR training thread. As such I would discourage trying to do much HIIT at all, simply because you'll overdo it. By the time your HR comes up, the interval time will have elapsed. Your records won't show any hard work at all. Instead, focus on long steady efforts, both easy, moderate, and hard, with a lot more moderate than hard.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 02-14-22, 05:43 AM
  #39  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 4,314
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2094 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,424 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
I am the oldest rider still doing the hard Sunday rides with my decades-old group. The ones who left the group before me all had some sort of heart issue. There are riders younger than I who had heart issues, got them resolved, and are still riding with us. My advantage (I think) is that I never did as much high end work as the others. I was also not as fast, but I think that's much more genetics than training methodology.

I should note that GhostRider62 is not advocating only LSD. He posted a Seiler link. As we all should know by now, Seiler advocates 20% of training days to be devoted to intervals at about 105% of FTP. I tried to do Seiler, with a PM but training with that much discipline is not my thing. I like to ride in all the zones. That said, my practice is to only do intensity once a week and below VT1 and drills during the week. I've always tried to get about 45' of HR zone 4 per week.

This is a HR training thread. As such I would discourage trying to do much HIIT at all, simply because you'll overdo it. By the time your HR comes up, the interval time will have elapsed. Your records won't show any hard work at all. Instead, focus on long steady efforts, both easy, moderate, and hard, with a lot more moderate than hard.
Yes, that sounds like sensible advice. Also ignore generic formula like 220-age for HR max and MAF 180 as they are not accurate enough on an individual basis - and often by a long way. You need to test to find the appropriate HR zones for your own heart. Knowing your own max, resting and Lactate Threshold HR is a good starting point. There are also plenty of masters training plans available on Training Peaks that are HR based. You just have to decide how much time you realistically have to train and what you are actually training for. A training plan for crit racing is going to look quite different to a multi-day endurance event plan.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 02-14-22, 06:39 AM
  #40  
GhostRider62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 3,060
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1795 Post(s)
Liked 1,486 Times in 946 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski View Post
What he actually says is that it's a mistake to gravitate entirely to LSD without any intensity IF you want to retain your performance potential. He doesn't trash LSD, he just points out that at least one long term longitudinal study (20 years) has shown that you lose less of your VO2 max if you keep some intensity in your training. How much intensity is debatable and probably varies on an individual basis and in relation to specific performance goals. But his takeaway is that it's generally better to reduce volume rather than intensity as you age, but many older athletes tend to do the opposite. He makes it pretty clear that LSD is very good for your health, but some form of higher intensity exercise keeps your VO2 max at a higher level for longer. Okay I'm only 54 so I don't find high intensity intervals particularly painful and still recover from them fairly quickly. But I have reduced my overall volume considerably, while my endurance performance has still continued to improve.
I have bought his books and probably read all of his blog posts, my impression is different. He advocates cutting volume and increasing intensity. The limited research contradicts his advice.

Read Pollack's research. Three groups of riders IIRC who over the course of their 6th decade (50-59 years). One had stopped training and were just riding around and they lost 13 or 15% of VO2 max IIRCa . Another group kept HIIT but dropped volume from 200 miles to 160 miles per week and they lost 9% of VO2 max. The last group kept both intensity AND volume. The last group lost nothing in VO2 max over their 6th decade of life. Or, Look to Frank Dill, he only lost 0.23% per year of VO2 max over 70 year period (he was a Harvard researcher on the subject)

I did not lose any power from 50-60 yo either. I kept both volume and intensity. My message to any older riders? Be careful with the intervals, they are like medicine. More is not better and when you get older, recovery is not as good and you can easily over do HIIT. I wrote this once before and some people here basically called me a liar but I did just over 18 METs on a sports cardiologist's treadmill and my Garmin tells me my VO2 max pre accident was 62. I am interested in this topic right now because I have read some studies and some researchers who suggest certain interval durations and recovery periods are much effective for athletes over 60. Basically, my old bread and butter intervals won't work anymore.

