This may get some general answers and questions, so to cover some of them here it goes:
I have not read any books on training with power.
I have not read any books on creating the perfect training plans.
I read slowtwitch constantly and know that if I want to get really good I should hire a coach.
With that out of the way, here it goes. I have been logging my rides and runs into garmin connect and Training peaks. I have been trying to follow Barry P run program and have been maintaining about 25-30 miles a week at 8:10~8:30 pace (not a lot or fast by ST standards). I usually bike 3-4 times a week, with one being an all day MTB trail ride towing 2 kids in a trailer. For a few months I was only using power on the bike, but since I now ride other bikes that do not have a powermeter I have been using HR as well to quantify the work that I have or have not been doing.
My HR zones are based at Max 185, threshhold 148 (based upon TP) and are set as 1-5(a,b,c).
My Power zones based at FTP 218 (based upon TP) and are set as zones 1-6.
It seems that I see a lot of talk about working out more in the zones 2 and 4 IOT build. On my trainer when I am in zone 2 for HR I am generally in zone 3 for power
.
Do I have my zones setup incorrectly? Do i just have a weak FTP/ lack of specific testing? Should I just pick one or the other (HR or Power) to base my training off of?
Do I have my zones setup incorrectly? Do i just have a week FTP/ lack of specific testing? Should I just pick one or the other (HR or Power) to base my training off of?
Monday - You get on the trainer and ride 2 hours at a steady watts of 210. Your HR during this time is 140.
Wednesday - You get on the trainer and ride 2 hours at a steady watts of 210. Your HR during this time is 155.
Ideally go with power as a measment as it is less prone to variation, HR can vary day to day, especially if youve been overtraining… or its hot ect.
the key IMO is volume of training, get as much as you can in at the lower zones 130-140bpm, and stick in some flat out stuff to remind your body what hard work is, either some intervals, or some big hills, prefferablly outside, as indoors I find I over heat and have trouble pushing the envelope.
Unless your 60 years old, I doubt your threshold is 148bpm. I just find that hard to believe… though it might indicate that muscles fatigue is really limiting you and you need to ride more, harder and with more structure. That’s zone 2-3 for most younger to middle age males. I think I average around 145 for my entire IM for comparison. My average HR during a 20’ FTP test was 159, 174 in a 1/2 marathon race.
This is also why I don’t like HR for cycling. It just varies too much I find.
1st , don’t use Max HR to determine threshold. You need to do a proper FTP test. Did you HR average just 148 during your power based FTP test? Thats the number you should use. Honestly, it will work OK, but not great. I prefer to just take a WAG and estimate it based on RPE when I don’t have power.
2nd if you going to use trainingpeaks as it’s intended for self coached multisport athletes, I suggest reading “The Triathletes Training Bible” so you can learn how to get the most out of your training. Best tip someone ever gave me.
I think I understand the question and to place the number it would be a variable. If I was pushing 210 for 2 hours at 140bpm i would probably boost my FTP. Haha. The base answer would be that no I did not do any additional work on Wed than Mon. It may be more of a stress due to workout load, recovery, etc. But the work output would be the same.
However if the goal is a zone 2 workout for 2 hours I would be pushing lower watts on wenesday IOT stay within the HR zone. Or stick to the watts and allow HR to creep into zone 3. Right?
I think I understand the question and to place the number it would be a variable. If I was pushing 210 for 2 hours at 140bpm i would probably boost my FTP. Haha. The base answer would be that no I did not do any additional work on Wed than Mon. It may be more of a stress due to workout load, recovery, etc. But the work output would be the same.
However if the goal is a zone 2 workout for 2 hours I would be pushing lower watts on wenesday IOT stay within the HR zone. Or stick to the watts and allow HR to creep into zone 3. Right?
And there’s the mistake. Both rides are roughly the same training load. You level of fatigue will make a workout harder to complete, but won’t increase the amount of adaptation as it relates to overall training load other than a certain amount of specificity.
So for tracking overall recovery & fitness and training load, both workouts are the same.
Here’s the curve ball… what often happens as you start to overreach and because of adaptation (increase blood volume) is that HR actually drops, not increases as you get closer and achieve a point of overreaching. You mgiht see this as a sign of getting more fit, and partly it is, but partly it’s a response to fatigue.
