An hour at zone 3, is it useful?

[iheartbianchi]

Maybe I missed it above, but what level of intensity is required for those 15 minute sessions, to maximise the HGH?

80% of max heart rate was used in the study.

[bikeboy1tr]

Z2 is predominately base training and although this is something we need to do throughout the season/year does there not come a point at which we need to do a cardiac drift test to see if we have done enough of the Z2 work to gradually progress into higher intensity levels as well as maintain our base at the same time. This is not something that has changed all that much over the years as the coaches 25 years ago always always hammered the fact into your head that you must do the Z2 base training in your offseason before going into harder longer efforts. I know the training for older athletes has changed somewhat and I also know that coaches are looking at athletes twitch fibre for more personalized training. Many training plans go off in different directions when it comes to time crunched athlete as well but for the most part we all have to do some hrs of Z2 with consistant training throughout the week.

[robertbb]

Maybe I missed it above, but what level of intensity is required for those 15 minute sessions, to maximise the HGH?

80% of max heart rate was used in the study.

From the charts I've seen, 75-82% of max HR equates to 91-105% of FTP. So it sounds like riding exactly on one's FTP would be the go.

[AJS914]

75-82% of my max HR would be me well below my FTP. 75% of max is a HR I could ride comfortably for hours.

[TobinHatesYou]

Can we stop using HRmax as a basis for HR zones? It's way better to use %LTHR based zones...and yes LTHR can change based on fitness. The fitter your are, the closer your LTHR gets to HRmax up to about 95%.

[iheartbianchi]

Can we stop using HRmax as a basis for HR zones? It's way better to use %LTHR based zones...and yes LTHR can change based on fitness. The fitter your are, the closer your LTHR gets to HRmax up to about 95%.

Lol we need another thread for this discussion! But I do agree %LTHR is more accurate and provides better focus to HR-based training. It's just so variable (like your physical condition when you take the test) and changes so often, and is so often inaccurately measured that I would hardly recommend it for amateurs.

[iheartbianchi]

Z2 is predominately base training and although this is something we need to do throughout the season/year does there not come a point at which we need to do a cardiac drift test to see if we have done enough of the Z2 work to gradually progress into higher intensity levels as well as maintain our base at the same time. This is not something that has changed all that much over the years as the coaches 25 years ago always always hammered the fact into your head that you must do the Z2 base training in your offseason before going into harder longer efforts. I know the training for older athletes has changed somewhat and I also know that coaches are looking at athletes twitch fibre for more personalized training. Many training plans go off in different directions when it comes to time crunched athlete as well but for the most part we all have to do some hrs of Z2 with consistant training throughout the week.

There is no "point" at which you "must" gradually progress into higher intensity levels. What I mean is, the only thing keeping you from doing higher intensity training is your (1) resistance to injury and (2) your ability to recover. Those with a higher base of aerobic fitness through that sport-specific activity will have sufficiently strong muscles, bones and connective tissue to support higher intensity and thus, more resistant to injury, and also will be able to recover faster so a harder effort won't completely derail your training for a few days. It's really just a matter of balance.

So, the more aerobically fit you are, and the stronger you are, the more intense effort your body can support in a consistent training regime without injury or fatigue. That's basically the essence of the 80/20 rule, although I favor a more holistic approach based on how you feel on any given day.

Let's take a cyclist with very poor aerobic fitness and strength. They could try to do an interval session or a "sweet spot" ride. What happens? Well what doesn't happen? They certainly don't have the fitness or strength to go fast enough or long enough to really benefit from this effort. They also end up creating an excessive amount of lactate and micro tears in their muscle resulting in inflammation and DONS (delayed onset soreness/fatigue) so they struggle to ride at a reasonable aerobic effort the next day or three. It just ends up being a waste of time.

Likewise, let's take a cyclist with moderate aerobic fitness and strength. They do an interval session or "sweet spot" ride, and somewhat limit the damage from lactate/tears, and can "suffer" through a recovery ride the next day and slowly get back to their normal speed two or three days later. They got some decent effort, but at a cost.

Let's take an elite cyclist. They do an interval session or "sweet spot" ride. They produce less lactate, fewer tears (because their muscle fibers are stronger). They can do another interval session or "sweet spot" ride the next day (DONS hits you 2 or 3 days after so elite athletes often do back-to-back hard sessions). And on the third day, can do a good aerobic ride. So there has been minimal disruption to their training, while getting all of the benefits of the harder rides.

So the larger aerobic base you have, by corrolation you have more strength and recovery potential, and so you can push harder, longer and more often, not to mention the fact that your basic aerobic rides get faster over time. Which is the entire point of doing lots of slow base miles.

[robertbb]

@AJS914, @TobinHatesYou, @iheartbianchi....

if 80% of maxHR was used in the study, then that's the number. My question is, how does this translate to a power target?

