Nobody??
I told him to gather up a weeks worth of HR data on the bike & run, working in all zones, since that will give a better idea of deflection points, which is what you’re really looking for. What is your opinion on my method vs. what he is asking?
I have what I think is a fair amount of HR data from past workouts over the last few months. I am not sure what to do with it as far as working backwards.
I understand coming up with zones based on MaxHR and then doing the workouts. But am not sure how you would go about doing it the opposite way. Do you mean working at a perceived effort level and then building a table off of that? Wouldn’t that be dependent on your training leading up to the sample and overall health at that point?
Michael
It is true that your zones will float and have some variation. This is why some coaches do not believe in zones, but instead use some other metric. That being said, over a large enough sample of data, you can usually find semi-consistent deflection points (say recovery is HR < 140 for running, and 130 for biking). Some days it might actually be closer to 142 or 139, or 127 or 132, but the points you have set are reasonably close. The problem with using a “formula” is that it doesn’t take into consideration the tremendous variation in MHR – do you, for instance, definitively know what your MHR for running and biking ACTUALLY are? It also doesn’t account for the fact that AT changes a great deal the more you train. How you train also determines where your AT is. If you are sprinter or something like that in track, ALL of your racing is done above AT, so what do you care about AT? You don’t. You care about Lactate Tolerance. So you train your body to effeciently work well into your anaerobic zones. This is part of why good sprinters can repeat very fast times on even short rest, but cannot string together consecutive intervals that are nearly as fast as sprinting pace. (That is sort of a generalization, but the point is valid.) Specificity of training is the key. So you need to figure out where you are crossing that aerobic/anaerobic line. And that is a function of the training you have done – i.e. all that HR data from past workouts, much more than it is a function of some formula.
The numbers change as your fitness changes, for sure, so you reevaluate every so often (3 months, 6 months for example). But the key is to develop training zones based off your body and your physiology.
To give you an example from my own training. When I came into triathlon, I came from a rowing background. Similar to sprinting, rowing is ALL about lactate tolerance. Virtually ALL of our training was Z3 and above. As a result, I was very fit, but only for about 6-10 minute bursts. My AT was VERY low, since I’d never really been conditioned to be aerobic. I was still very fit, but not in the way I needed to be for triathlon. I had to lower my training HR’s a fair deal, but I saw good results from doing so, since I finally starting working where I was efficient, and was able to raise those zones. According to “formulas,” my AT was much lower than it should have been. But that was the reality of my physiology.
Looking at your HR data can help to give you that same sort of insight into your own training and status.
Good explanation…this is the kind of dialogue I am looking for.
I have experienced some of what you say (I think) and that is why I was starting to doubt my numbers that I had come up with. I am pretty confident that my MaxHR figures are correct but based on what I have on paper vs. how I feel there is something that isn’t quite right.
Biggest thing really is I want to get much more serious and my available training time right now is very high. I don’t want to get spoiled as this time will be going away in about a month so I will need to have much better focus and not waste any time. I am just getting back into the sport this year after about 12 years out of it and am looking to have a plan starting for this next season. Up until now I have always just done what I felt like but now feel/know that to move to the next level I will need some sort of direction. I used this year to “get back into it” and work on shaking out the cobwebs if that makes sense.
Training in a Vacuum…
Michael
Thanks…email sent.
I saw your email and I’ll reply privately. But since Rappstar started a conversation here, I’ll just throw this your way: MHR is such a meaningless factor, that basing HR zones on it doesn’t make any sense.
Good points from Rappstar about how to look at HR numbers from day to day. With the daily variation of HR being what it is, it is kind of silly to have tests that tell you that your LTHR is 165 and a half or something. Ballpark figures is something you can work with and help your training tremendously. Of course I’m talking about a 3-5BPM ballpark 