If you look at any interval session, there might only be 15-30 minutes of intense supra-threshold work. Say the classic 3x13x 30/30 sec or 6 x 5 min vo2 max intervals. If someone is able to do two of those per week, they have only accumulated 45-60 minutes. The rest of the training week should either be recovery or working on Z2 or very low Z3 (just below AT). This does not take 20 hours/week.
GhostRider62 is offline  
Old 02-14-22, 11:00 AM
  #41  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 18,766

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 113 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3521 Post(s)
Liked 1,519 Times in 1,105 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski View Post
There is now an overwhelmingly massive body of research that says 50+ year old endurance athletes benefit from high intensity training (structured with appropriate recovery). As a 54 year old I've had my best results in recent years by reducing my training volume (from around 12-15 hours per week to around 6-8 hours) but with increased intensity. My longest events are around 8-9 hours with up to 5000m elevation, so not ultra-endurance. But certainly in the endurance category for 99% of riders. Would I get even better results with 20+ hours low intensity training? Maybe, maybe not? But the general health benefits of structured high intensity training for us older guys is what motivates me the most. I'm following the general advice from books like Joe Friel's "Fast after 50". So far it's working for me and doesn't take up 20+ hours of my week!
It took me a bit, but I agree. I think what happens as we age is that our recovery ability wanes and that rings changes down on us. So as young-uns we could do hours of LSD and then go hard one day a week, Seiler style, however many hours/week. Bus as we age, we are forced to cut our hours. It's not a choice, we just can't do the big hours and still hit our numbers when we do intensity. So we save the intensity because we have to have that, and cut the LSD hours. About 8 hours a week is all I can do. It's not a choice, it just is. In this case, more is less.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 02-14-22, 12:27 PM
  #42  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 4,314
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2094 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,424 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
It took me a bit, but I agree. I think what happens as we age is that our recovery ability wanes and that rings changes down on us. So as young-uns we could do hours of LSD and then go hard one day a week, Seiler style, however many hours/week. Bus as we age, we are forced to cut our hours. It's not a choice, we just can't do the big hours and still hit our numbers when we do intensity. So we save the intensity because we have to have that, and cut the LSD hours. About 8 hours a week is all I can do. It's not a choice, it just is. In this case, more is less.
Yeah that's pretty much what Friel advocates as I read it. If you have to cut something as you age, then cut the volume, but retain the intensity. Other things I've read recently point in the same direction. For me doing many long hours of LSD isn't an option anyway. I have neither the time nor the interest. I do ramp up my endurance rides appropriate to my event goals, but no further.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-14-22, 12:46 PM
  #43  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 4,314
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2094 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,424 Posts
Originally Posted by GhostRider62 View Post
He advocates cutting volume and increasing intensity.
Really? He does say that older athletes have a strong tendency to reduce their intensity, which he believes is the main cause of their decline in Vo2 max. I haven't read anything about increasing intensity beyond the level undertaken at a younger age. Is that even possible? The only advice I see is to retain intensity and reduce volume as and when you require more recovery. This obviously relates to maintaining Vo2 max, which may or may not be your primary concern.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 02-14-22, 02:03 PM
  #44  
GhostRider62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 3,060
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1795 Post(s)
Liked 1,486 Times in 946 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski View Post
Really? He does say that older athletes have a strong tendency to reduce their intensity, which he believes is the main cause of their decline in Vo2 max. I haven't read anything about increasing intensity beyond the level undertaken at a younger age. Is that even possible? The only advice I see is to retain intensity and reduce volume as and when you require more recovery. This obviously relates to maintaining Vo2 max, which may or may not be your primary concern.
Older athletes will be able to hold a higher percentage of VO2 max than younger athletes. Many will hold well over 90% of VO2 max for their FTP. So, minimizing the inevitable lose of aerobic capacity as one ages must be a primary concern because there isn't much else to keep power up. So, for me maintaining my 4-6 minute power is a key objective because it uses all three sources of power and FTP is based off of it. VO2 drops and FTP drops.

I am not going to go digging into Friel's blog posts. He advocates more intensity and less volume for older athletes compared to what they are doing, this cannot be argued in my opinion and I am not going there. When he references Pollock's work and the older athletes who did not lose VO2 max, he uses the word vigorous BT Pollock was specific, those athletes maintained volume AND intensity. How Friels concludes intensity is vastly more important from so few studies is something I always wondered. NOTE: I did not say more intensity than younger athletes, did i??? Friel seems to advocate putting more emphasis on intensity because he feels older athletes slack off in intensity and he has said many times it is more important than volume and basically that you can cut volume. The research does not support his feelings there. However... There are not a lot of studies for older athletes. The two longer term that I am aware of do not advocate cutting volume. I would agree that if an older athlete only exercises 2-3 hours a week, they had better be intense. OTOH, retirees and those out the workplace typically ride much more than that and balancing the load and recovery with sleep difficulties that often come with age become an important ingredient. Too much HIIT can be counterproductive in that regard. Maybe I am weak, two HIIT sessions a week is too much. Write back in 10-12 years and see if you get what I am saying and if you are lucky to be able to be consistent (no serious injuries), I am sure you will have retained much of your current fitness. If you keep at your current volume and intensity, it would surprise me in the least if you declined very little. Andy Coggan posted his declines over the decades and they are pretty small compared to the literature. So, it is possible not to fall off the cliff.

