An hour at zone 3, is it useful?

[iheartbianchi]

I don't think setting the zones by using max hr is correct as you would be working 1 zone harder than LTHR, so it would be even more important for amateurs to use LTHR instead and re-test it after the block period. Although it would be wise to just ride for a few months to get used to the position and everything, then start doing structured training if needed to improve quicker.

There are several different "zone" systems, so you would not want to use the same zones based on LTHR as you would based on Max HR. If you have accurately measure LTHR, yes I think it is better. But I think it is far easier for amateurs to measure Max HR than LTHR. Max HR you can get pretty easily - you know when you are feeling dizzy and close to puking and need to lie down because your heart feels like it's going to explode? Yeah you're close to your Max HR. LTHR requires you to be motivated and push hard enough in a time trial setting. You also need to have a sense of pacing so you can last for the entire session. It's certainly possible, but harder than just recklessly doing stair sprints until you feel like you're going to collapse.

[zefs]

I have tested my max HR and used to train based on the zones for that and was always a bit overtrained without gaining much.
Also I have never hit that max on my rides even when trying sprint KOM's, but only when using the uphill test to find it (seeing stars on the end).

If I keep the max HR zones my zone 3 would be zone 4 of LTHR so why use that?
I don't think you are supposed to pace the LTHR test as far as I know, if you go harder on the first 10mins you will still get a correct average by the end of the 30minute test but it won't be lab accurate anyway. You might be a few bpm out but still better than using max.

Also you can re-test it after your training program and stick to it when you peak and have the same workload.
Then it's about genes as others have lower or higher ability to remove lactate, something max hr won't be related to?

[iheartbianchi]

I have tested my max HR and used to train based on the zones for that and was always a bit overtrained without gaining much.
Also I have never hit that max on my rides even when trying sprint KOM's, but only when using the uphill test to find it (seeing stars on the end).

If I keep the max HR zones my zone 3 would be zone 4 of LTHR so why use that?
I don't think you are supposed to pace the LTHR test as far as I know, if you go harder on the first 10mins you will still get a correct average by the end of the 30minute test but it won't be lab accurate anyway. You might be a few bpm out but still better than using max.

Also you can re-test it after your training program and stick to it when you peak and have the same workload.
Then it's about genes as others have lower or higher ability to remove lactate, something max hr won't be related to?

To clarify, by pacing, I mean if you go too hard in the beginning, you could easily accumulate too much lactate early to properly finish the test and your LTHR will read low. If you go too soft at the beginning, then again your LTHR will read low.

There's a bit of interesting research out there that shows it's difficult to achieve high heart rates while cycling compared to running. The causes I understand aren't fully understood, but it could be something to do with the recruitment of muscle mass, biomechanics and lactic acidosis, but I think it's unknown thus far. Highly fit athletes (particularly triathletes) have no problem reaching very high HRs while cycling, but amateurs seem to struggle (hypothetically due to the reasons mentioned in the earlier sentence). How this impacts HR based training? Well this is the current big unknown right now, and there's no real consensus, and I think, the greatest theoretical limitation to HR-based training. HOWEVER, fortunately, there have been numerous studies of cyclists who have trained based on Max HR heart rate zones that have shown great success and progress. But I think the underlying premise of HR-based training is to pick a Zone, and not go over. And you are wearing a HR monitor not to ensure you maintain a certain level of effort, but more so that you don't work too hard. So until there is some further clarification, I think this is the best we can do for now.

I would be very wary of trying to do some conversion between Max HR zones and LTHR zones. LT is a fluid threshold that moves relative to your Max HR. I think you just need to pick one, set the zones and stick to the zones you have chosen.

[zefs]

No conversion, there are calculators that set zones for both (including the gps/head unit) and atleast for me the difference in bpm is 1 zone lower for max HR. Maybe a good way would be to establish which is more accruate by using RPE and check in which zone you are. E.g if I am struggling for oxygen I am at Z5 of LTHR but if I use max HR zones it would say Z4 which would be wrong, no? Surely I wouldn't be able to hold that Z4 for a 20 min block because it's a Vo2max effort and actually Z5.

[iheartbianchi]

No conversion, there are calculators that set zones for both (including the gps/head unit) and atleast for me the difference in bpm is 1 zone lower for max HR. Maybe a good way would be to establish which is more accruate by using RPE and check in which zone you are. E.g if I am struggling for oxygen I am at Z5 of LTHR but if I use max HR zones it would say Z4 which would be wrong, no? Surely I wouldn't be able to hold that Z4 for a 20 min block because it's a Vo2max effort and actually Z5.

Yes - that sounds like there is something wrong with the regular HR zone.

[jasjas]

I ve trained with pwr and hr and the big problem with hr is drift, an effort at say 200w and 130bpm in the first hour becomes 180w @130bpm in the second hour.

Power meters are cheap, far less than a set of decent wheels or a smart trainer.

i'm also not sure about max hr for zone setting, its takes a lot of motivation to really push oneself to achieve a reasonable result, plus in modern traffic conditions, i'm not convinced its a great idea, indoors, i could never push myself that hard.

Many coaches, certainly in the UK have access to LT/AT testing for amateur athletes.

Interesting thread though, horses for courses as always.

[bikeboy1tr]

I think a person needs to know how to pace very well in order to do a good test for LTHR as its so easy to go to hard in the beginning and then end up grinding it out in the last 10 minutes. Normally when I test for LTHR I do it on the bike for 15km and I can pace pretty good but the last 10 min is brutal. Most of the coaches say to hold back a little in the first few moments of doing a FTP or LTHR test. Perhaps easing into your pace makes you more efficient in the long run.

