Just completed TT Week, with a good effort on the bike. I was looking at my last TT (done 9/1/08) and comparing it to today’s effort. Was hoping some of you could help me decode what I’m looking at…
9/1/2008
0-10 minutes, 3.7 miles
Ave HR - 152
Max HR - 164
Split Ave Speed - 22.2mph
10-30 minutes, 7.59 miles
Ave HR - 171
Max HR - 182
Split Ave Speed - 22.8
TODAY
0-10’, 3.61 miles
AHR – 152
Max HR, 159
Split Ave Speed - 21.6mph 10-30’, 7.66 miles
Ave HR – 163
Max HR – 167
Split Ave Speed - 23mph
A few things…the one on 9/1/08, when I was done I was about to barf all over the place. Had to stop for a bit on the side of the road to recover. Today, I didn’t have to stop, and didn’t feel like barfing. Even did a 3 mile run in 23’ after. Obviously, all I care about is the 163 Average HR today for the continuation of my training, but found it odd that the HR was 8 bpm LOWER today. Weather conditions were both hot and in the AM, so no real difference there.
wesc, 15’ w/u. And I do agree with you about the first 10’, looking back. I was unsure what I could hold and went out a bit conservative that first 10’.
Well, that’s all the data I’ve got from my Garmin. Unless you want me to include cadence. I don’t have a powertap. What other data do I need to include?
I am no coach or expert but have done a number of field LTHR tests. With field testing outdoors it is very hard to achieve standard conditions from test to test. One of the variables being wind. Loop or out and back courses somewhat reduce the impact of that, but not entirely. There are other environmental factors as well.
The next question comes was your pre test food/ warm up routine the same, were you rested, what was the workload for the week/month leading up to this test. This test may have more sense to you if you put it next to some other similar workouts/ efforts you have done in order to establish the trend.
I would agree that your tests presented as they are here are insufficient to draw firm conclusions.
If I am to assume that all the above was followed standard, three options come to mind:
Your last 20min effort of the second test indicates that you have achieved nearly the same velocity as in previous test, however a lower HR if your effort was maximal for the duration says that your mascular endurance ability is not as strong as it was in previous test. A sign of improvement of LTHR is either higher velocity (since you don’t have the power meter) for the same avg HR or same velocity with the higher avg HR. Again this is all fuzzy with no power meter.
The next option is you did not push hard enough for whatever reasons. Sometimes we are not ready for a such a test mentaly.
Last option is inabillity to raise HR with an effort where mascular fatigue interferes, meaning not rested enough or fatigued…
This was my stab at this. I use the same data for my testing and do ok, but have other workouts to compare to put into perspective.
Power meter is the only sure thing here as power does not lie. You either did X amount of Watts at certain HR or you did not. I am sure some experts will chime in to help.
atasic, now your post makes some sense. Unfortunately, a power meter isn’t in the cards right now, so HR/cadence/RPE is all I’ve got to go by.
My initial (and obviously incorrect) reaction was that I covered more/same distance at a lower HR…this is a very good thing. But for whatever reason (most likely, a mental block to really go into hurt mode) I couldn’t get my HR up near the 170 range. I guess I was a bit startled that the Max and Ave HR were so much different. Can’t really speak to the differences in how I felt back in September vs. yesterday. All I know is that I was not doing any running at all at the time (foot injury).
I do know that I was 110% shelled 9/2008, so much so that I had to stop riding for about 10 minutes so I wouldn’t throw up. That wasn’t the case this time. I was 95% shelled after this one, I guess.
Makes me feel that I’m in a good spot right now for training, I guess.
It’s not a big deal…I’m going to use the HR that I got to base the rest of my workouts on. I was just curious if there was an obvious reason that I was getting data that was so different.
From what I have read, understanding HR test results when it comes to LTHR goes somewhat like this:
if you experienced the same avg HR from the previous test but higher velocity (standard conditions…blah, blah…), your power at LTHR improved, higher Watts, same RPE, same avg HR/LTHR
if you experience a higher avg HR, same velocity (same stipulation as above), same power output/ Watts, maybe even higher RPE, means you improved your LTHR procentage wise vs. your max HR. Let’s assume your previous test LTHR was 166 bpm, represents a bottom of Z5a, which may represent about 88% of your max HR.
If your next test shows 170bpm for the same velocity, you sustained longer and higher to lets say about 92% of your max HR, still bottom of you now new Z5a. Means you are capabale sustaining higher intensity longer than previous.
Maybe some of this make sense. I self coach and read a lot. Does not mean I know, just how I understand it. Good luck and keep up the good work.
Oh, one more thing. A lower HR during aerobic testing, for the same velocity and RPE does indicate improvement in your aerobic fitness, but not necessarilly of your performance at threshold. In other words, if your long Z1-2 rides are coming back same velocity( avg speed) over the same course, over time, but lower avg HR, yes there is improvement there for sure.
HR has many influences that it is hard to draw conclusions from it, especially from two rides when we don’t know the detailed context.
Environmental conditions (wind, air density, road quality), the nature of the course ridden (flat, hilly, rolling etc), set up and pacing of effort as well as overall power output all affect overall speed (and HR response), so it is hard to draw any conclusions from your information.
Averages often mask what’s actually going on
So without knowing your power data, then anyone who is coming up with a concrete answer is just guessing.
As an example, someone earlier said you didn’t go hard enough in the first 10-min. I’d suggest the opposite is probably more the case, in that by holding back a little you rode better overall*. But without knowledge of the above listed factors, it is impossible to do anything more concrete than speculate. There is insufficient data.
In general, in a well paced effort of this duration, the HR should take several minutes to get up to level, and then should gradually rise through the effort. If HR immediately gets up to TT levels and holds steady, then it’s pretty common that power will fade through the effort - which is sub-optimal pacing / dosing of effort. Of course the nature of the terrain will have something to do with HR response, so if it was somewhat to highly variable terrain, then it can be all over the place and drawing conclusions from HR data is just guessing.
Thanks, Alex. Course (both actually) were flat. The one in '08 had one VERY small incline/bridge. yesterday was really flat.
I wish I knew how to copy/paste the image of the HR being charted. First 10 minutes, climbed graudually to Z4…10-30 was at or above 160 the whole time, except for a little dip from 15’-17’ (don’t recall that part of the TT). 18’-30’ = all above 160, with the max at 167.
Like I said, I’m not getting a powermeter any time soon. This is all the info I’ve got. It will work for me, and get me to where I need to go, I think. And that’s a good thing.
Thanks, Alex. Course (both actually) were flat. The one in '08 had one VERY small incline/bridge. yesterday was really flat.
I wish I knew how to copy/paste the image of the HR being charted. First 10 minutes, climbed graudually to Z4…10-30 was at or above 160 the whole time, except for a little dip from 15’-17’ (don’t recall that part of the TT). 18’-30’ = all above 160, with the max at 167.
Like I said, I’m not getting a powermeter any time soon. This is all the info I’ve got. It will work for me, and get me to where I need to go, I think. And that’s a good thing.
Cool. From a training perspective, HR is handy for guiding general intensity of effort and it’s the training that makes you faster, not the meter. However, for analysis of a race or test, HR and overall speed data simply doesn’t cut it . You see, HR is not a measure of fitness and neither is speed (unless of course you are going up a longish very steep climb - then speed is a helpful guide to fitness).
When you get the power meter, over time you’ll learn to use it like a power meter, not a super HR monitor. Good luck with it.