Last edited by GhostRider62; 02-14-22 at 02:36 PM.
GhostRider62 is offline  
Old 02-14-22, 03:24 PM
  #45  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 4,314
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2094 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,424 Posts
Originally Posted by GhostRider62 View Post
Older athletes will be able to hold a higher percentage of VO2 max than younger athletes. Many will hold well over 90% of VO2 max for their FTP. So, minimizing the inevitable lose of aerobic capacity as one ages must be a primary concern because there isn't much else to keep power up. So, for me maintaining my 4-6 minute power is a key objective because it uses all three sources of power and FTP is based off of it. VO2 drops and FTP drops.

I am not going to go digging into Friel's blog posts. He advocates more intensity and less volume for older athletes compared to what they are doing, this cannot be argued in my opinion and I am not going there. When he references Pollock's work and the older athletes who did not lose VO2 max, he uses the word vigorous BT Pollock was specific, those athletes maintained volume AND intensity. How Friels concludes intensity is vastly more important from so few studies is something I always wondered. NOTE: I did not say more intensity than younger athletes, did i??? Friel seems to advocate putting more emphasis on intensity because he feels older athletes slack off in intensity and he has said many times it is more important than volume and basically that you can cut volume. The research does not support his feelings there. However... There are not a lot of studies for older athletes. The two longer term that I am aware of do not advocate cutting volume. I would agree that if an older athlete only exercises 2-3 hours a week, they had better be intense. OTOH, retirees and those out the workplace typically ride much more than that and balancing the load and recovery with sleep difficulties that often come with age become an important ingredient. Too much HIIT can be counterproductive in that regard. Maybe I am weak, two HIIT sessions a week is too much. Write back in 10-12 years and see if you get what I am saying and if you are lucky to be able to be consistent (no serious injuries), I am sure you will have retained much of your current fitness. If you keep at your current volume and intensity, it would surprise me in the least if you declined very little. Andy Coggan posted his declines over the decades and they are pretty small compared to the literature. So, it is possible not to fall off the cliff.
Contrary to what you might be thinking I don't actually do very much HIIT. Usually one quality session per week, maybe 2 if I'm in a big build phase, but even that would be on a 2/1 build/recovery week cycle. I find it doesn't create a huge amount of stress, especially not with a modest overall volume. But it gives good results and my VO2 max has remained very consistent over the last 4 years. I aim to train at a level that I hope I can sustain long term rather than pushing my limits on either volume or intensity. What I take from Friel's book is not to drop intensity "just" because I'm getting older, as many people appear to automatically do. I see it in some of my riding buddies. As you alluded to earlier, they have more time available to ride, but back off on the intensity. Some of them simply are not competitive and prefer long, easy rides. Fair enough. Others are scared of maintaining the intensity - fear of sudden heart attacks etc.

Another very recent book (c. 2020) I would highly recommend is The Midlife Cyclist by Phil Cavell. He takes a middle-ground approach on volume vs intensity and makes it very clear that none of the current research in this field is conclusive. He speculates that it will be another 20+ years before we have definitive answers, although he forms his own opinions as did Friel et all.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 02-14-22, 04:27 PM
  #46  
benetga
Junior Member
 
benetga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 118

Bikes: Trek 1.1, Nashbar Carbon105 , Specialized Rockhopper-SS, Aventon Aventure

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
I'm wondering if I shouldn't be doing more of this. I am 65 and this is my first winter of zwifting my HR is 165-170 when riding events with the max of 185. Using the 220 formula my max should be 155. I feel okay when in the 160 range should I throttle it back?
benetga is offline  
Old 02-14-22, 05:06 PM
  #47  
GhostRider62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 3,060
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1795 Post(s)
Liked 1,486 Times in 946 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski View Post
Contrary to what you might be thinking I don't actually do very much HIIT. Usually one quality session per week, maybe 2 if I'm in a big build phase, but even that would be on a 2/1 build/recovery week cycle. I find it doesn't create a huge amount of stress, especially not with a modest overall volume. But it gives good results and my VO2 max has remained very consistent over the last 4 years. I aim to train at a level that I hope I can sustain long term rather than pushing my limits on either volume or intensity. What I take from Friel's book is not to drop intensity "just" because I'm getting older, as many people appear to automatically do. I see it in some of my riding buddies. As you alluded to earlier, they have more time available to ride, but back off on the intensity. Some of them simply are not competitive and prefer long, easy rides. Fair enough. Others are scared of maintaining the intensity - fear of sudden heart attacks etc.

