LT & HR zones

[amaferanga]

Your original time trial looked like it was done at 32kph I don't think this is hard enough to get representative working HR from. If you intend to use HR as the main factor for determining your training zones you need an accurate max HR to work back from otherwise your zones are being based on a submaximal effort. There are hundreds of "Training" books but they are nearly all based on the work by British physiologist Peter Keen. Here is a link to the original article by him in Cycling from the early 90's and well worth a read.  Peter Keen - everything you need to know about training! - Timetrialling Forum

You don't if you use your threshold HR to define your zones instead of HRmax.

[EdinburghFixed]

Well, I can see why people just stick in a certain number of watts! 

[simonp]

Well, I can see why people just stick in a certain number of watts! 

Although you still need to have a number to stick in.

[mattc]

..."
 If you intend to use HR as the main factor for determining your training zones you need an accurate max HR to work back from otherwise your zones are being based on a submaximal effort.
"
...

You don't if you use your threshold HR to define your zones instead of HRmax.

This is why I've taken an estimate of both figures and amalgamated them - hopefully this reduces my overall error, and means that one figure is a sanity check of the other.

[inc]

The definitive way to train using HR is to establish your ( very individual) max HR and work back from that, as very clearly described by Peter Keen the guy who developed the system anything else may be near it may not. I would suggest a one off time trial will not give results accurate enough to base a training plan on but establishing  their max hr will be time better spent  towards developing a personal individual plan. Once the zones are established then whether it is on the road or a trainer  is irrelevant there is nothing ambiguous about this it is the definitive method anything else is a fudge. The same goes for establishing FTP with a power meter, it is the max power you can maintain for one hour, that is its definition, 95% of 20 min and all the rest as described in the seven deadly sins are not the definitive method another fudge. Almost any riding harder than normal will bring some improvement but anyone who wants to make the most of their ( usually limited)  training time needs to have confidence that what they are doing will bring the results they desire a  near  enough approach will bring near enough results.

[EdinburghFixed]

The definitive way to train using HR is to establish your ( very individual) max HR and work back from that, as very clearly described by Peter Keen the guy who developed the system anything else may be near it may not. I would suggest a one off time trial will not give results accurate enough to base a training plan on but establishing  their max hr will be time better spent  towards developing a personal individual plan. Once the zones are established then whether it is on the road or a trainer  is irrelevant there is nothing ambiguous about this it is the definitive method anything else is a fudge. The same goes for establishing FTP with a power meter, it is the max power you can maintain for one hour, that is its definition, 95% of 20 min and all the rest as described in the seven deadly sins are not the definitive method another fudge. Almost any riding harder than normal will bring some improvement but anyone who wants to make the most of their ( usually limited)  training time needs to have confidence that what they are doing will bring the results they desire a  near  enough approach will bring near enough results.

What I don't understand about working back from max HR is that it doesn't seem to take into account the differences between individual's lactate thresholds.

For example, suppose a rider's max HR is 190 and they go anaerobic at 175 (roughly 90%). Another rider might have a max HR of 210 but can only manage 60% of that before going anaerobic - about 130.

If the zone is based on max HR and we do a session at 75% max HR together, one would be 15bpm under threshold and one would be 15bpm over - surely they can't be getting the same training effect from this?

[mattc]

EF:
I basically agree. I think your LT moves upward with training, but the variation is a lot less than in your 90%-vs-60% example, so you really don't need to worry about it tooo much.

Hence max-power-for-an-hour is possibly more useful. But again, who can say if you absolutely gave it everything? You might do better with practice without actually getting any fitter!

As I posted, I combine the two measures. ALL these things are approximations, and any "zone" is an arbitrary band designed to make our lives easier - your body does not know that you have crossed a boundary by 1bpm.

[EdinburghFixed]

Thanks Matt.

What I find a bit frustrating is that you can only really read about training from the point of view of a top-level athlete, i.e. the need to know exact measurements and so on and so forth. Is it better to drink chilled water because of the calorific burn required to heat it to 36.9 degrees? (No, I really have read that in a serious context!)