[iheartbianchi]

I ve trained with pwr and hr and the big problem with hr is drift, an effort at say 200w and 130bpm in the first hour becomes 180w @130bpm in the second hour.

Power meters are cheap, far less than a set of decent wheels or a smart trainer.

Please point me to some cheap power meters!

Regarding drift, what you are describing is a lack of fitness to maintain 200w for 2 hours. Thats not a problem with HR, thats just your body needing to work harder to maintain the same level of effort, which I think is precisely why you need a HRM. In your example, without a HRM you would have kept on pushing 200watts in the second hour despite a rapdily rising heart rate? Thats how overtraining occurs.

[zefs]

No conversion, there are calculators that set zones for both (including the gps/head unit) and atleast for me the difference in bpm is 1 zone lower for max HR. Maybe a good way would be to establish which is more accruate by using RPE and check in which zone you are. E.g if I am struggling for oxygen I am at Z5 of LTHR but if I use max HR zones it would say Z4 which would be wrong, no? Surely I wouldn't be able to hold that Z4 for a 20 min block because it's a Vo2max effort and actually Z5.

Yes - that sounds like there is something wrong with the regular HR zone.

Don't think so, the numbers are correct. It's just that zone calculators of max HR are based on different formulas and are older compared to LTHR and Joe Friel's method which came later since science improved and lab testings were made.

I still don't find the LTHR test hard to do, from my test this week the first 10mins were at 158bpm then the last 20mins at 151 but it doesn't mean it's off. If I take that number and set the zones, then go do Vo2max intervals and correlate the zone with RPE it is correct.

There is an "easy way" to test max HR within 10mins but don't recommend it since I learned about LTHR which is what everyone recommends.

[mrlobber]

There's a bit of interesting research out there that shows it's difficult to achieve high heart rates while cycling compared to running. The causes I understand aren't fully understood, but it could be something to do with the recruitment of muscle mass, biomechanics and lactic acidosis, but I think it's unknown thus far. Highly fit athletes (particularly triathletes) have no problem reaching very high HRs while cycling, but amateurs seem to struggle (hypothetically due to the reasons mentioned in the earlier sentence).

Agree on this from personal experience.

I'm not a runner, but just completed a sub 1:30 half marathon (just for a check box), by running last hour on basically 94-95% of my maxHR. I went for it and didn't slow down because I knew from my XC skiing in winter I can sustain this for some 60 minutes.
However, there's no chance I'd be able to do this on the bike. 20 minutes at that level, and I'm dead.

[iheartbianchi]

No conversion, there are calculators that set zones for both (including the gps/head unit) and atleast for me the difference in bpm is 1 zone lower for max HR. Maybe a good way would be to establish which is more accruate by using RPE and check in which zone you are. E.g if I am struggling for oxygen I am at Z5 of LTHR but if I use max HR zones it would say Z4 which would be wrong, no? Surely I wouldn't be able to hold that Z4 for a 20 min block because it's a Vo2max effort and actually Z5.

Yes - that sounds like there is something wrong with the regular HR zone.

Don't think so, the numbers are correct. It's just that zone calculators of max HR are based on different formulas and are older compared to LTHR and Joe Friel's method which came later since science improved and lab testings were made.

I still don't find the LTHR test hard to do, from my test this week the first 10mins were at 158bpm then the last 20mins at 151 but it doesn't mean it's off. If I take that number and set the zones, then go do Vo2max intervals and correlate the zone with RPE it is correct.

There is an "easy way" to test max HR within 10mins but don't recommend it since I learned about LTHR which is what everyone recommends.

LTHR is the way to go if you're serious, but that is interesting about your HR during your LTHR. During hard aerobic exercise, HR only decreases when you are no longer able to recruit the same number of muscle mass into the exercise, either due to muscular fatigue or lactic acidosis. Hence marathoners/cyclists who bonk have very low average heart rates when they crawl across the finish.

There is of course a period of warming up, when your blood flow is increasing rapidly to your muscles which causes a temporary spike in your HR before "settling down", which can take as long as 10 minutes, so that might be what we're seeing.

[zefs]

Yeah, it's interesting. Thing is if you keep the data and compare it overtime with the same training schedule you will find that you are very close and accurate if your fitness is at a steady state. Not power meter or lab accurate but you can still work well since each zone has it's range.

[bikeboy1tr]

I ve trained with pwr and hr and the big problem with hr is drift, an effort at say 200w and 130bpm in the first hour becomes 180w @130bpm in the second hour.

Power meters are cheap, far less than a set of decent wheels or a smart trainer.

Please point me to some cheap power meters!

Regarding drift, what you are describing is a lack of fitness to maintain 200w for 2 hours. Thats not a problem with HR, thats just your body needing to work harder to maintain the same level of effort, which I think is precisely why you need a HRM. In your example, without a HRM you would have kept on pushing 200watts in the second hour despite a rapdily rising heart rate? Thats how overtraining occurs.

But drift is the reason we use a PM and HRM to measure it in the base period to determine if we have proper fitness to go ahead and do the harder TT efforts or the next level of intervals. I think I read that if cardiac drift is within 5% then go ahead and do the hard efforts but if its higher then continue with more base training. At the time I got my PM I was also asking myself, why do I need a HRM and measuring Cardiac Drift was the reason I needed the HRM. As far as I was concerned this and measuring resting HR were the main reasons for the HRM. I do use the HRM with every ride to measure HR for endurance rides.

[AeroObsessive]

Cheap power meters abound. A number of new companies have dual side power for below $1000 USD, and second hand you can even pick up SRMs for less than $800 in good working order. Compared to other bike bling this is a very reasonable expense. Especially for the raft of other benefits a PM can be used for.

Edit: forgot the link http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cheap+power+meter

[spartacus]

You can get a stages for $300-400 all day.