Another very recent book (c. 2020) I would highly recommend is The Midlife Cyclist by Phil Cavell. He takes a middle-ground approach on volume vs intensity and makes it very clear that none of the current research in this field is conclusive. He speculates that it will be another 20+ years before we have definitive answers, although he forms his own opinions as did Friel et all.
Thanks, I will look for that book.

Just try understand the context of what I am writing, you are still young compared to dinosaurs like me and CarbonFiberBoy. At 55, I truly felt like I was 18 and could handle more load. You might still be in that phase of life.

Two free suggestions.......do everything you can to maintain good sleep and increase your protein as you get older.

Last edited by GhostRider62; 02-14-22 at 05:09 PM.
GhostRider62 is offline  
Likes For GhostRider62:
Old 02-14-22, 05:46 PM
  #48  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 4,314
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2094 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,424 Posts
Originally Posted by benetga View Post
I'm wondering if I shouldn't be doing more of this. I am 65 and this is my first winter of zwifting my HR is 165-170 when riding events with the max of 185. Using the 220 formula my max should be 155. I feel okay when in the 160 range should I throttle it back?
This formula should be banned! It's worthless on an individual basis as there is huge variation. As you have observed, 155 is nowhere near your own personal max HR, nor is it an artificial limiter you should be applying. Just be careful how much Zwift racing you do. It can be quite addictive and easily lead to over-training. 165 is 89% of your max HR (presuming 185 is your true max, it could be higher if you haven't done a maximal effort). That's pretty high intensity for any length of time, probably close to your lactate threshold, but not inherently dangerous with a healthy heart. With the right dosage and recovery it will boost your performance. But you certainly don't want to be riding at that intensity all the time or even most of the time. You will burn out sooner or later if you do. You want to be aiming for more like 70% of your max HR for the bulk of your rides. So for you that's around 130. It will feel too easy and you will need to ride solo on Zwift as most events will push you much harder - as you have already seen. I tend to use Zwift races/events only for threshold and Vo2 max efforts no more than once a week within the rest of my training plan. I usually do my indoor endurance rides solo on Rouvy video routes or in SYSTM in erg mode. Otherwise I get tempted to ride too hard.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 02-14-22, 05:58 PM
  #49  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 4,314
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2094 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,424 Posts
Originally Posted by GhostRider62 View Post
Thanks, I will look for that book.

Just try understand the context of what I am writing, you are still young compared to dinosaurs like me and CarbonFiberBoy. At 55, I truly felt like I was 18 and could handle more load. You might still be in that phase of life.

Two free suggestions.......do everything you can to maintain good sleep and increase your protein as you get older.
Thanks, I like your suggestions. The book I mentioned also gives this exact advice. When I was younger I used to burn the candle at both ends. Now I can only burn one end, lol!

I just didn't want to give the impression I'm a HIIT monkey. I'm far from that in reality, but I don't hold back at all when I am pushing hard. I bounce off the rev-limiter regularly in full gas efforts. But I do know the importance of recovery and dosage. If I'm not feeling it for whatever reason I take extra recovery days or do an easier session instead. I vary my training volume and intensity around my key events, L'Etape du Tour being my main summer event this season.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 02-14-22, 06:02 PM
  #50  
benetga
Junior Member
 
benetga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 118

Bikes: Trek 1.1, Nashbar Carbon105 , Specialized Rockhopper-SS, Aventon Aventure

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski View Post
This formula should be banned! It's worthless on an individual basis as there is huge variation. As you have observed, 155 is nowhere near your own personal max HR, nor is it an artificial limiter you should be applying. Just be careful how much Zwift racing you do. It can be quite addictive and easily lead to over-training. 165 is 89% of your max HR (presuming 185 is your true max, it could be higher if you haven't done a maximal effort). That's pretty high intensity for any length of time, probably close to your lactate threshold, but not inherently dangerous with a healthy heart. With the right dosage and recovery it will boost your performance. But you certainly don't want to be riding at that intensity all the time or even most of the time. You will burn out sooner or later if you do. You want to be aiming for more like 70% of your max HR for the bulk of your rides. So for you that's around 130. It will feel too easy and you will need to ride solo on Zwift as most events will push you much harder - as you have already seen. I tend to use Zwift races/events only for threshold and Vo2 max efforts no more than once a week within the rest of my training plan. I usually do my indoor endurance rides solo on Rouvy video routes or in SYSTM in erg mode. Otherwise I get tempted to ride too hard.
Thanks for replying. I think I'll take your advice and only have one intense Zwift ride per week. It does become somewhat addictive trying to push that FTP number.
benetga is offline  
Likes For benetga:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.