At the end of the day, given that my talents are currently pretty marginal, it's more a question of avoiding things that really won't help than fine-tuning an already well-honed thoroughbred machine...

[amaferanga]

The definitive way to train using HR is to establish your ( very individual) max HR and work back from that, as very clearly described by Peter Keen the guy who developed the system anything else may be near it may not. I would suggest a one off time trial will not give results accurate enough to base a training plan on but establishing  their max hr will be time better spent  towards developing a personal individual plan. Once the zones are established then whether it is on the road or a trainer  is irrelevant there is nothing ambiguous about this it is the definitive method anything else is a fudge. The same goes for establishing FTP with a power meter, it is the max power you can maintain for one hour, that is its definition, 95% of 20 min and all the rest as described in the seven deadly sins are not the definitive method another fudge. Almost any riding harder than normal will bring some improvement but anyone who wants to make the most of their ( usually limited)  training time needs to have confidence that what they are doing will bring the results they desire a  near  enough approach will bring near enough results.

I don't agree that using threshold HR is a fudge compared to using max HR.  They're different, but equally valid ways to get suitable zones.  Both have their merits, but IMO establishing threshold HR is easier than establishing max HR.

As for the point you make about establishing FTP - a single 1 hour all out effort may not actually give you your FTP.  Maybe you were having a bad day?  Also, in the UK where we're not blessed with climbs that last an hour plus, where exactly do you do such an hour all out?  If you've got junctions, down hills, etc. then that's going to influence the number you get (though normalised power will account for this up to a point).  Most people (myself included) can put out a higher power on the road compared to the turbo so doing it on the turbo is no good.  So what you do is decide on a repeatable testing regime that will give a good approximation of FTP (like the 95% of 20min average power) and then use your ride data to validate that number.  If your ride data is suggesting that estimate of FTP is wrong then you need a new testing regime (or maybe 93% or 97% of 20min power is appropriate for you).

I wouldn't call it a fudge.  All you need at the end of the day is a number that's close to your actual FTP.  If the number you use is 5 Watts or even 10 Watts off what you can actually do it's not the end of the world.

[inc]

What I don't understand about working back from max HR is that it doesn't seem to take into account the differences between individual's lactate thresholds.

Have you read the article I linked to, it is all you need, you will not get any better advice than is written in that few pages. If you are just starting training you won,t need to get anywhere near your LT that often and spend most of your time at level 2. In time trials normally riders try to race at their LT, is that the training you are planning to do. As Matt said the zones are not exact but  they are progressive. level 2 will be developing the physiological changes most useful for riding your bike faster. Read the article see the ratio of time spent in each zone, try to stick to what is suggested and you will progress. After six weks do your time trial again and you will see the improvement. The problem with this thread is we now have power meters involved which simplifies things a bit as an exact workload can be used.

[EdinburghFixed]

Yep, in fact it doesn't matter too much as the estimate of L2 from that article (from max HR) is in the same range as my L2 from LTHR anyway (they're just 2-3 beats different at the low end).

It's a very useful article, in the sense that it gives an overview of the whole thing - food, scheduling, intensity etc - without taking up a whole book (and although it's quite old, the nice thing about that is it predates power meters, which I don't have).

[GrahamG]

I've been using the Black Book/Annual manual since the start of November. The thing I like most is that there's no technical speak - it's something I just get put off by (this thread is pretty mild in comparison to the sort of thing you see elsewhere!).

For winter base work it's basically like this:

Do max HR test (for me, I got 187), establish zones 1-4 according to his chart - gives me, IIRC,
121-140 Z1,
141-159 Z2
160-178 Z3
179+      Z4

He suggests 3x 1 hr road/turbo sessions at Z2 in the week, using whole range of Z2 (controlled 'yo-yo ing' from upper to lower limits and back again - makes it less boring). Weekend, 1x 2hr mid Z2  (strictly within 5 bpm range) and then a 3hr+ Z1 to low Z2 long ride.

Basically, Z3 and Z4 are no go areas for the first two months with the exception of a strengh drill on turbo where you hit low L3

[EdinburghFixed]

Thanks Graham.