Conversely, during taper and “A” races, your HR is normally higher when your well rested. Its’ also much more responsive.
I am just barely over half way to 60, so i may have to relook my threshold. The 148 HR was based off a 55ish min run. It started as a tempo run and quickly (within first .5 mile) turned into a race. TP sent me an email to update the threshold due to the run.
I just started using training peaks within the past month, so I havent really got too far into the capabilities or analysis. It breaks down the numbers easier than garmin and in turn keeps me honest with the amount of miles/hours I need to run or bike.
While I agree with the comment that 148 seems low and maybe you didn’t crush that time trial like you could have - pick one and stick with it. You’ll never get them to match perfectly.
Either one will work to quantify training. One reflects the work you put into the pedals and the other how your body reacts to it. However there’s only one piece of evidence I have ever seen that says that doing workouts by hr zone or power zone is better than the other way, and it showed hr was better.
But in the end it won’t matter as far as quantification goes. Since you’re mixing bikes HR might be the way to go to track volume.
On the other hand use your power meter to give yourself something to shoot for. You can work toward a 230 watt FTP and when you make it, you’ll know you are a faster cyclist.
HR doesn’t really do the same thing for you exactly, you can’t necessarily say that if you hit 158 as your zone 5, that you are necessarily faster; you probably are though.
If you have a serious hankerin’ to use power only, you are a candidate for the powertap powercal. A heart rate strap that estimates your power based on your hr, I think your situation is one of the few instances where it would be a good value.
While I agree with the comment that 148 seems low and maybe you didn’t crush that time trial like you could have - pick one and stick with it. You’ll never get them to match perfectly.
Especially when mixing-and-matching different systems (i.e., Friel’s for heart rate and mine for power).
Unless your 60 years old, I doubt your threshold is 148bpm. I just find that hard to believe… though it might indicate that muscles fatigue is really limiting you and you need to ride more, harder and with more structure. That’s zone 2-3 for most younger to middle age males. I think I average around 145 for my entire IM for comparison. My average HR during a 20’ FTP test was 159, 174 in a 1/2 marathon race.
This is also why I don’t like HR for cycling. It just varies too much I find.
1st , don’t use Max HR to determine threshold. You need to do a proper FTP test. Did you HR average just 148 during your power based FTP test? Thats the number you should use. Honestly, it will work OK, but not great. I prefer to just take a WAG and estimate it based on RPE when I don’t have power.
2nd if you going to use trainingpeaks as it’s intended for self coached multisport athletes, I suggest reading “The Triathletes Training Bible” so you can learn how to get the most out of your training. Best tip someone ever gave me.
Age has nothing to do with heart rate. An athlete who trains regularly will have a maximum heart rate which declines by hardly anything.
I used to run with a chap who was 16 years older than me. At the same pace I would be at 150 bpm and he would be at 180bpm, and he was 55 years old. According to the wankers in white coats his maximum heart rate should have been 156 bpm.
My maximum heart rate has declined only by about 5 beats per minute since 1983.
I don’t know where the men in white coats got this bell curve that says 220 - age, but it is bollocks in real life.
As Andy pointed out, you’re mixing your training metaphors.
If you’re using the Friel calculations in trainingpeaks, then those heart rate zones need to be based on a 30 minute time trial, you take the heart rate of the last 20 minutes of the 30 minutes.
And also, you can’t mix sports either. Your bike zones are based off of a bike time trial. You have a completely different set of zones for running which are based off of a run time trial.
This may get some general answers and questions, so to cover some of them here it goes:
I have not read any books on training with power.
I have not read any books on creating the perfect training plans.
I read slowtwitch constantly and know that if I want to get really good I should hire a coach.
With that out of the way, here it goes. I have been logging my rides and runs into garmin connect and Training peaks. I have been trying to follow Barry P run program and have been maintaining about 25-30 miles a week at 8:10~8:30 pace (not a lot or fast by ST standards). I usually bike 3-4 times a week, with one being an all day MTB trail ride towing 2 kids in a trailer. For a few months I was only using power on the bike, but since I now ride other bikes that do not have a powermeter I have been using HR as well to quantify the work that I have or have not been doing.