[iheartbianchi]

@AJS914, @TobinHatesYou, @iheartbianchi....

if 80% of maxHR was used in the study, then that's the number. My question is, how does this translate to a power target?

It is physically impossible to have any perfect correlation between HR and power over any range of time (assuming we are talking about %MaxHR vs. %FTP). It cannot happen. Now, you can approximate your power based on your HR, and vice versa, but power/HR or HR/power will change not only doing the course of a ride, but also from day to day. I think the chart here does a good job of explaining.

https://www.cyclinganalytics.com/blog/2 ... ower-chart

If you're comfortable with approximations and being somewhat close, then yeah there are some rough conversions you can find online but even these methods differ.

So you have to pick one or the other unfortunately to serve as the base of your training. Are you going to do HR based, or power based? Now this doesn't mean you can't use both in your training. So you can do a HR based training but monitor your power to measure your progress (which is what a lot of pros do), or you can do a power based program but monitor your HR to ensure you don't go too deep in the red.

[TobinHatesYou]

@AJS914, @TobinHatesYou, @iheartbianchi....

if 80% of maxHR was used in the study, then that's the number. My question is, how does this translate to a power target?

As I previously implied, HRmax is a bad anchor value. For one, it’s a number you pretty much never hit...not in structured training and most likely not in races either. Second, your HR zones change with fitness. As you get more aerobically fit, your HR zones expand upward...your lactate threshold increases. 80% of my max HR was a harder effort for me 3 years ago than it is today.

[peroni]

As I previously implied, HRmax is a bad anchor value. For one, it’s a number you pretty much never hit...not in structured training and most likely not in races either...

I have to disagree on this, I hit my max HR of 179 nearly everytime during races or in weekend group rides when the adrenaline rush kicks in.

This has been a great thread, very informative. I don't think I've done a base period as such in years - into my 3rd week now, and I'm enjoying it - nice to be able to smell the roses a little, and equally nice not to turn up to work after a hard session knackered and useless. I've been getting concerned about the effect of endless high intensity work on my nearly 50 year old heart, so this has come along at just the right time.

Ah smell the roses, excellent picture.
Turning 50 very soon I had a similar thought about giving my heart a break so this thread became my new training bible too.
Yesterday I completed my first ever longish (150minutes) ride with an avg hr of 124 bpm. It was difficult at times to go that slow. Ended with an average speed just over 28 km/h in a mostly flat scenic route. I loved it and cant wait to replicate next week.

[TobinHatesYou]

peroni, if you routinely hit your HRmax, then it isn’t your HRmax. I pretty much only hit my HRmax when my legs are about to stop turning and I have to pull over, hunch over my bike and catch my breath for several minutes. This pretty much only happens in a fast ramp, followed by a max sprint until I’m about to lose bladder control.

[peroni]

Not multiple times in a race but typically at least once, or very very close. Usually when sprinting at the end of the race or when reaching the top of a hill that is followed by a descent where I can afford not to pedal. And yes these are extremely painful moments, a couple of times I thought I was about to faint

[bikeboy1tr]

If I have been riding consecutive days I rarely see my max HR when doing intense training but if I have a couple days off then I will be able to hit the max and this is one of the reasons I would rather do my training with PM as those power zones are reliable as long as you have done your FTP properly. In the winter I will use the HR since I am doing mostly Z2 for base with very little intensity.

[iheartbianchi]

As I previously implied, HRmax is a bad anchor value. For one, it’s a number you pretty much never hit...not in structured training and most likely not in races either. Second, your HR zones change with fitness. As you get more aerobically fit, your HR zones expand upward...your lactate threshold increases. 80% of my max HR was a harder effort for me 3 years ago than it is today.

Sorry but your second point is wrong. Your heart rate zones if based on HRMax never change and there is not a single study I am aware of that supports this. If my knowledge is out of date I would be happy to be corrected if you can point to any reliable evidence contrary to my understanding.

Your max heart rate is a defined value (that decreases with age), so a 60% effort of MaxHR will always be a 60% effort of MaxHR. The only thing that changes is your power at 60% depending on your fitness, and the volume and time in zone you should spend depending on your fitness levels.

The problem with MaxHR based zones is that it doesnt really take into account how close you are to your lactate threshold (which does change ever so slightly for fit athletes and significantly for unfit amateurs) which is why certain coaches recommend %LTHR. Also, your heart rate is subject to variation based on condition on a day (sleep, caffeine etc) so may lead to going too slowly.

To clarify, lactate threshold can be as low as 50% of Max for an absolutely beginner, but for fit athletes it is consistently around 85-90% and doesnt move much., which is why many amateur coaches use LTHR zones but as far as I know MaxHR is the gold standard among elites where you are not expecting any significant deviations to your lactate threshold.