I did an hour at low L2 last night. I actually found it was quite difficult to ride in that zone - tired legs as opposed to any kind of cardio distress. I could envision holding it for a couple of hours but it was certainly not an easy effort.

Perhaps this is an indication that my base of "life activity" is too high to add this amount of turbo training to. I only do about 40 miles a week for the commute, plus one weekly session of running in my lunch hour with folk from surrounding offices (this week I did 10k on the beach with some sprints between groynes). But, when I actually look at the HR profile of a commute you can see it's up into L3 a lot of the time (and even some above-threshold effort).

So the last couple of days I've been experimenting with holding my HR down to zone 1 / low zone 2 on the commute, although this makes it drastically slow climbing up from the sea to the centre of Edinburgh. It's not directly comparable with the turbo as I'm commuting by mountain bike, though.

[GrahamG]

It does say that 2 hours is about the limit for that level of riding - apparently you shouldn't be able to sustain it any longer if you're doing it right.

The emphasis seems to be on being really disciplined with staying in the zone parameters which can be really bloody difficult if you can't find a flatish route - on downhills, your heart rate drops amazingly quick if you're not able to pedal.

The other is that for the first two months it says DO NOT DO ANY HARD EFFORTS - i.e. getting caught up in sprints, or quicker paced rides with others. Best to ride alone.

[GrahamG]

Oh, forgot to mention - high cadence (95-100) to be used so that it's purely aerobic effort with a view to developing strength further on.

That's about as much as I can contribute! I don't intend on doing any more than following it rigidly over winter and then just using the advice to structure around audax rides and TT's as practicable come the spring/summer.

I can email a pdf copy if you're interested just for a bit of background reading - it is a bit 'old school' but the principals seem to tie in with everything I've read recently in magazines and on forums with regards to HRM based training over winter.

[amaferanga]

I actually have The Black Book, but to me its a daft way to train.

The last thing you want to be doing in the winter are lots of long slow rides.  And what exactly is going to happen if your HR goes out of zone a few times on a ride?  You could put in multiple efforts at a power way in excess of your threshold power and still stay in zone, yet the damage is done from a fatigue point of view.

If you've been cycling all summer you probably already have a good base so there's no need to start from scratch anyway.

The whole long-steady-miles through the winter myth has already been debunked hasn't it?  Of course there are still plenty of coaches around doing what they've been doing for decades and no doubt they get some good results from it, but that's not to say their coached athletes couldn't be doing better if they changed their training regimes.

[amaferanga]

Oh, forgot to mention - high cadence (95-100) to be used so that it's purely aerobic effort with a view to developing strength further on.

That's about as much as I can contribute! I don't intend on doing any more than following it rigidly over winter and then just using the advice to structure around audax rides and TT's as practicable come the spring/summer.

I can email a pdf copy if you're interested just for a bit of background reading - it is a bit 'old school' but the principals seem to tie in with everything I've read recently in magazines and on forums with regards to HRM based training over winter.

Cadence has nothing to do with an effort being (mostly) aerobic or not.  Its the power that counts.  High cadence, high power efforts can be (mostly) anaerobic, just like low cadence, low power efforts can be (mostly) aerobic.

[GrahamG]

I actually have The Black Book, but to me its a daft way to train.

The last thing you want to be doing in the winter are lots of long slow rides.  And what exactly is going to happen if your HR goes out of zone a few times on a ride?  You could put in multiple efforts at a power way in excess of your threshold power and still stay in zone, yet the damage is done from a fatigue point of view.

If you've been cycling all summer you probably already have a good base so there's no need to start from scratch anyway.

The whole long-steady-miles through the winter myth has already been debunked hasn't it?  Of course there are still plenty of coaches around doing what they've been doing for decades and no doubt they get some good results from it, but that's not to say their coached athletes couldn't be doing better if they changed their training regimes.

?? There's only one 'long slow' ride involved - 3-3 1/2 hours is all it suggests - the rest is all short at higher intensity.