My HR zones are based at Max 185, threshhold 148 (based upon TP) and are set as 1-5(a,b,c).
My Power zones based at FTP 218 (based upon TP) and are set as zones 1-6.
It seems that I see a lot of talk about working out more in the zones 2 and 4 IOT build. On my trainer when I am in zone 2 for HR I am generally in zone 3 for power
.
Do I have my zones setup incorrectly? Do i just have a weak FTP/ lack of specific testing? Should I just pick one or the other (HR or Power) to base my training off of?
Heart rate is heart rate. Heart rate levels or heart rate zones are heart rate levels or zones.
Power is power. Power levels or zones are power levels or zones.
Heart rate monitors are crap power meters.
Power meters are crap heart rate monitors.
You can’t compare because they measure different things.
Staying in zones be they heart rate or power is bollox anyway.
Age has nothing to do with heart rate. An athlete who trains regularly will have a maximum heart rate which declines by hardly anything.
I used to run with a chap who was 16 years older than me. At the same pace I would be at 150 bpm and he would be at 180bpm, and he was 55 years old. According to the wankers in white coats his maximum heart rate should have been 156 bpm.
My maximum heart rate has declined only by about 5 beats per minute since 1983.
I don’t know where the men in white coats got this bell curve that says 220 - age, but it is bollocks in real life.
“Bollocks” is believing that one’s personal experience reflects the usual physiological response to aging.
Heart rate is heart rate. Heart rate levels or heart rate zones are heart rate levels or zones.
Power is power. Power levels or zones are power levels or zones.
Heart rate monitors are crap power meters.
Power meters are crap heart rate monitors.
You can’t compare because they measure different things.
Staying in zones be they heart rate or power is bollox anyway.
I was about to ask whether you were back on your meds again, Trev, then read your other post claiming that maximum heart rate doesn’t decline with aging in athletes.
Unless your 60 years old, I doubt your threshold is 148bpm. I just find that hard to believe… though it might indicate that muscles fatigue is really limiting you and you need to ride more, harder and with more structure. That’s zone 2-3 for most younger to middle age males. I think I average around 145 for my entire IM for comparison. My average HR during a 20’ FTP test was 159, 174 in a 1/2 marathon race.
This is also why I don’t like HR for cycling. It just varies too much I find.
1st , don’t use Max HR to determine threshold. You need to do a proper FTP test. Did you HR average just 148 during your power based FTP test? Thats the number you should use. Honestly, it will work OK, but not great. I prefer to just take a WAG and estimate it based on RPE when I don’t have power.
2nd if you going to use trainingpeaks as it’s intended for self coached multisport athletes, I suggest reading “The Triathletes Training Bible” so you can learn how to get the most out of your training. Best tip someone ever gave me.
I don’t use Training Peaks, but do they have AEROBIC Threshold? 148 does seem low or ANEROBIC Threshold even taking into account the large variability between different individuals. However it would be not unreasonable to have 148 for Aerobic. FYI - I’d recommend sticking to power on the bike f you have that, but hr on the bike is not too bad if you don’t have power on some bikes. It gets tricky to interpret if you have varying rides, intervals etc. Easier to use for solid state riding like a not too hilly TT.
Your thresholds should be the same if you are very fit, most people are just not that fit on the bike. I can max my HR on the bike and the thresholds are the same. You will get some differences in zone 1-2-3 just because they are different activities with completely different demands.
Heart rate is heart rate. Heart rate levels or heart rate zones are heart rate levels or zones.
Power is power. Power levels or zones are power levels or zones.
Heart rate monitors are crap power meters.
Power meters are crap heart rate monitors.
You can’t compare because they measure different things.
Staying in zones be they heart rate or power is bollox anyway.
I was about to ask whether you were back on your meds again, Trev, then read your other post claiming that maximum heart rate doesn’t decline with aging in athletes.
I didn’t say maximum heart rate does not decline with age, I said that in people who train regularly it doesn’t decline very much. I can’t speak for people who don’t train, but it is now known the 220- age overestimates the decline in maximum heart rate with age.
The point I’m making is that 220 minus age is correct for so few people it should never be used.