I had a good couple of months with very little cycling so wanted to start from scratch with the base building. With regards to anything else, I'm not really bothered, it's just an entry into structured training for me as opposed to the usual 'oh sod it, I'll stay in and read the paper' approach. Discipline for me I suppose so the ins and outs of training methods and measurement is something I'm just not willing to delve in to, hence just following a really basic routine explained in plain enough English is all I need, so it fits the bill nicely for me. Sooo.....

EF - my disclaimer 'YMMV'

[mattc]

The whole long-steady-miles through the winter myth has already been debunked hasn't it?

i think it depends what you mean. As inc said:
level 2 will be developing the physiological changes most useful for riding your bike faster.

This is what the old-skool coaches recommended, but it turns out that recent sports science backs it up.

LT training is different (obviously!) - I'm not sure what harm LT training in winter does. The truth is probably in the middle - some is good, but less than in spring? This is also related to setting goal dates, tapering, mental fatigue etc ...

Of course most sports science assumes you have the 30hr-weeks available to the pros - I'm not sure it's so clear what to do if you only have 4hrs a week.

[amaferanga]

The whole long-steady-miles through the winter myth has already been debunked hasn't it?

i think it depends what you mean. As inc said:
level 2 will be developing the physiological changes most useful for riding your bike faster.

This is what the old-skool coaches recommended, but it turns out that recent sports science backs it up.

LT training is different (obviously!) - I'm not sure what harm LT training in winter does. The truth is probably in the middle - some is good, but less than in spring? This is also related to setting goal dates, tapering, mental fatigue etc ...

Of course most sports science assumes you have the 30hr-weeks available to the pros - I'm not sure it's so clear what to do if you only have 4hrs a week.

It gets confusing when people talk about levels and zones without saying how they're defined.  My Level 2 is an endurance pace ride - so at an intensity that I could ride all day at.  My Level 3 is a tempo ride - what I could do for a few hours.  Level 4 is a around threshold.  I'm guessing that what inc calls level 2 is my Level 3. 

Anyway, since we're not training 30 hours odd a week I'd say that doing threshold (L4) work through the winter is beneficial.  Doing 2 or 3 threshold sessions a week isn't going to lead to overtraining so what would be the downside?  The upside is an opportunity to increase your threshold power through the winter when you probably don't have any events to worry about so that when spring comes and the events start you can start doing anaerobic/neuromuscular work above threshold (my training is for racing btw, but increasing threshold power is beneficial for all endurance cycling).  The gains from these sorts of sessions are short-lived so these are best done nearer to your event.  Gains in threshold power fall off much more slowly I believe so provided you continue doing some threshold work as your season begins then your threshold power won't fall away, only it may not continue increasing.

So IMO L4 (threshold) work, L3 (tempo) rides and a weekly L2 (endurance) pace ride is a good combination for the winter months and come spring I'll be in a much better position than I would be if I bumbled along doing only L2 and L3 rides.  I guess if you're intending on doing longer audaxes next year then winter would be a good time to do L4 work as well as once the longer audax season kicks in you'll likely need to spend more time recovering from the rides and so have less time available for good quality L4 work.

Of course its easier to jump on the turbo and have a nice moderate L3 ride while watching a film or something compared to 2x20 of hard riding so I guess mental fatigue could kick in by spring if you do a lot of L4 work.  But then a rest week now and then should sort that out.

[inc]

 My Level 2 is an endurance pace ride - so at an intensity that I could ride all day at.  My Level 3 is a tempo ride - what I could do for a few hours.  Level 4 is a around threshold.  I'm guessing that what inc calls level 2 is my Level 3.  

 I don't  define any of the zones,  Peter Keen and Andy Coggen do, although BC have now  split Keen's original zone 2 into upper and lower. The thing with  using a power meter is the zones can be defined more accurately because it is measuring real time power output not indirectly by HR. So it would seem sensible to stick to the zones defined by your training method.

[mattc]

Can't resist posting this interview snippet:

But what does Chris Hoy think of Chris Hoy?

Hoy doesn't miss a beat: 'Chris Hoy thinks that the day Chris Hoy refers to Chris Hoy in the third person is the day that Chris Hoy disappears up his own arse.'